An experiment in socialism

reply to post by beezzer


Since, in this case, the content is the medium of exchange we should redistribute the content. I love this sort of thought experiment, it helps increase perspective. Good post!

I see the first replier is willing to participate. He/she has about 4000 posts. We should give about 1500 (~35%) of those posts to other users and we've got ourselves a good start! After all, who needs 4000 posts? 2500 Should be sufficient for one person.

Truthfully, though, we should really only give about 1000 of those posts to other users and delete the other 500 to simulate the dead weight loss effect.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

You talk of shared sacrafice. A noble ideal, but when that "shared sacrafice" is mandated, then it no longer can be defined as noble. It is a direction given to us by someone else which is in direct opposition to what freedom is defined by.
You provided an interesting post, but I honestly believe that your interpretation is a distortion of what they (the founding fathers) wanted.

What are founding fathers wanted is different than the constitution was a compromise between their own ideals and the ideals that promoted freedom for the collective in a government. Living an individual life in total freedom is anarchy. There has to be some structure of fairness, in order to garner the support of others. This requires a shared value in what individual freedoms are given up by class or group affiliation when those freedoms come into conflict. Our constitution attempted to strike a delicate but necessary balance of individual versus the collective good. This is not to say your own version of what the founders wanted is incorrect, I believe they did want more individual freedoms. However, this is not what we ended up with once the country was founded while they were alive even. Some of the founders recognized that individuals with absolute freedom could stop the entire population from enjoying their own freedoms. After the idea was tested, the federal government was given more authority to unify the states. Again we should not confuse what has happened in the following 200+ years regarding the deterioration of those freedoms and the overreaching arm of the federal government and states for that matter.

The views I have and that you have are nearly identical. Except that I believe when we have shared values over what all people living in freedom should have, this requires some giving up of freedoms to accommodate the whole. This is why we have monopoly laws. To prevent the pursuit of capital gain being horded by individuals or groups of individuals. We believe in fair competition, but we punish for gouging consumers especially in a crisis. Now maybe some of our rules need tweaking and refinement to make it more realistic and not simply a general label which attempts to fix a range of issues.

On another note every government employee is a form of socialism. To support the government means to take away something from the masses to provide for everyone. I personally think there are better ways to accomplish entitlement programs that are more fair and require a ton less resources to administer. I doubt we will ever get to my ideas of balancing the obvious burden these programs place on society as a whole. We won't ever get to that debate because we have people on one side saying the programs are necessary, which they are. On the other side, we have people saying these programs take our money by force and give to others, which they do. Yet, if we take a step back we realize these programs are not serving our needs as a whole. There ideas out there that attempt to cut out the socialist aspects and provide a even shared value approach to solving our collective needs.

I personally like Ron Paul's make social security voluntary idea. This is fair to all sides of the debate. If you want your money in private hands not backed up by much security then put your money there. If you trust the government more, put your money into the public social security fund. There are options out there that serve everyone's needs more fairly, but we have to start looking at the opposing arguments and saying "You know what, you are right. Some people are unfairly taxed and their money is given away to support all these programs which they will never use." And the other side needs to say, "You know what you are right. Some people have no ability to care for themselves or have little if any opportunity to support themselves and they need help. We can't let our own people starve to death on the streets." The balance is somewhere in the middle. Balance is never found on either end of the playground seesaw. It is when both sides find a solution agreeable to both, and there need naught be actual sacrifice of any position if the rules are tailored to fit the whole design of the fair system. The problem for many is when someone has a solution that makes a system a little more fair, the other side says its not fair for them.

What is wrong with putting all the unemployed to work in a government funded agricultural program that provides food for the unemployed, homeless, charities and even to the working class all without having the need for millions of paper-pushers employed by state and federal government to approve and deny food stamps. Why not make it free or just to cover the costs of production for all households, rich, poor, or otherwise. The answer is simple. Some say it would be socialism, so they would not have such a system just based on that. Some say it would deny farmers the ability to sell food for a profit. The simple fact of it all is it could be done very easily, cut taxes, put unemployed to work being productive. Decrease food costs nationwide. Slash taxes. Cut government employees across the board. All voluntary of course. Either go to work in food production while unemployed or you get no assistance. Yes, there could be exemptions from the work, but problem solved. Of course, the corporations will not have their government assistance programs turned off on them, so be prepared for a big fight as they fund the next wave of politicians into office.

