'Revolution' and 'Anarchy'

This was originally my response to a thread a few minutes ago, but I felt that i deserved it's own thread.

What I feel the union of the States of America, and the rest of the world, truly needs is self sufficient citizens willing to build their own infrastructure that circumvents corporate distribution lines; amongst other things. Sustainable living practices are key, as well. America seems to have become well seated in to a tradition of an active discourse on sociological and political conditions with little to no practical action. Once you make your everyday life 'cost' little to no money in dollars, then you have performed an integral act of dissent. It seems as if many have forgotten the true meaning of anarchy. Anarchy does not mean NO organization or local government. It means a system of mutual support, and self rule. Sadly, anarchy, at its very core, requires a set of 'morals' which need to be agreed upon, at least in a local sense. 'Morals' often are a point of contention, which leads to the collapse of self governed groups of people. Despite my doubts about the tendency of people to quibble over every possible disagreement one can imagine; I feel that if there are eventually enough of these small to mid-sized groups of autonomous people, we may be able to have some real congresses on the aforementioned concepts and fallibilities.

Originally posted by sigil23
What I feel the union of the States of America, and the rest of the world, truly needs is self sufficient citizens willing to build their own infrastructure that circumvents corporate distribution lines; amongst other things. Sustainable living practices are key, as well. America seems to have become well seated in to a tradition of an active discourse on sociological and political conditions with little to no practical action. Once you make your everyday life 'cost' little to no money in dollars, then you have performed an integral act of dissent.

Good luck doing that in the inner city.

oh come on now... What about indoor greenhousing? or leave the city?

reply to post by sigil23


Interesting thread, my man

I consider myself a Minarchist Libertarian who sometimes dabbles in Anarcho-Caplitalism (Murray Rothbard is one of my heros). While I believe the IDEA of anarchy and a self-sufficient, relatively individualistic society is a very appealing philosophy, I really struggle believing it could work.

What you have described, in my opinion, isn't exactly anarchy, but something that falls between anarchy and minarchy: In anarchy, you wouldn't see these groups of autonomous peoples gathering or creating congresses (even if it is within one small group); yet at the same time, a Minarchist government in its smallest form would probably recquire multiple groups of congresses in order to create some form of a law and order amongst its people.

I really like the point you make about "morals," which is, and always has been, subjective and rather ambiguous in nature. The debate over morality (as a substitute for law) is one of the reasons I can't convince myself in a truly successful anarchist society.

Great thread

What if everyone continued to do what they do now, but for the love of humanity, not money.

Money is an illusion. The common good is reality. We still need corporations to manage the huge structures we have of manufacturing and distribution. We still need innovators, leaders, workers, and consumers. Without money, more would be sustained, businesses could grow according to demand, people could consume without want.

Money is the root of all evil. If you wish to eliminate a weed, you must pull it up by the root.

Without money, we could feed the world. We have the technology, the labor, the desire. It is just not profitable under the current system.

Moral? Love everyone like you love yourself, and that moral will spread.

reply to post by IAMIAM


In regards to your statement that money is "the root of all evil," I have to respectfully disagree. Rather, I believe that money is the root of all good.

www.capitalismmagazine.com...

The following link (which is quoting Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged) puts forth this idea in better words than I can.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Judge_Holden]

That was a very interesting read my Brother, but I am afraid it is in error. It was written under the assumption that without it, all things would stop to function in the market. Furthermore it continues the great evil of money of placing one mans worth over another. The only thing that seperates a janitor from a Neurosurgeon is his mental capacity to do the work needed. Both perform a job that is needed to be done according to their abilities. These abilities are mostly beyond their control, however, their labor is equal.

Ability being equal, the other thing that seperates the two is fortune. The surgeon had a life blessed with either the fortune of money, time, or will to make the pursuit of his job a reality. The janitor did the same with his fortune. All of which is beyond their control. Without money, at least one of the obstacles has been eliminated and only the obstacles beyond our collective control exist. Now if the janitor wishes to become a surgeon, and has the desire, ability, and will, he can do so. Now society has benefited by having two surgeons instead of one, and someone else who is more fitted can pick up the janitors job.

An article which passes judgement after judgement on men who the writer perceives as being inferior only goes to prove just how evil money is. You cannot even write about it without speaking unlovingly of mankind.



