Peace is not just a tactic, it has intrinsic value

[kywul]

'Tis the season when many of us celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. As Jesus preached, it is rarely easy to do the right thing. Hence I think the protestors suffering police brutality for demanding economic justice deserve our thanks and praise; not only for standing on the side of the poor, but for remaining non-violent in spite of being beaten for exercising their constitutional rights. It is easy to allow oneself to counter violence with violence. Albert Camus understood the importance of remaining peaceful in trying to make a better future:

From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood. His only existence, in the midst of suffering and oppression, was contained in this identity. The same movement, which intended to affirm him, thus brings an end to his existence. He can claim that some, or even almost all, are with him. But if one single human being is missing in the irreplaceable world of fraternity, then this world is immediately depopulated. If we are not, then I am not.... The rebels, who have decided to gain their ends through violence and murder, have in vain replaced, in order to preserve the hope of existing, "We are" by the "We shall be." When the murder and the victim have disappeared, the community will provide its own justification without them. The exception having lasted its appointed time, the rule will once more become possible. On the level of history, as in individual life, murder is thus a desperate exception or it is nothing. The disturbance that it brings to the order of things offers no hope of a future; it is an exception and therefore it can be neither utilitarian nor systematic as the purely historical attitude would have it. It is the limit that can be reached but once, after which one must die. The rebel has only one way of reconciling himself with his act of murder if he allows himself to be led into performing it: to accept his own death and sacrifice. He kills and dies so that it shall be clear that murder is impossible. He demonstrates that, in reality, he prefers the "We are" to the "We shall be."

[logroller]

:yawn:

[fj1200]

'Tis the season when many of us celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. As Jesus preached, it is rarely easy to do the right thing. Hence I think the protestors suffering police brutality for demanding economic justice deserve our thanks and praise; not only for standing on the side of the poor, but for remaining non-violent in spite of being beaten for exercising their constitutional rights. It is easy to allow oneself to counter violence with violence. Albert Camus understood the importance of remaining peaceful in trying to make a better future:

Jesus didn't demand that the Romans increase taxes on the wealthiest to provide for "free" presents primarily to the middle class.

[CSM]

I think reading that stuff just made my cataracts worse!

[revelarts]

'Tis the season when many of us celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. As Jesus preached, it is rarely easy to do the right thing. Hence I think the protestors suffering police brutality for demanding economic justice deserve our thanks and praise; not only for standing on the side of the poor, but for remaining non-violent in spite of being beaten for exercising their constitutional rights. It is easy to allow oneself to counter violence with violence. Albert Camus understood the importance of remaining peaceful in trying to make a better future:
From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood. His only existence, in the midst of suffering and oppression, was contained in this identity. The same movement, which intended to affirm him, thus brings an end to his existence. He can claim that some, or even almost all, are with him. But if one single human being is missing in the irreplaceable world of fraternity, then this world is immediately depopulated. If we are not, then I am not.... The rebels, who have decided to gain their ends through violence and murder, have in vain replaced, in order to preserve the hope of existing, "We are" by the "We shall be." When the murder and the victim have disappeared, the community will provide its own justification without them. The exception having lasted its appointed time, the rule will once more become possible. On the level of history, as in individual life, murder is thus a desperate exception or it is nothing. The disturbance that it brings to the order of things offers no hope of a future; it is an exception and therefore it can be neither utilitarian nor systematic as the purely historical attitude would have it. It is the limit that can be reached but once, after which one must die. The rebel has only one way of reconciling himself with his act of murder if he allows himself to be led into performing it: to accept his own death and sacrifice. He kills and dies so that it shall be clear that murder is impossible. He demonstrates that, in reality, he prefers the "We are" to the "We shall be."


welcome to the board Kywul.

While I'm not a pacific I respect anyone who is on religious or philosophical grounds. It's one of the most courageous positions to take. Though I think God does not demands or expects us to take a completely nonviolent stance at all times or at all cost. However there's no doubt that peace and nonviolence should our default and preferred position always.


"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

[LuvRPgrl]

anytime I cant sleep at night, I will just re read this thread starter

[kywul]

LMAO! I didn't think Camus was that boring. Sorry.