Our system is broken because too many people can only see one option in their mind. Their option. When presented with competing ideas they cannot see past their own opinion. I admire your views on freedom, and like I said we are very similar. So close in fact, it would be a shame if either one of us was too rigid in our beliefs on a certain matter that we could not identify similar points of view.

this would seem like a very interesting expiriment

AN EXPERIMENT IN HYPERCAPITALISM


Hello ATS. Being intrigued by the OP's offer, I have decided to propose a counter-offer, as follows.

1) Those with stars and flags are free to deposit them in a special trust administered solely by Yours Truly. In return you will be given e-credits for stars to be redeemed at a later date, backed with the full faith n' credit of the fine premium Silent Thunder name. For every 100 stars or flags you give me, I promise to give you 102 in exactly 1 year.

2) Those in need of a quick thread-count boost, or trying to divert attention to a pet cause or thread that might otherwise get lost in the shuffle are allowed to borrow as many stars and flags as they might momentarily need. Now, I understand that we are taking a risk here, because if some fly-by noob with 16 posts to his name wants to borrow, say, 100 flags overnight, we might not be likely to get all or even any of that back. But sophisticated financial topography modeling programs have shown that statistically speaking, even if a bunch of noobs default, high volume lending to more steady players will compensate. And even if it doesn't show that, well, if you are smart enough to refute it, chances are you're already drawing a paycheck from us, heh-heh-heh. Plus, its an academic point anyway because of the new "S&F Derivatives" (see below)

3) The new "S&F Derivatives": Ok, this is where it really gets good. Through the magic of Fractional Reserve Posting, I can lend 98 stars or flags for every 3 you give me. That's insane, you say? Good point, it is indeed. But here's the good stuff. We bundle all the IOUs and debts into a bunch of different "products" and slice them into tranches with different risk levels based on the users' karma points. Then we sell them off to other boards. So if it blows up, the other boards are left holding the bag. And who cares, most of them are Morans anyway. Actually it gets better than that -- we create a daisy-chain of fake messageboards whose only purpose is to buy the tranches from us and sell them to the next board for promises to provide more stars and flags back, thus boosting the value of future issues and reassuring everyone.

4) If anything goes wrong, there are too many people who would be disappointed so the admins will be forced to give me as many stars and flags as I need to make good on the ridiculous claims outstanding. You might say the scheme is kind of too big to fail.

Who's in?

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
What are founding fathers wanted is different than the constitution was a compromise between their own ideals and the ideals that promoted freedom for the collective in a government. Living an individual life in total freedom is anarchy. There has to be some structure of fairness, in order to garner the support of others. This requires a shared value in what individual freedoms are given up by class or group affiliation when those freedoms come into conflict. Our constitution attempted to strike a delicate but necessary balance of individual versus the collective good. This is not to say your own version of what the founders wanted is incorrect, I believe they did want more individual freedoms. However, this is not what we ended up with once the country was founded while they were alive even. Some of the founders recognized that individuals with absolute freedom could stop the entire population from enjoying their own freedoms. After the idea was tested, the federal government was given more authority to unify the states. Again we should not confuse what has happened in the following 200+ years regarding the deterioration of those freedoms and the overreaching arm of the federal government and states for that matter.

Structure is fine. But a collective and freedom are as opposing values as one can get. I would agree that a constant "conflict" needs to be applied so that one side doesn't gain too much control. Today, you can see that the collective side is over-reaching.

The views I have and that you have are nearly identical. Except that I believe when we have shared values over what all people living in freedom should have, this requires some giving up of freedoms to accommodate the whole. This is why we have monopoly laws. To prevent the pursuit of capital gain being horded by individuals or groups of individuals. We believe in fair competition, but we punish for gouging consumers especially in a crisis. Now maybe some of our rules need tweaking and refinement to make it more realistic and not simply a general label which attempts to fix a range of issues.

Giving up any freedoms allows for the concept that freedoms CAN be given up. That is and will always be unacceptable.

On another note every government employee is a form of socialism. To support the government means to take away something from the masses to provide for everyone. I personally think there are better ways to accomplish entitlement programs that are more fair and require a ton less resources to administer. I doubt we will ever get to my ideas of balancing the obvious burden these programs place on society as a whole. We won't ever get to that debate because we have people on one side saying the programs are necessary, which they are. On the other side, we have people saying these programs take our money by force and give to others, which they do. Yet, if we take a step back we realize these programs are not serving our needs as a whole. There ideas out there that attempt to cut out the socialist aspects and provide a even shared value approach to solving our collective needs.