[edit on 31-8-2010 by IAMIAM]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by IAMIAM]

reply to post by IAMIAM

The only thing that seperates a janitor from a Neurosurgeon is his mental capacity to do the work needed. Both perform a job that is needed to be done according to their abilities. These abilities are mostly beyond their control, however, there labor is equal.

First of all, the mental capacity to do a job is nothing to be disregarded when placing value upon the effort put forth. Mental capacity has value, and the higher the mental capacity, the higher the value placed upon it. Secondly, the labor comparison of a neurosurgeon and a janitor is absurd. The remarkable amount of skill and knowledge that is required of neurosurgeon is far greater than that of a janitor. A janitor is not required to spend years studying their craft before being afforded the ability to profit from that craft, a neurosurgeon is required, (and understandably so), to spend several years studying their craft before they can begin to profit from it.

Ability being equal, the other thing that seperates the two is fortune. The surgeon had a life blessed with either the fortune of money, time, or will to make the pursuit of his job a reality. The janitor did the same with his fortune.

It is a false assumption that the ability between a neurosurgeon and a janitor is equal. A janitor very well may have the same ability as a neurosurgeon prior to the development of craft, although you have implied that janitors lack the same mental capacity as neurosurgeons, which is really just another assumption, not based upon any quantifiable evidence.

Further, you reveal the real difference between a janitor and neurosurgeon by indicating that both did with their fortune, money, time, and will to make pursuit of the job a reality. A janitor could, if they so chose, become a neurosurgeon if they are willing to spend the necessary money, time, and will to make pursuit of that job a reality, and in doing so, they will greatly improve their earning capacity.

All of which is beyond their control.

This is false. Neurosurgeons rarely become so because it is beyond their control, and they simply are doing what fate has demanded of them. All of us have the ability to control our own destinies.

Without money, at least one of the obstacles has been eliminated and only the obstacles beyond our collective control exist. Now if the janitor wishes to become a surgeon, and has the desire, ability, and will, he can do so.

The janitor need not rely on "collective control" in order to become a surgeon, and if it is money that is the major obstacle to that janitor obtaining the necessary education to become a surgeon, that janitors will and effort will lead him towards scholarship or grants that will resolve the problem of money, and such scholarship or grants can be found on an individual basis, without any "collective control" forcibly taking wealth from some people to give to another, which is presumably what you mean by
"collective control", the brute force of the collective.

Now society has benefited by having two surgeons instead of one, and someone else who is more fitted can pick up the janitors job.

You began by first insisting there was no difference between the janitor and the neurosurgeon, and now you change your position and leave the open janitors position for one "more fitted".

An article which passes judgement after judgement on men who the writer perceives as being inferior only goes to prove just how evil money is. You cannot even write about it without speaking unlovingly of mankind.

You have passed judgment after judgment yourself brother, beginning by asserting the article linked was in error, then by insisting that a janitor and neurosurgeon are no different except for the mental capacity, then by insisting that the labor of the two were equal, then by insisting that their pursuit of careers were beyond their control, to name just a few judgments you have passed, and if you intend to assert that humanity has no control over their own destiny, then you cannot do so without speaking unlovingly of humanity.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

First of all, the mental capacity to do a job is nothing to be disregarded when placing value upon the effort put forth. Mental capacity has value, and the higher the mental capacity, the higher the value placed upon it. Secondly, the labor comparison of a neurosurgeon and a janitor is absurd. The remarkable amount of skill and knowledge that is required of neurosurgeon is far greater than that of a ...

Who assigns the value to this mental capacity? Society of course and we show our value by elevating the status of those with higher mental capacity within our society. But, where did that mental capacity come from? It certainly isn't something that comes from rigorous study. It may be honed, but it is in its raw form a thing of nature, a blessing if you will. Being a thing of nature, is it natural to place it above the rest of nature? I don't think so. What this creates is a sense of inequality for though others may not be blessed the gift of a higher mental capacity, they surely are blessed with something that they can contribute to society as a whole. Each little blessing contributes to our general survival and progress.

It is a false assumption that the ability between a neurosurgeon and a janitor is equal. A janitor very well may have the same ability as a neurosurgeon prior to the development of craft, although you have implied that janitors lack the same mental capacity as neurosurgeons, which is really just another assumption, not based upon any quantifiable evidence...

It is not their ability that is equal, it is their labor that is equal. Each does that which he can according to his ability. Elliminating money removes the self created obstacle allowing more to reach for such goals, if they so choose, and are able.

You began by first insisting there was no difference between the janitor and the neurosurgeon, and now you change your position and leave the open janitors position for one "more fitted".