I don't support a welfare state either. In fact, I am totally opposed to big government, and wish we could live in a world without governments at all actually, but that's not possible today. #Occupy doesn't want to tax the hell out of the rich so deadbeats can take their welfare check to the tavern. What they are protesting is an economic system designed to screw most people over. Economies all over the world are going to hell because those in power keep tweaking the system so they get an even larger slice of the pie. #Occupy exists because people are sick of being left with the crumbs, and if this movement doesn't grow into a revolution, then in fifty years we are going to live in a world of neo-feudalism where the world's elite are scattered around the globe while the rest are too uneducated to even realize that life isn't suppose to suck so much. The US will join the third world countries and most of us will work in sweatshops. It's not that I want government to take money from corporations to give to the unemployed. I don't want corporations to exist at all. Community living is either the future or we don't have a future at all.

[ConHog]

'Tis the season when many of us celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. As Jesus preached, it is rarely easy to do the right thing. Hence I think the protestors suffering police brutality for demanding economic justice deserve our thanks and praise; not only for standing on the side of the poor, but for remaining non-violent in spite of being beaten for exercising their constitutional rights. It is easy to allow oneself to counter violence with violence. Albert Camus understood the importance of remaining peaceful in trying to make a better future:

From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood. His only existence, in the midst of suffering and oppression, was contained in this identity. The same movement, which intended to affirm him, thus brings an end to his existence. He can claim that some, or even almost all, are with him. But if one single human being is missing in the irreplaceable world of fraternity, then this world is immediately depopulated. If we are not, then I am not.... The rebels, who have decided to gain their ends through violence and murder, have in vain replaced, in order to preserve the hope of existing, "We are" by the "We shall be." When the murder and the victim have disappeared, the community will provide its own justification without them. The exception having lasted its appointed time, the rule will once more become possible. On the level of history, as in individual life, murder is thus a desperate exception or it is nothing. The disturbance that it brings to the order of things offers no hope of a future; it is an exception and therefore it can be neither utilitarian nor systematic as the purely historical attitude would have it. It is the limit that can be reached but once, after which one must die. The rebel has only one way of reconciling himself with his act of murder if he allows himself to be led into performing it: to accept his own death and sacrifice. He kills and dies so that it shall be clear that murder is impossible. He demonstrates that, in reality, he prefers the "We are" to the "We shall be."


You don't get to attack the police and then hide behind "police brutality" when they respond with force. Fuck those idiots.

[logroller]

LMAO! I didn't think Camus was that boring. Sorry.

I don't support a welfare state either. In fact, I am totally opposed to big government, and wish we could live in a world without governments at all actually, but that's not possible today. #Occupy doesn't want to tax the hell out of the rich so deadbeats can take their welfare check to the tavern. What they are protesting is an economic system designed to screw most people over. Economies all over the world are going to hell because those in power keep tweaking the system so they get an even larger slice of the pie. #Occupy exists because people are sick of being left with the crumbs, and if this movement doesn't grow into a revolution, then in fifty years we are going to live in a world of neo-feudalism where the world's elite are scattered around the globe while the rest are too uneducated to even realize that life isn't suppose to suck so much. The US will join the third world countries and most of us will work in sweatshops. It's not that I want government to take money from corporations to give to the unemployed. I don't want corporations to exist at all. Community living is either the future or we don't have a future at all.

Ahhhhh..Marxism isn't possible, so communism is must be. Communism isn't new. In fact, its been around far longer than 50 years. So it must have had time to develop into the system you prefer. Can you name a communist nation which has a higher standard of living than our nation?

The problem is cronyism, not capitalism. Correcting this requires people to make individual decisions based on the best information. Information like how entitlements and negative tax rates for the lowest two quintiles effectively dissuade them from making more money and acquiring wealth, and how loopholes for the top are paid for by the 60-80% (upper middle class) heavy tax burden. That's the mechanism, changing that requires people being informed and taking the progressiveness out of the tax structure-- making one want to earn more without losing more.

Your utopian sentiments may make a nice toast, but the sobering reality of human nature is primarily that of selfish motivation; when you wake up with a headache in the morning, you take an aspirin for your own satisfaction, not to enrich BigPharma. Though I've heard coca leaves are good for that; but alas, that's illegal~ cronyism, get it?

[darin]

Peace is the exception. Humans are like beasts - our very DNA dictates violence and struggle. The key isn't to abolish violence - it's to use violence to beat evil.