You can't have collective needs because, in part, you'd be telling someone what their needs are. Individuality is key.
Not the collective.

I personally like Ron Paul's make social security voluntary idea. This is fair to all sides of the debate. If you want your money in private hands not backed up by much security then put your money there. If you trust the government more, put your money into the public social security fund. There are options out there that serve everyone's needs more fairly, but we have to start looking at the opposing arguments and saying "You know what, you are right. Some people are unfairly taxed and their money is given away to support all these programs which they will never use." And the other side needs to say, "You know what you are right. Some people have no ability to care for themselves or have little if any opportunity to support themselves and they need help. We can't let our own people starve to death on the streets." The balance is somewhere in the middle. Balance is never found on either end of the playground seesaw. It is when both sides find a solution agreeable to both, and there need naught be actual sacrifice of any position if the rules are tailored to fit the whole design of the fair system. The problem for many is when someone has a solution that makes a system a little more fair, the other side says its not fair for them.

There can never be a balance. Balance means compromise. Compromise means someone forsaking their values.

What is wrong with putting all the unemployed to work in a government funded agricultural program that provides food for the unemployed, homeless, charities and even to the working class all without having the need for millions of paper-pushers employed by state and federal government to approve and deny food stamps. Why not make it free or just to cover the costs of production for all households, rich, poor, or otherwise. The answer is simple. Some say it would be socialism, so they would not have such a system just based on that. Some say it would deny farmers the ability to sell food for a profit. The simple fact of it all is it could be done very easily, cut taxes, put unemployed to work being productive. Decrease food costs nationwide. Slash taxes. Cut government employees across the board. All voluntary of course. Either go to work in food production while unemployed or you get no assistance. Yes, there could be exemptions from the work, but problem solved. Of course, the corporations will not have their government assistance programs turned off on them, so be prepared for a big fight as they fund the next wave of politicians into office.

What you are suggesting is indentured servatude. In other words, slavery.

Our system is broken because too many people can only see one option in their mind. Their option. When presented with competing ideas they cannot see past their own opinion. I admire your views on freedom, and like I said we are very similar. So close in fact, it would be a shame if either one of us was too rigid in our beliefs on a certain matter that we could not identify similar points of view.

If I could get you off the track of collectivism, we'd be more on par with each other. It's obvous that you have given some time to put this together. I'm not as smart. I like things simple. People complicate things when they wish to obfuscate their real intent. That's what I see happening in Washington.

Cheers though, to a post that has made me think.

reply to post by beezzer

What you are suggesting is indentured servatude. In other words, slavery.

What exactly is slavery about his proposition? As I understand it, you always have an option to leave the government agricultural program if you dont want to work there, and you wont receive associated benefits - unemployment assistance.

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Absolutely.

There is a book written about corruption, apathy, and un-earned gains.

Atlas Shrugged.

American History

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by felonius

 

i think most unions are wrong, but some need to exist. i was a welder, and i eventually joined the union. the difference in skill between union welders and non-union welders was so pronounced that the jobsite i worked on said they only wanted union welders after alot of welds made by non-union members failed.

oh yeah. us union welders made LESS money(i made $28.90 an hour, and that was some hard work), and didn't get per diem (a sum paid each day to cover living expenses since most of us traveled hundreds of miles).

unions in professions that require alot of skill and knowledge don't have to be a bad thing.

As long as they arent AFL/CIO or the like, I can go with you on this. In the old days, you'll know they were called guilds. They took craftsmanship to new heights (cathedrals)...couldnt resist the pun

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by beezzer

 

What you are suggesting is indentured servatude. In other words, slavery.

What exactly is slavery about his proposition? As I understand it, you always have an option to leave the government agricultural program if you dont want to work there, and you wont receive associated benefits - unemployment assistance.

edit on 17/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Maybe I took it wrong, but it still seems to me as if this type of program would be ripe for abuse. Slavery being the least of it.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Absolutely.

There is a book written about corruption, apathy, and un-earned gains.

Atlas Shrugged.

Yes the Ayn Rand philosophies are quite prominent around these parts. Shame it's these same philosophies that caused the financial meltdown. Also Ayan Rand relied on the state in her later years.