"More fitted", being one who is willing and able to do the job. The janitors position is just as laudable as the surgeons, once we eliminate our scale of weighing each against the other.

The janitor need not rely on "collective control" in order to become a surgeon, and if it is money that is the major obstacle to that janitor obtaining the necessary education to become a surgeon, that janitors will and effort will lead him towards scholarship or grants that will resolve the problem of money, and such scholarship or grants can be found on an individual basis, without any "collective control" forcibly taking...

"Collective control" as used are those things which we cannot, as a society, do anything about. I am not sure how you perceived it to mean a force used to take from to give to another, but that is not the intent of my usage. Certainly it is not intended to take wealth away from one to give to another. By all means keep your wealth if you so choose. It is an illusion of this world. A false idea that one has more than another. Yet we all came into this world naked and alone, and so to shall we pass from it. What we do in between can be for the self, or the whole of society. Money, by its very nature, compels one to focus more on the self, than society.

You have passed judgment after judgment yourself brother...

Of course I did. My point was not to be void of judgement, but that my judgement is all are equal. The human species is an organism that can either exist individually, creating false divisions which lead to envy, jealousy, pride, anger, war, and its eventual demise, or it can function collectively and provide for all equally leading to peace and prosperity. The first is demonstrated by history, the later is hoped for as a future.

Thank you for joining me in this discussion Brother, it is most enjoyable!

reply to post by IAMIAM

Who assigns the value to this mental capacity? Society of course and we show our value by elevating the status of those with higher mental capacity within our society.

Society does not assign mental capacity, and in fact, society has no mental capacity to do so. Society is not a living person but is a collective of individuals. Every individual assigns mental capacity according to the dictates of their conscience and understanding of mental capacity.

But, where did that mental capacity come from? It certainly isn't something that comes from rigorous study.

Mental capacity comes from the individual, not from rigorous study. Rigorous study can enhance a persons mental capacity but in no way defines it. A mentally retarded person can rigorously study just as much as an individual not encumbered by such retardation, but the mental capacity of the mentally retarded person will greatly diminish what ever is retained from such rigorous study.

Being a thing of nature, is it natural to place it above the rest of nature? I don't think so. What this creates is a sense of inequality...

Inequality is very much a part of nature, with the sole exception of each individuals inalienable rights. Some people are born with a greater mental capacity than others, and others are born with a greater muscular capacity than others, and some are even born with both, but that inequality exists is self evident. No individual is the same as another.

...for though others may not be blessed the gift of a higher mental capacity, they surely are blessed with something that they can contribute to society as a whole.

Here you admit to the inherent inequality that exists in nature, only hoping to equivocate by suggesting that all people, regardless of their mental capacity can contribute to society. Your emphasis, of course, is on what contribution is made to society, and not at all an emphasis on the individual. Individuals do not exist because society allows it, societies exist because individuals agree to form these societies.

Each little blessing contributes to our general survival and progress.

I do not disagree with this statement in and of itself. However, what each individual contributes, whether that contribution be to family, group, or society, varies greatly from person to person.

It is not their ability that is equal, it is their labor that is equal.

This is demonstrably false. Some people work harder than others, this is a fact. Some people do as little as possible, and others go beyond expectations when it comes to labor. To declare this variance equal is to greatly disregard the efforts made by those who went beyond expectations.

Each does that which he can according to his ability.

Here you equivocate again. First of all, not every person does that which he can according to his ability, and some will do as little as possible even though they are capable of so much more. Even so, each according to his ability is not equal. Some are simply more able than others.

Elliminating money removes the self created obstacle allowing more to reach for such goals, if they so choose, and are able.

Money is not a "self created obstacle", it is merely a simplified measurement of wealth allowing people to contract in easier ways than bartering, or other clumsier means of exchange.

"More fitted", being one who is willing and able to do the job. The janitors position is just as laudable as the surgeons, once we eliminate our scale of weighing each against the other.

You willfully ignore the tremendous effort and skill that goes into becoming a surgeon, and in doing so, you dismiss effort as not worthy of recognition.

"Collective control" as used are those things which we cannot, as a society, do anything about.

Society cannot do a damn thing. Only individuals do.

I am not sure how you perceived it to mean a force used to take from to give to another, but that is not the intent of my usage.

Anything done in the name of "society" is done so by either sacrifice, or by the taking from one individual by another.

Certainly it is not intended to take wealth away from one to give to another. By all means keep your wealth if you so choose.