[fj1200]

LMAO! I didn't think Camus was that boring. Sorry.

I don't support a welfare state either. In fact, I am totally opposed to big government, and wish we could live in a world without governments at all actually, but that's not possible today. #Occupy doesn't want to tax the hell out of the rich so deadbeats can take their welfare check to the tavern. What they are protesting is an economic system designed to screw most people over. Economies all over the world are going to hell because those in power keep tweaking the system so they get an even larger slice of the pie. #Occupy exists because people are sick of being left with the crumbs, and if this movement doesn't grow into a revolution, then in fifty years we are going to live in a world of neo-feudalism where the world's elite are scattered around the globe while the rest are too uneducated to even realize that life isn't suppose to suck so much. The US will join the third world countries and most of us will work in sweatshops. It's not that I want government to take money from corporations to give to the unemployed. I don't want corporations to exist at all. Community living is either the future or we don't have a future at all.

The problem isn't Camus. ;)

Your wants are based on a misread of the problem and a vision of the future that is nowhere close to possible. log nailed it.

[ConHog]

Ahhhhh..Marxism isn't possible, so communism is must be. Communism isn't new. In fact, its been around far longer than 50 years. So it must have had time to develop into the system you prefer. Can you name a communist nation which has a higher standard of living than our nation?

The problem is cronyism, not capitalism. Correcting this requires people to make individual decisions based on the best information. Information like how entitlements and negative tax rates for the lowest two quintiles effectively dissuade them from making more money and acquiring wealth, and how loopholes for the top are paid for by the 60-80% (upper middle class) heavy tax burden. That's the mechanism, changing that requires people being informed and taking the progressiveness out of the tax structure-- making one want to earn more without losing more.

Your utopian sentiments may make a nice toast, but the sobering reality of human nature is primarily that of selfish motivation; when you wake up with a headache in the morning, you take an aspirin for your own satisfaction, not to enrich BigPharma. Though I've heard coca leaves are good for that; but alas, that's illegal~ cronyism, get it?


Nailed.

Communism is great in theory, but the reality is there will ALWAYS be those who believe they deserve more than anyone else, and if they don't have a legal means for obtaining such (IE capitalism) well then they will resort to more nefarious ways of making sure things aren't equal.

[kywul]

Kinda surprised that people would equate what I said with communism. No I don't believe in communism at all; I agree with quite a few things Marx wrote, but for the most part I disagree with him. Community living is as different from Marxism as it is from the corporatist society we now have in the United States, with a strong federal government basically controlled by the corporations.

What I am calling for is far from utopian for the same reasons as it is different from Marxism. Autonomous communities is the very opposite of some ideal model for society that would supposedly alleviate all the problems. It is allowing decisions to be made locally, without the interference of distant institutions whether they be corporations or governments.

One thing which I definitely agree with Marx on is that in capitalist society capital tends to become concentrated over time. (Einstein, for one, agreed). Thus, trying to stop cronyism is a band-aid solution. Concentrated capital means concentrated power. With the masses disempowered they will be ill-equipped to create a corruption-free society, and will at best be able to impose regulations after the fact (and things have gotten so bad today that we can't even do that without being accused of being socialists or communists or some other bullshit).

The idea that humans are primarily motivated out of selfishness is way outdated. It was thoroughly discredited by Kropotkin long ago, and sociologists and anthropologists and many other scientific fields have proved beyond a doubt that our species is extremely social. Of course, that's pretty obvious unless you've been raised in an extremely capitalist dog-eat-dog culture. For several tens of thousands of years our ancestors lived not as individuals fighting it out, but as tightly-knit bands that were largely egalitarian. Which brings us back to why a community-based society is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. It's in our nature to want such a society, but there are powerful forces to fight to make it possible.

And if you think this is far from what Camus yearned for, you obviously haven't read The Rebel

Attacking police and then crying "police brutality!"? Really? Are you really that misinformed ConHog? Wow.

