The painful reality of greed and selfishness...

reply to post by DeepImpactX


I very much enjoyed your post. Thank you for adding your thoughts.

I think you are right, the more controls we put in place, the more chaos and division springs from it. I have always had a respect for the Native North American way of life. It always seemed to be the purest and most fair. When most of the few tribal disputes were settled by non violent things like "counting coup" we can see a stark contrast as to the how most other cultures dealt with disagreements.

I have always appreciated this line...it was intended as a somewhat joke and a lot of women out there might not like the underlying message...but behind the words is a sentiment that we should think about.

"When the white man came here, the native American men hunted, fished and smoked the pipe for the spirit journeys and the women cooked, cleaned and took care of the children...and the white man thought he could improve on this system."

Originally posted by oper8zhin
DEMOCRATS look out for the lower-class, and middle-class Americans...

REPUBLICANS look out for the SUPER WEALTHY Americans...

TODAYS CONSERVATIVES want all but the most powerful and wealthy to be slaves with a society that looks out for NOBODY other than the Slave Masters.

As per your title of this thread, "Greed and Selfishness", those are two words that describe Republicans and Conservatives to perfection.

In other words, "baaah baaah". Keep on bleating, little sheep.

I would like you to answer this, though, oper8zhin: If the Republicans are the ones only looking out for the super wealthy, and the only ones that are greedy and selfish, why are 7 of the top 10 richest people in Congress Democrats?

/TOA

reply to post by Tardacus


I can also agree with you. "Class" is a control system. Another poster brought up the analogy of an ant colony where every member is just as important as the next, regardless of "profession". All are required for the preservation of the colony and the species.

I haven't even went into what happens as disparity continues to grow in a people's quality of life...but we have some historical examples...The French Revolution, The Bolshevik Revolution, the Cuban Revolution and the Revolution of the People's Republic of China. Most people are abhorred with how these turned out. When you push someone to the edge and then over it, the will lash out and damn the consequences. Only one of those 4 would seem to have worked out well for the people in general...and there is probably some French that would say it's not so great.

We as humans have the capacity to overcome our base animal instincts. Our animal instinct is that the strongest get's the "Lions's share"...but as I said earlier, as evolved, enlightened and social creatures, we have it within us to not behave that way by choice.

reply to post by Quauhtli


The equal distribution of wealth is an attempt (perhaps poorly) to balance the two opposing views. On one hand, we have the idea that everyone is created equal and it is their job to rise up and "take" a share of the spoils either by skill, intellect or force. We have the other hand that says we should just divide it al up equally. The first hand will then say there is not enough to go around...so...which is it? If there is not enough to go around then there is not enough for "equally created people" to "earn".

The point I was attempting to make is that we have an illusion in here somewhere. Either an illusion that we are equally created...or a false scarcity of resources. In the one model, someone has to lose so someone else can win. Some has to have less so someone else can have more. Someone must be the prey and someone be the predator. If there is "limited wealth for the world"...then the model says someone "has to be" poor...and that means we are not all created equal.

Or are we created equal and we live in a world of plenty being corrupted and manipulated by the few who are mad with ambition of power and influence of others?

Did that make sense?

reply to post by expsychogeographer


I also agree. I believe human beings are innately social creatures. We need other humans around us. Very few people truly want to or are even capable of...total isolation. We really like other humans to be around and within there, is a propensity to look out for the other guy so that he continues to be around.

My hope was to tear down titles and names and lay out the raw base ideals of the foundations of society and look at them for what they truly are.

reply to post by Jeremiah65



Yes that makes sense. Now if we could just convince people that everything you need to be happy is free, and that hard work has its own reward in your health. Maybe the illusion is that happiness and good health can be bought.

Originally posted by deadpool84
I like most of your post what i don't like is the total freedom/ anarchy part, considering people are not starting out on the same platform. There are people in places of power that can abuse that power freely and harm those who can not defend against it. This can be an abuse of money or political policy. The rule of law should be equal for everyone regardless of social status or economic status.

True Anarchism is not the picture of chaos in the streets or a dog eat dog world. In my humble opinion, it is the epitome of human evolution...where each person is self governing and knows through and through the difference in right and wrong.

I see your point, that if "right now" the "freedom" system would be put in place, then yes...those that have the most resources hoarded would prey upon those that do not.

I said earlier that I do believe in the rule of law. However, the laws must be fair, they must be simple and they should be there to do nothing but protect freedom and property of everyone. It should be equally applied to the many, the few and the one.

reply to post by Hefficide


Thank you Heff for a well thought out and presented opinion.

Back in post 7 or so I asked why is it that we cannot seem to overcome this animal side of ourselves and I think you presented an idea that is very-very similar to mine.