Certainly this contradicts your assertion that a janitors labor is equal to that of a surgeons. If you demand a janitor be paid the same as a surgeon, then either janitors will become grossly overpaid, or surgeons become grossly underpaid, either way it would happen by the demand of people such as you. In order to grossly overpay a janitor, that money has to come from somewhere, and it will no doubt come from individuals, and this is a taking of their wealth in order to comply with your standard. If a surgeon is grossly underpaid then it is a taking of wealth belonging to that surgeon in order to comply with your standard.

It is an illusion of this world. A false idea that one has more than another.

An obese person has more body fat than a thin person does. A bald person has less hair on their head than a person with a full head of hair. A tall person has more height than a short person does. A person with six digits on each hand have more fingers than people with five digits. All of this, when understanding quantum mechanics, may very well be an illusion, but it is an illusion universally agreed upon.

What we do in between can be for the self, or the whole of society.

Or it can be done in the name of rational self interest, where both are considered, not one or the other.

Money, by its very nature, compels one to focus more on the self, than society.

Money is merely a means of exchange, and does not compel any person to do anything. While there seemingly are some people who do what they do simply for money, most people do what they do because something greater than money compels them to do so, and for those people who do what they do simply for money, they are not compelled to do so by money, they are compelled to do so by the dictates of their own conscience.

Of course I did. My point was not to be void of judgement, but that my judgement is all are equal.

Equality under the law is a sound judgment, but this is not the judgment you are rendering. You are judging a surgeons efforts to be less than what they actually are in order to declare the janitors efforts equal. This sort of judgment is not at all equality under law, as it demands of a surgeon more than it demands of a janitor in order to declare the value of both equal. Equality under the law dictates that each individual has the inherent right to contract and to negotiate the best possible value for their effort. Under this equality, a janitor is not prohibited from trying to negotiate a surgeons salary, but it also does not prohibit a person from declining to contract under such a demand.

The human species is an organism that can either exist individually, creating false divisions which lead to envy, jealousy, pride, anger, war, and its eventual demise, or it can function collectively and provide for all equally leading to peace and prosperity.

The human species can and does exist individually, and yet can still function collectively. However, when the collective is placed above any individual then the dictate is that this individual exists solely for the collective. The tragic irony of this thinking lies in this question; who decides what is best for the collective? The answer will always be some individual claiming authority to decide what is best for the collective. That individual claiming authority to make such a decision is doing so by placing their worth above all others. If that decided for the collective is that all are equal in every way, then such authority has no validity.

The first is demonstrated by history, the later is hoped for as a future.

I hope you can understand that I hope for a much better future than the one you've painted, and can see no peace and prosperity for people as long as collectives are demanding individuals make sacrifices in the name of the collective. Sacrifice is by nature, the giving up of something of a higher value for something of a lesser value. Such an action is not conducive to peace and prosperity, and historically speaking, there are many cultures that began their steady downward spiral once they began demanding sacrifices of the individual.

Thank you for joining me in this discussion Brother, it is most enjoyable!

Despite our differences, I wholly and fully accept you as my brother, and am pleased you have found this discussion enjoyable.

I feel that my first thread has been a success. Even though I , sadly, was not present for it, some lively discussion has started up here. I would dive in now, but this discussion has brought up many valid points which deserve pondering.

I shall figure out where my point of view lies in the midst of this discussion after thinking long and hard about what Judge_Holden, IAMIAM, and Jean Paul Zodeaux have said. This thread has been quite stimulating thus far.

reply to post by sigil23

WOW! That is well spoken! I wholeheartedly concur with you sigi123. Hopefully this will be acheived by peaceful methods. The demise of the present paradigm is at hand due to it's own unsustainability. (Ponzi scheme's always crash) A new World is dawning. One free of violence,avarice and corruption. Each of the new World's citizens a King or Queen in their own right. Everyone has all they need. No hunger. No homelessness. Neighbor helping neighbor, recognizing the divinity in us all.Namaste

reply to post by IAMIAM

Large corporation's are an abomination upon mankind. They exist for the sole purpose of achieving greater and greater profit's at the expense of humanity and the planet. They orchestrate war and misery all for money. Money, the root of all evil? No. Money is worthless, backed by NOTHING. It is but printed paper unbacked by precious metals, backed only by the torrid breath of a millionaire class of windbag politicians. Atlas shrugged, my derriere!
Peace.