[Gunny]

'Tis the season when many of us celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. As Jesus preached, it is rarely easy to do the right thing. Hence I think the protestors suffering police brutality for demanding economic justice deserve our thanks and praise; not only for standing on the side of the poor, but for remaining non-violent in spite of being beaten for exercising their constitutional rights. It is easy to allow oneself to counter violence with violence. Albert Camus understood the importance of remaining peaceful in trying to make a better future:
From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood. His only existence, in the midst of suffering and oppression, was contained in this identity. The same movement, which intended to affirm him, thus brings an end to his existence. He can claim that some, or even almost all, are with him. But if one single human being is missing in the irreplaceable world of fraternity, then this world is immediately depopulated. If we are not, then I am not.... The rebels, who have decided to gain their ends through violence and murder, have in vain replaced, in order to preserve the hope of existing, "We are" by the "We shall be." When the murder and the victim have disappeared, the community will provide its own justification without them. The exception having lasted its appointed time, the rule will once more become possible. On the level of history, as in individual life, murder is thus a desperate exception or it is nothing. The disturbance that it brings to the order of things offers no hope of a future; it is an exception and therefore it can be neither utilitarian nor systematic as the purely historical attitude would have it. It is the limit that can be reached but once, after which one must die. The rebel has only one way of reconciling himself with his act of murder if he allows himself to be led into performing it: to accept his own death and sacrifice. He kills and dies so that it shall be clear that murder is impossible. He demonstrates that, in reality, he prefers the "We are" to the "We shall be."


Which protesters would you be speaking of? The OWS crowd? Is there a name for this special little world of yours? They are not suffering police brutality, and they damned-sure aren't standing up for the "poor". They are standing up for their own slefishness and laziness and presumption of entitilement.

They are not exercising any Constitutional Right. The Constitution allows people to redress grievances. It doesn't say a thing about having the Right to disrupt the lives of others acting like selfish little brats denied their demands.

They don't deserve thanks and praise. They deserve nothing better than contempt for their whiny, gutless behavior and cradle to grave mentality.

[fj1200]

And if you think this is far from what Camus yearned for, you obviously haven't read The Rebel

See? This is your problem; you double down on an obscure reference which no one is responding to in the first place by responding to a book with no indication of what it adds. Just as pointless as not responding directly when people ask you questions.

[LuvRPgrl]

Kinda surprised that people would equate what I said with communism. No I don't believe in communism at all; I agree with quite a few things Marx wrote, but for the most part I disagree with him. Community living is as different from Marxism as it is from the corporatist society we now have in the United States, with a strong federal government basically controlled by the corporations.

What I am calling for is far from utopian for the same reasons as it is different from Marxism. Autonomous communities is the very opposite of some ideal model for society that would supposedly alleviate all the problems. It is allowing decisions to be made locally, without the interference of distant institutions whether they be corporations or governments.

One thing which I definitely agree with Marx on is that in capitalist society capital tends to become concentrated over time. (Einstein, for one, agreed). Thus, trying to stop cronyism is a band-aid solution. Concentrated capital means concentrated power. With the masses disempowered they will be ill-equipped to create a corruption-free society, and will at best be able to impose regulations after the fact (and things have gotten so bad today that we can't even do that without being accused of being socialists or communists or some other bullshit).

The idea that humans are primarily motivated out of selfishness is way outdated. It was thoroughly discredited by Kropotkin long ago, and sociologists and anthropologists and many other scientific fields have proved beyond a doubt that our species is extremely social. Of course, that's pretty obvious unless you've been raised in an extremely capitalist dog-eat-dog culture. For several tens of thousands of years our ancestors lived not as individuals fighting it out, but as tightly-knit bands that were largely egalitarian. Which brings us back to why a community-based society is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. It's in our nature to want such a society, but there are powerful forces to fight to make it possible.

And if you think this is far from what Camus yearned for, you obviously haven't read The Rebel

Attacking police and then crying "police brutality!"? Really? Are you really that misinformed ConHog? Wow.

There are lots of places in the world that are like that, go ahead and move. Very few in the US or Europe want to live like that, so its useless trying to change anyones mind on that.

[ConHog]

Kinda surprised that people would equate what I said with communism. No I don't believe in communism at all; I agree with quite a few things Marx wrote, but for the most part I disagree with him. Community living is as different from Marxism as it is from the corporatist society we now have in the United States, with a strong federal government basically controlled by the corporations.

What I am calling for is far from utopian for the same reasons as it is different from Marxism. Autonomous communities is the very opposite of some ideal model for society that would supposedly alleviate all the problems. It is allowing decisions to be made locally, without the interference of distant institutions whether they be corporations or governments.