We do not overcome our primal instincts because there are factions out there that do not want us to and use them to control us. The feed that animal inside us, promote it and draw it out. Not knocking sports but consider it...it is a way to keep that competitive side of our animal nature well exercised and awake. We are programmed to believe that we must "compete" with our fellow humans for everything...from food and shelter to companions and mates.

We are constantly bombarded that this is how it's done and there can be no other way...and it is just another control scheme.

We have the capacity to be rational and realize that this is not necessary...but we are subconsciously programmed that it must be this way and most people cannot overcome the software being constantly installed in their minds.

I was brought up to believe that you should be happy for what others have and to strive to provide these things for myself.

If someone wants to keep what they have worked hard for and earned that is their business. Good for them if they share but it's up to them if they share and how much they decide to share. To me greed and selfishness is coveting what others have. If you want it earn it, your never going to get there by having some one give it to you.

اجمل دردشة عراقية رومنسية ترفيهية يظم كافة العراقيين والعرب والاجانب
شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا
شلة عراقنا
عراقنا
شات العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات كيكه
دردشة عبدالله
جات
دردشة
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا
google

reply to post by 11235813213455


That's called envy and it's not the same...and you may have missed the whole point. I am not complaining about greed and selfishness...I stated in post one I am a selfish person. The point of the thread is it's effects on others and society...

But thanks for adding you first thoughts....

reply to post by Jeremiah65

You miss the conservative point. Because there is not enough to go around now you throw your hands up and give up. The conservative point is "create" more wealth, therefore there is more to go around. The liberal point is well you are "creating" more wealth people are starving. That is where the real divide is.

In the past people starved. In the past when a country "won" a war they got the spoils from that war. Since the Second World War that has changed. On the Western side the winners, which was not France or a number of other country's, were "given" back their land. Somehow the idea of a "moral" war came into play. The same went for the social experiment. People were not "allowed" to fail and die.

This might have worked except in addition to this moral change of thought more and more regulation went into effect to help this moral change. This regulation went in faster then the "creating of wealth" could support. People wanted "more" faster.

Ford, Gates, Edison, the list goes on of people who "created" more wealth for all. The problem is people can not "create" the wealth that everyone wants as fast as people want it with the regulations that are in place. Right now the world is wealthier then ever before. It is not wealthy enough for everyone to have everything they want. In fact we are all falling off a cliff and while everyone gives each other a group hug as they fall no one is reaching for the cliff to stop the fall.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


Actually, no I haven't excluded the "conservative" position. We haven't gotten there yet in a way. The fiscal conservatives generally speak of living within ones means. The idea of "creating wealth" is a pretty fascinating thing. I have always enjoyed the wording of that clever catch phrase. Now I am going to state this...as the intention from day one has been...as bone simple as I can.

How do you "create wealth"? If I am a Rockefeller or a Vanderbuilt, I decide I am going to make kerosene or lay hundreds of miles of new train tracks to corner the market of delivering products across the country. People buy my product or service because, it's wonderful! and they need it. I amass a fortune. Where do you think that money comes from? Do you think it just magically appears because someone creates a new product? No, it is just "redistributing" the money that is already in circulation into a upward funnel...or...the Gov and the fed print more currency. The first example there is part of the problem we are experiencing. The money is being funneled "up" to large conglomerate corporations that are not raining it back down...they are not even trickling it back down. They are sitting on it in tax shelters.

In the past, people starved for the same reasons they do today. In a world of plenty manipulation of scarcity and distribution is a means of control and influence. It is still greed and selfishness based. be it greed of power or greed of wealth is irrelevant.

The reason the west gives back the land instead of conquering it is called "human farming'. It is much easier to get your livestock to produce if they think they are in control. The winners do not give up their influence at the top levels. The losers might not have to change their name or even their system of Gov but do not be deceived...they still have to do what they are told.

The moral war and the social experiment. Killing your livestock means they cannot produce for you anymore. That is actually pretty stupid. It is better to keep them barely alive and under your control than to kill them off...and control is actually rather easy...manipulate the food, and other necessities of life. Oh wait...

Ford, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller...aka...the Robber Barons...they were not saints. They were somewhat different than our modern day Robber Barons, but not much. Bill Gates (though retired now supposedly) is not a saint either but he may be the lesser of the evils of the mega corporations. Many of his employees make/made a decent wage and he does give lots of money away in charity.

Ford, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller...they all reached a point of wealth where it was not the acquisition of wealth that consumed them anymore...it was the acquisition of power they wanted. They wanted to run things...everything...and guess what? For a time they did...till the Gov gave the people it's Republic back...and here is another "Guess what?" for you...we are there again...but the Gov is not giving our Republic back...we are going to have to take it.

If voting made a single ounce of difference... they wouldn't let us do it.

reply to post by Jeremiah65

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Want to help people really? Get the hell out of their way and let them make their own way they best they can. I don’t care if the sell cheap hot dogs on the side of the road, distill whiskey or make wine and beer, be a door to door masseuse, be a stripper, a prostitute, grow weed….whatever they can do to make some money. This will help people far more over quarreling whether or not you can take someone else’s money to accomplish what someone could do for themselves if you would just shut up and let them.