The only problem, is that trying to get everyone to be self sufficient, especially in this country, is an exercise in futility.

Don't take that to mean that I don't agree with the OP though, I really think every one should not only be allowed to, but required to, support themselves entirely. My gut reaction to someone under such a society who simply won't pull their own weight, is to simply let them deal with the consequences.

I'm just frakking fed up with the welfare culture. I'm fed up with paying (via taxes) for services that don't get rendered. I'm tired of kids with unemployed drug addict parents getting free braces, but $27k a year is too much income to qualify for any assistance in getting my kids (who need braces by the way) health insurance, even if it's just catastrophic coverage. So on and so forth.

So in summation, I agree completely with the OP. Let me worry about me, just stay the hell out of my way. No government has a better idea of what's best for me than I do, but they sure seem to think they do.

I get a pretty big laugh out of thinking that money is not backed by any commodity. No more gold, silver or platinum, no nothing. There is absolutely no amount of material goods to back up our money.

Isn't that the ENTIRE POINT OF CURRENCY?

So that you do not have to lug around gold bars? You can carry something more mobile that is representative of that pile of gold bars?

What makes a piece of paper worth anything without backing it with something?

I laugh so hard at this concept. I laugh and laugh and laugh.

What determines how much money can be printed? Absolutely nothing. They could print 5 quintillion dollars or 5 dollars. Either way the paper is freaking worthless.

I mean I will admit it is kind of cool from the perspective of a work of art. Presidential mug shots, groovy colors, neat metal strips inside the paper you can see when you hold it up to the light. And that little tiny owl is cute (not sure if it is on the new money).

Nothing can stop this beast of Ca$h now.

Hell with digital currency they do not even have to print the money out. It is not like for every dollar in circulation digitally there is one in storage on paper.

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Large corporation's are an abomination upon mankind. They exist for the sole purpose of achieving greater and greater profit's at the expense of humanity and the planet. They orchestrate war and misery all for money. Money, the root of all evil? No. Money is worthless, backed by NOTHING. It is but printed paper unbacked by precious metals, backed only by the torrid breath of a millionaire class of windbag politicians. Atlas shrugged, my derriere!
Peace.

Large corporations in there present form are an abomination, I agree. However, if we eliminate money and move to an egalitarian society, corporations will still be necessary to move the tonnes of goods from point of production to point of use. Even charities such as the Red Cross need this logistic base to function.

Will they be as large as they are now? Not at all. The majority of the corporate structure as it stands now is tied up juggling these imaginary trinkets called money. That is waste of enterprise and can be cut from the structure, once money is eliminated from the equation.

Thank you for joining us!

Originally posted by Unit541
The only problem, is that trying to get everyone to be self sufficient, especially in this country, is an exercise in futility.

Don't take that to mean that I don't agree with the OP though, I really think every one should not only be allowed to, but required to, support themselves entirely. My gut reaction to someone under such a society who simply won't pull their own weight, is to simply let them deal with the consequences.

I'm just frakking fed up with the welfare culture. I'm fed up with paying (via taxes) for services that don't get rendered. I'm tired of kids with unemployed drug addict parents getting free braces, but $27k a year is too much income to qualify for any assistance in getting my kids (who need braces by the way) health insurance, even if it's just catastrophic coverage. So on and so forth.

So in summation, I agree completely with the OP. Let me worry about me, just stay the hell out of my way. No government has a better idea of what's best for me than I do, but they sure seem to think they do.

If the opportunity was presented to learn to put braces on your own children in exchange for putting braces on others and/or training others to do the task, would you take this opportunity to help yourself and others?

Bear in mind that no money is involved and the only reward is helping yourself and others.

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
I get a pretty big laugh out of thinking that money is not backed by any commodity. No more gold, silver or platinum, no nothing. There is absolutely no amount of material goods to back up our money.

Isn't that the ENTIRE POINT OF CURRENCY?

So that you do not have to lug around gold bars? You can carry something more mobile that is representative of that pile of gold bars?

What makes a piece of paper worth anything without backing it with something?

I laugh so hard at this concept. I laugh and laugh and laugh.

What determines how much money can be printed? Absolutely nothing. They could print 5 quintillion dollars or 5 dollars. Either way the paper is freaking worthless.

I mean I will admit it is kind of cool from the perspective of a work of art. Presidential mug shots, groovy colors, neat metal strips inside the paper you can see when you hold it up to the light. And that little tiny owl is cute (not sure if it is on the new money).