Ayn Rand was somewhat mad but you know what they say about genius and insanity. Add the Russian element and it gets interesting LOL! But hey, she came from Bolshevik Russia and was able to live the american dream...as a CAPITALIST!!! Cant beat that!

As far as her philosophies causing the meltdown, your wrong. In a system of "value for value", there is no room for backdoor dealing. On the other hand, the present day "Looters" are exactly as she pictured them. Its an insanely long book but if you get the chance, read it if you havent. Its scarey weird how she saw today so many years ago. If you look online, I'm sure you can find it on audio for little or nothing. If you get the hard copy, youll have notes all through the damn thing LOL!

On Ayn Rand being "on the dole"....

I checked into this. Whataya know. EVERY site that is mentioning this is far left/ socialist. Go figure.

yes. When she discovered that she had cancer AND WOULD DIE, rather than let all her work go to hell, she took back what was TAKEN from her originally. TAX MONEY. Taking back from the looters what was stolen in the first place is no sin.

If you read the book, this is what the guys in "Galts Gulch" did. They took back what was theirs. No hypocrisy in this.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by beezzer

 

What you are suggesting is indentured servatude. In other words, slavery.

What exactly is slavery about his proposition? As I understand it, you always have an option to leave the government agricultural program if you dont want to work there, and you wont receive associated benefits - unemployment assistance.

edit on 17/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Maybe I took it wrong, but it still seems to me as if this type of program would be ripe for abuse. Slavery being the least of it.

Reading the post preceding,

having someone work for their keep isnt so bad an idea. Back in the day, my grampa worked roads and dams during the government work days. Folks could still have self respect and be productive. Value for Value.

I hate Roosevelt but that was a good thing....considering the Depression was engineered but thats a different topic.

Instead of having that damn spanish firm "Cintras" (or what ever) building roads that strangely turn toll road here in Texas...ON TAX MONEY....we could have inmates doing the same thing. That will lessen the cost on society. with the high number of illegals in prison, they wont want to be here that much either.

As far as being able to be corrupted, brother, anything gov related can go tits up real quick.

Originally posted by links234
I got bored at about the second page, but any stars or flags I've accumulated you can distribute to those below me that have not received as many.

We all have an unlimited number of stars and flags to give but only a limited number to receive. Quite the opposite of reality and currency.

Cute thread though OP, maybe you can read some Marx and get a better understanding of it all.

I'm always suspicious of people who believe in Socialism telling others to get educated about Marx

Well, if I get cancer, or find out I have mulitple sclerosis, and could only get treatment for that with a very large number of stars and flags...... which, even if I had them, with the many years of treatment, and my losing my job because of my sickness (earning no more stars and flags) then I guess it would be easier for me to see a fitting metaphor here.

My cousin found out he had MS, so was fired from his job, his insurance dropped him, and he cannot find another job nor get an insurance company to take him on. He did his degrees at Harvard, was an active and hard working person (and personally probably one of the best persons I have ever known).

But the promises of the american dream (get an education, work hard) failed. Totally failed. Because they run on the idea that men are in control of all that happens to them in their life. A very comforting sort of illusion, a wonderful alternative if you don't get into the religion illusion/comforter.

It completely denies the reality that a part of our life, of our reality, of our physical being, is not within the power to control of our will.

But this metaphor of flags and stars is fittign if you mean to apply it to something like popularity in a society, instead of survival.

But the promises of the american dream (get an education, work hard) failed. Totally failed. Because they run on the idea that men are in control of all that happens to them in their life. A very comforting sort of illusion, a wonderful alternative if you don't get into the religion illusion/comforter.

reply to post by Bluesma


I've always been fascinated with the Pioneers and their legacy of opening the vast resources of the West. They were such rugged individuals who left the comforts of the Eastern cities(if they had any that is) and literally carved out a niche in the wild countryside. Imagine driving one of those wagons, and having a wheel break down, or a horse needed a new shoe, or someone fell ill with sickness(say small pox or something really deadly, or even pneumonia) and there was no doc around. Was the govt there to fix it all? No. And surely they endured many ills, and even imminent death. There are no guarantees in life. The socialist way tries to guarantee that through government, everyone's problems will all be taken care of cradle to grave. This is a deadly solution, as it bestows upon the citizens a feeling of entitlement. It also takes away their freedom to carve out their own destiny.
When I was a little girl I read the Little House On The Prairie books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, and she is truly a beloved author who distilled the amazing stories of living as a pioneer.