One thing which I definitely agree with Marx on is that in capitalist society capital tends to become concentrated over time. (Einstein, for one, agreed). Thus, trying to stop cronyism is a band-aid solution. Concentrated capital means concentrated power. With the masses disempowered they will be ill-equipped to create a corruption-free society, and will at best be able to impose regulations after the fact (and things have gotten so bad today that we can't even do that without being accused of being socialists or communists or some other bullshit).

The idea that humans are primarily motivated out of selfishness is way outdated. It was thoroughly discredited by Kropotkin long ago, and sociologists and anthropologists and many other scientific fields have proved beyond a doubt that our species is extremely social. Of course, that's pretty obvious unless you've been raised in an extremely capitalist dog-eat-dog culture. For several tens of thousands of years our ancestors lived not as individuals fighting it out, but as tightly-knit bands that were largely egalitarian. Which brings us back to why a community-based society is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. It's in our nature to want such a society, but there are powerful forces to fight to make it possible.

And if you think this is far from what Camus yearned for, you obviously haven't read The Rebel

Attacking police and then crying "police brutality!"? Really? Are you really that misinformed ConHog? Wow.

All of your other gobbleygook aside. Do you deny that in almost every clash between the OWS folks and the police it has been the OWS scum who have struck first then when hit back hard they cry that the police brutalized them.

Actually that reminds me of a situation I just encountered my own self, but I suppose that is for another thread.

[kywul]

Gunny, it is the power elite who have the most outrageous sense of entitlement, and it is that, perhaps more than anything else, that everybody in OWS are opposed to. Fortunately I have a job, and it is in my spare time that I support #Occupy. We are opposed to them running their companies into the ground by gambling with other's peoples money in the hopes of making a profit. And when their addiction to greed ended with them squandering other people's livelihood, the people lost out. And then what happened? We were told that these big banks are just too big to fail, and so billions of tax dollars went to keep them afloat. Then what happened? The big losers running these companies were rewarded record bonuses with the taxpayers money. This is an inflated sense of entitlement. Many laws were broken, even the government admits to that. But for corrupt reasons nobody has been put in jail for their crimes, years after their pursuit of greed has sent the global economy into free-fall. This is economic injustice and that is why people are protesting. We are told to tighten our belts while the fat cats engorge on the feast that we the people produce with our labor, yet are denied from joining in. And we are told to shut up and look for jobs that don't exist. To shut up and stop doing what it is our founding fathers did: fight for economic justice. You will not hear this in the mass media because it has been swallowed up by the news corporations who go to great lengths to please corporations in exchange for advertising dollars. Don't listen to their lies.

You hear about the occasional protestor lashing back out at the police, but I myself have never witnessed a protestor stupid enough to do what the police want: respond violently to violent provocations by the police, so that they can justify brute force to shut down demonstrations. Maybe the following is what you speak of ConHog?

Protestors violently try to assist this Iraq war vet protestor, who was protected by the police when they shot a tear gas canister at his head, and then served by them when they just stood watching his immobile, injured body.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHKYUJZghYo&feature=related

The raging, violent elderly that can only be subdued by hosing them in the face with pepper spray.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/11/16/elderly-woman-blasted-with-pepper-spray-how-the-photo-happened/

Protestors violently standing still with their arms locked together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4

Protestors violently sitting down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIccco4PRRk

Protestors violently submitting to the confines of a “free speech zone” (I'm sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment). The Bill of Rights is dead. Most people in this country don't realize it because they never exercise their rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig


There are many places where communities can live without constant interference and imposed authority? Really? Not that I know of. And even if that were true, nothing could ever make me leave my own country. It's my country and I will always work to change it for the better. The Spaniards tried to erect local autonomy in 1936, and these efforts were very successful in meeting the people's needs. What the people at the time were not successful at was fighting off a right-wing military machine. The world is dominated by strong nation-states, the most powerful of which impose economic hegemony on the rest of the world via multinational corporations. You can conquer militarily: the British Empire screwed over countries like China and India, for example. And the only way countries such as these have gained freedom from imperialism is by erecting strong centralized governments of their own. You can also conquer economically, which is much more thorough, subtle and effective: third world countries host sweatshops because the peoples there are desperate for work due to geographic displacement and/or cultural disintegration. It's not that human beings choose to be ruled over. It's that the world is largely made up of those who have won the wars, and those with the guns have the power to repress their own people. People don't want real community you say? I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I think a yearning for community is what liberals and conservatives, the left and the right, red states and blue states (you know, the usual illusory divisions propagated by the mass media so that the power elite can "divide and conquer" the vast majority of this country's people) share the most.
http://www.alternet.org/story/153624/can_gift_exchange_fix_the_problems_of_capitalism_a nd_rebuild_our_lost_community_/