Rip away at me! I'm good for it!

I believe the answer is pure freedom...people free to do well...people free to do poorly...or somewhere in the middle. People free to live...people free to die...it's not as complicated as millions of raving lunatics on both sides have made this out to be.

I'm in rural southern Colorado and that's kind of the way we do things here but it wouldn't work in a city. As someone else mentioned it could get a little third world-ish.

Our little local enterprises don’t impact huge populations. Our rules are a bit more lax because they can be. Smaller communities are better in some ways but they don’t attract wealth. Actually that’s a good thing.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
We decree that all men are created equal...then we do absolutely everything we can to have "more" than the next guy....why is that? Whay is it that we cannot overcome this basic animal instinct?

In cities you need lots of stuff. All that stuff becomes a status symbol and of course it has to be bigger/better than the next guy. Because of our low incomes we don't feel the need to impress. We're all in the same boat and I think that's key. Most of us have gotten over the "more than the next guy" mentality.

Don't expect any real change anytime soon. Lots of people are making money hand over fist and they don't want change. Then there's those who just want everything fixed back to the way it was.

You can keep banging your head against the wall trying to make sense of it all or you can say to hell with it and move to the country. It's not perfect here but we do live very differently.

reply to post by oper8zhin


Democrats equal liars that will say anything to get power and then stick it to their uneducated, simpleton voters.

Conservatives equal people that want the everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, small government, private property, and FREEDOM. Whether or not they choose to put the effort in to succeed is another matter.

The Democrat is the individual that does not want to put the effort in and then blame everyone else for themselves being failures.

The Democrat is the individual who hates freedom and wants everyone to think only what the Queen Bee tells the drones to think. Whoever doesn't go along is labeled a racist and worse.

The Democrat wants to steal from the hardworking producers by voting in corrupt individuals that will pass laws to take away private property and redistribute it.

Conservatives are all for helping the truly disabled, not the lazy.

Conservatives despise RINOs.

reply to post by Jeremiah65


Why do you care so much what the next guy has??? Work hard and reap your own rewards.

reply to post by Trustfund


Yeah, like the Democrat - government take over of GM.........

reply to post by expsychogeographer


Socialism does mean "state control".

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
I agree that the capitalist system that we now have is not free market capitalism...it is some twisted and manipulated shadow of the idea. It is vampiric because it is filled with predation...some must have less so others can have more.

I wanted to put this into the bare knuckles ideology of the two parties...call them social conservatives/republicans and liberal/democrats/socialists.

When confronted with the proposal that maybe we should just exterminate the poor because they are non productive burdens on society...they will leap into their morality and say that is not what they want at all. That they want people to have the "opportunity" to do well for themselves. That everyone is created equal and everyone has the capacity to be a productive citizen and financially successful.

You flip over to the other side, the Liberals/Socialist would like to take all the money and divide it equally. Now the Republicans will quickly say that there is not enough to go around and everyone would suffer equally. That taking the wealth of others is "morally" wrong.

Here is where the system...in design...is broken and while it sounds all nice...if there is not enough money to be equally divided...there is not enough for everyone to be a prospering capitalist now is there?

This is where both sides generally leap into rampaging fits of irrationality...when confronted with the purest and rawest simplicity of their ideals...both break down.

But let's just consider this. IF there is not enough money and resources to be equally divided where everyone has a decent and modest life...then there is no way there is enough so that "all the poor" can be successful capitalists...someone MUST be the poor...someone must be...the prey...this flies in the face of the source of "moral human beings" beliefs. They believe in Christ or another higher being...or they just believe that humans are supposed to be dripping with kindness and compassion....when the very foundation and tools of the world they have built says that it is not possible.

So what is the answer...Print more money and currency? "NO! -NO! they will scream...that devalues it because then there is too much to go around! ...I won't even touch that in light of what I have presented above...

The only other answer is...and this is the painful part...if there is not enough to go around so that every human being can have a decent life without pain and suffering...then there is just too damn many people...or...someone somewhere is full of sh!t...

edit on 11/22/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

Someone is definitely full of it. Scarcity in todays world is a myth. There are more than enough resources(food, shelter, etc.) for everyone on this planet to live an above average lifestyle. We have the technology to supply virtually free energy(geothermal) and we have more than enough food to feed double the population of the earth. There are millions of empty homes across the nation, more than enough to provide shelter for all. You are looking at this all wrong. The question you should be asking is not whether there is enough money for all to live a decent life, but whether there are enough resources. The problem the proponents of the current monetary paradigm face is the fact that if the illusion of scarcity is not maintained, the entire system collapses. Overpopulation is not the problem, just another excuse to exert additional control over the people who are not chosen.