Then there's Anne of Green Gables...a different time and place in American history, the Edwardian era

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I don't believe in any universal rights or wrongs. The chocie to live in a society where people die and suffer around you (both people you love, and simple other members of your community) is just as valid as choosing to live in one where people are in better health and have less chance of dying early.

I live in France, where they have a socialized medical system. It is not the same as that in Canada or England though. It also is a multi-payer system, and the medical facilities and professionals are private. You can go to any doctor or hospital you choose (you are not limited in choice, as with insurance coverage in the US). So there is still competition between them to get the most clients through good care. It is also a capitalist economy, so their choice has not been to socialize EVERYTHING. Just medical care, because healthy members of the society are more productive members. The good of the individual is eventually good for the collective.

The people do feel entitled to it, and they are right! They pay for it, why would they not be entitled? If someone pays their insurance company, do they not feel entitled to coverage? (actually even then some don't, as they tell me they have a two hundred dollar deductable and a limit to what they'll pay....).

I do not think that the US should have a similar system, for many reasons. It does not have the mentality and values which would would be appropriate for it to work. But I think there is a difference between saying "it is not right for us", and saying "it is not right, anywhere, for anyone."

reply to post by Bluesma


Blues, I know of a young woman who went to France for a time, and while visiting there, she was hit by a vehicle and broke her leg. She was taken to the hospital and they worked on it. She was a co worker of mine and she explained how she was still having problems with this leg, and she said they didn't do it right, and after she got home, they had to "re-break" the leg to get it right. So ask me if I have confidence in French medicine. In the meantime, my point is not that people should suffer needlessly. Obviously, medicine has come a long way since the pioneer days and the late Edwardian period. Medicine is also more expensive because of new tests and advances and technology. We simply have to find viable means of giving the best care to people, but Socialism involves redistribution of wealth which is not the true equality it pretends to be. Forced social justice via taking from one person's hard earned paycheck to pay for someone else to have medicine or whatever is an illusion of real justice. In real life, everyone is responsible for their own survival, and usually people will do whatever it takes. Perhaps today's social engineers believe that if you just take away the basic need for survival everyone will be nicer, but I believe it's the other way around. Having genuine respect for the pay you receive is a much better teacher for self-respect and independence than a system where everyone sits around waiting for the govt to do something. It is so evident now among the "sheeples who are even now waiting for someone to fix things.

reply to post by beezzer


If you read my signature you will understand my point. I appreciate you taking the time to read my views. Government was created as a balance between individual needs for the protection of everyone's freedom. What we have today is far more overreaching then anyone could have imagined. So we agree. True freedom like you mention is full of choices, and we agree. Whatever system we design should give people choices. I personally rather have public roads built at tax payer expense. I do not want to live in a city where private people own all the roads and I must pay a toll everywhere I go. I do not want to live in a city where a bridge is needed to link commerce together but the land to build the bridge is owned by some wealthy individual that does not want to sell the land so a bridge can be built. Especially, if that individual property owner is not using the land for any legitimate purpose.

I do think states should have rights to arrange their affairs independently from the federal government. I think people though have the absolute right to promote their own ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideals will conflict from one person to another. There is no capitalism in the constitution. There is no socialism in the constitution. Neither is mandated. It is up to the people to decide which system we want, a combination of the two, or something else entirely. True freedom is about choices and in this system you and I cannot negotiate a middle ground that serves our needs. Our laws are legislated disconnected from the peoples desires. There were just as many socialist thinking people and capitalist thinking people that were opposed to bailing out banking institutions. Yet our elected leaders have some other agenda. Communism and equal distribution of wealth for the wealthy, by the strong arm of the government, and facism for the poor and working class to keep us in line and deplete our future potential at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither serves our needs.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by beezzer

 

If you read my signature you will understand my point. I appreciate you taking the time to read my views. Government was created as a balance between individual needs for the protection of everyone's freedom. What we have today is far more overreaching then anyone could have imagined. So we agree. True freedom like you mention is full of choices, and we agree. Whatever system we design should give people choices. I personally rather have public roads built at tax payer expense. I do not want to live in a city where private people own all the roads and I must pay a toll everywhere I go. I do not want to live in a city where a bridge is needed to link commerce together but the land to build the bridge is owned by some wealthy individual that does not want to sell the land so a bridge can be built. Especially, if that individual property owner is not using the land for any legitimate purpose.