Nothing can stop this beast of Ca$h now.

Hell with digital currency they do not even have to print the money out. It is not like for every dollar in circulation digitally there is one in storage on paper.

But why carry anything? Have we not evolved past the point of wondering at shiny rocks and metals?

Why not just go to the store and get what you need because someone chose to provide that. In exchange you provide what you can by building houses, roads, writing music, or what ever your souls strives to do for humanity.

All are our Brothers. It is our duty to help each other. We are equipped with nothing else, from birth, to aid in our survival than each other.

reply to post by IAMIAM


Oh trust me I am all for it. It sounds AMAZING ...on paper.

The COLD HARD REALITY is that Humans are Greedy. Greedy GREEDY!

Yeah it would be GREAT if we all wanted to work for the betterment of Humanity and Society as a whole. That is what maybe 1% of us think anyway. To make sacrifices for the greater good.

The other 99% are thinking about how they can get a Bigger BMW, or a new Flat Screen T.V. or a Expensive Suit and do less work to get it.

For most people there is no such thing as "Enough". There never will be. Some people can never own enough private jets, boats, cars, houses to EVER be content. I would argue that is the case for the majority of the humans on Earth. Never enough.

And most of the people will not put in their fare share of the work. What is the point? They get the same house if they are a television host or a house painter? How do you decide who gets what size house? How do you decide who gets what type of car?

Without money there is no carrot on a stick to invent new things, to find new cures to diseases and new medicines. People will do everything in their power to abuse the system far worse than it is now. But hell as long as the paper is worthless whats the freaking difference? I don't know I sure as heck hope there is some NWO with a master plan and this is all apart of it and not just a bunch of idiots with no clue at the helm.

It seems to be difficult to even ponder a solution to inequality of wealth, corporate control, and all the other issuues we are so familiar with.

You cannot expect for each person to be alloted a piece of arable land to grow their own food on, for the simple reason that not all people are physically capable of the labor involved. 'Free stores' like you mention are great in small groups of people who agree upon the concept of it and the proper usage of this resource, but with the current mindset of most people, as illustrated by previous posters, someone would take advantage or slack off and expect for someone else to stock the shelves or can the food and not them.

On the subject of corporations and distribution, if people choose to not congregate and live in such a fashion as they do now, i.e. cities with mostly unused space between them, then we do not have to ship large amounts of food and goods to superstores.

If people just spread out a little and diversify their skills, we would have the space to learn to all consume a little less than we produce, so that there could be a modest surplus for emergencies and such.

We are in such a complicated situation with a slew of different variables and factors which make trying to examine the entire situation ( and not just small parts of it ) seem nigh impossible. In time, though, small groups of people working on each of these issues could eventually brainstorm some comprehensive solutions, but that does still not address the attitude of the general public.

A big part of this whole situation seeming so insurmountable has a lot to do with
the attitudes and reality constructs that people live within. Many people feel downtrodden, overworked, future shocked, depressed, and mentally exhausted, amongst other things; and they struggle to find some sort of relaxation and leisure.
Sometimes I think "Maybe more would get done if wages were higher and work hours were shorter." I feel that many people would just work twice as much, instead of waxing philosophical about the worlds problems, or going down to the cafe to discuss the sociological aspects of false scarcity in the economic model.

I have always felt that part of the problem we have here is that we have a combination of two factors, the first one being the fact that most people do not know the people who live on their street, which makes each street like an outdoor hallway, where we just pass all these anonymous people who are all on their way somewhere.

The second factor is entertainment, like songs and movies for example, which speak of the world's problems. I have seen many people, myself included, get upset about the world's problems, decide to listen to some of this music to feel a "release" of their upsetness through the music, and then just go on with their day with little thought about how to find some solutions to the things about their lives or society that upset them.

These two factors seem to combine to form a culture of people who are all like " that's life for ya..." and then they just keep on grinding away...

I have fantasized about people just stepping out of their doors one day shaking their heads and thinking to themselves " What am I doing? Can I do something much different? " and looking up and down their streets to see all the other people on their street standing outside their houses thinking the same thing.

I feel that this scenario is unlikely, though, because the public is too well entertained to spend much time thinking about these stressful subjects. I can remember many times that I have chosen to just sit down and have a beer or whatever and listen to music or watch a movie instead of "giving myself a headache" thinking about such things. I feel that I can safely assume that most people do much the same thing when those thoughts enter their minds.

[edit on 2/9/10 by sigil23]