I do think states should have rights to arrange their affairs independently from the federal government. I think people though have the absolute right to promote their own ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideals will conflict from one person to another. There is no capitalism in the constitution. There is no socialism in the constitution. Neither is mandated. It is up to the people to decide which system we want, a combination of the two, or something else entirely. True freedom is about choices and in this system you and I cannot negotiate a middle ground that serves our needs. Our laws are legislated disconnected from the peoples desires. There were just as many socialist thinking people and capitalist thinking people that were opposed to bailing out banking institutions. Yet our elected leaders have some other agenda. Communism and equal distribution of wealth for the wealthy, by the strong arm of the government, and facism for the poor and working class to keep us in line and deplete our future potential at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither serves our needs.

I think you are right in many ways. I also do not care for this privatization of the roads only to get some toll road where the road was paved and paid for long ago but someone is still raking in the dollars, particularly those instances of foreign ownership which should never be. We should never allow foreigners to own toll roads in this country in my opinion. It was under Charlie Crist governorship who allowed this in Florida and I'm flaming mad over it. And Crist is very pro Obama and not a true conservative and made promises to lower real estate tax and in my view delivered very little. I'm glad he was voted out.
There seems to be a bizarre reversal of things. Some things which were kept in the private sector are being nationalized while some things in the public sector are being privatized. We should all watch what the Left hand is doing when the Right hand is waving around.
In the end, one can study the UN Agenda 21 to understand that fascism is really Leftism, and that both fascism and socialism are mechanisms for Totalitarian agendas, and that when both private and public organisms are being controlled from the top, in the end it's all a One World Order. Certain buzzwords are floating around which originated in the UN Agenda 21: "sustainability", "public-private PARTNERSHIP", NGO's(non-governmental orgs), "stakeholders", etc. What is happening is that while the UN Agenda 21 is dictating from the top what policies are being implemented on all of us, it is not as apparent because it is filtered through these smaller entities, NGO"s, and even through corporations. The end result is that while people were not looking Totalitarianism sprouted weeds.

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by communism being equal distribution of wealth for the wealthy. True, the Elite are making tons of money while the rest barely make it. But, welfare programs really do exist which take money from the average worker's paycheck and give it to "less fortunate" souls(such as unmarried women who have lots of babies, illegal aliens getting services only citizens should get, and other such things), but the fact remains that much of what pretends to be mercy for the poor is really just Big Government and Statism. In the Communist/Marxist agenda, the State is all powerful and Supreme and the individual exists only for it. And that last statement is also for the person who recommended us Free Marketeers and Libertarian types read up on Marx. I suggest he/she do the same with an open mind.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


And I agree with you as well. When private interests dictate what the public policy is then we have lost our freedom. A balance can be achieved. Private interests should have absolute freedom, except where it impacts our countries shared values and will of the people. This is why it is not okay to pollute nature. It is not good for anyone, although it may be just fine for some private individual that does not care about everyone's right to enjoy life. Government is necessary, but currently is controlled by private interests and groups of interests. Yes, groups are people too, but groups should not dictate the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness for others. Balance can be achieved, but it is not found in the current two-party system.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Those "Pioneers" you admire were trespassers. They were using someone else's lands, resources, and wealth to make their way.

When the actual owners of those things objected, they murdered them and enslaved their children.

Most of the "hard work" of early capitalists was the hard work of stealing, and murdering the victims of the theft when they objected. Aztec, Mayan, and Incan gold and silver financed early capitalism and African slaves provided the labor.

If you look at the Eastern states, there wasn't much "wilderness" to clear: that's complete bull. The Americans dispossessed the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, and many, many others of their fields, villages and towns, usually just before the crops were ripe.

Same goes everywhere in the Americas: the Industrial Revolution was financed by the theft of the built-up resources of other people.

Things haven't changed much, as what are corporate takeovers and downsizing, selling off assets, and looting pension funds but the very same process adapted to modern times?

Capitalism is a short-term success due to using a century's worth of resources in a decade, but ultimately it is a long-term failure, as we see today: capitalism is in the process of killing itself and the rest of us with it.

We either need a new system, or to get capitalism under far better control.

The only way I see is to CAP WEALTH....mandatory economic retirement and removal from all economic activity when wealth hits the trigger point.

Go find a different game to play.