Of course, for real community to be possible then people have to have a mindset of cooperation and not competition. Our society is extremely competitive, and cooperation is basically shunned unless it's "quid pro quo." The belief that human nature is fundamentally competitive is particular to extreme cultures such as our own. Deep down we are a very cooperative species--we are just taught to repress it. Proof lies in the fact that before the relatively recent rise of money-based economies, gift-based economies were the rule. Long ago people didn't give to others in their community only to get something in return. Rather, people provided goods and services to each other because that's just how things were done, and a process of mutual gain was the natural result of such cooperative behavior. Thus, to deny that a society can run smoothly based on cooperation is to deny the vast majority of human history.

Ok fj1200, here's some passages from The Rebel, in response to your response "The problem isn't Camus.":

"Man is born into a world of production and social relations. The unequal opportunities of different lands, the more or less rapid improvements in the means of production, and the struggle for life have rapidly created social inequalities that have been crystallized into antagonisms between production and distribution; and consequently into class struggles. These struggles and antagonisms are the motive power of history. Slavery in ancient times and feudal bondage were stages on a long road that led to the artisanship of the classical centuries when the producer was master of the means of production. At this moment the opening of world trade routes and the discovery of new outlets demanded a less provincial form of production. The contradiction between the method of production and the new demands of distribution already announces the end of the regime of small-scale agricultural and industrial production. The industrial revolution, the invention of steam appliances, and competition for outlets inevitably led to the expropriation of the small proprietor and to the introduction of large-scale production. The means of production are then concentrated in the hands of those who are able to buy them; the real producers, the workers, now only dispose of the strength of their arms, which can be sold to the "man with the money." Thus bourgeois capitalism is defined by the separation of the producer from the means of production."

"It has undoubtedly been correct to emphasize the ethical demands that form the basis of the Marxist dream. It must, in all fairness, be said, before examining the check to Marxism, that in them lies the real greatness of Marx. The very core of his theory was that work is profoundly dignified and unjustly despised. He rebelled against the degradation of work to the level of a commodity and of the worker to the level of an object. He reminded the privileged that their privileges were not divine and that property was not an eternal right. He gave a bad conscience to those who had no right to a clear conscience, and denounced with unparalleled profundity a class whose crime is not so much having had power as having used it to advance the ends of a mediocre society deprived of any real nobility. To him we owe the idea which is the despair of our times—but here despair is worth more than any hope—that when work is a degradation, it is not life, even though it occupies every moment of a life. Who, despite the pretensions of this society, can sleep in it in peace when they know that it derives its mediocre pleasures from the work of millions of dead souls? By demanding for the worker real riches, which are not the riches of money but of leisure and creation, he has reclaimed, despite all appearance to the contrary, the dignity of man. In doing so, and this can be said with conviction, he never wanted the additional degradation that has been imposed on man in his name. One of his phrases, which for once is clear and trenchant, forever withholds from his triumphant disciples the greatness and the humanity which once were his: 'An end that requires unjust means is not a just end.'"

"If... rebellion could found a philosophy it would be a philosophy of limits, of calculated ignorance, and of risk. He who does not know everything cannot kill everything. The rebel, far from making an absolute of history, rejects and disputes it, in the name of a concept that he has of his own nature. He refuses his condition, and his condition to a large extent is historical."

"Moderation is not the opposite of rebellion. Rebellion in itself is moderation, and it demands, defends, and re-creates it throughout history and its eternal disturbances. The very origin of this value guarantees us that it can only be partially destroyed. Moderation, born of rebellion, can only live by rebellion. It is a perpetual conflict, continually created and mastered by the intelligence. It does not triumph either in the impossible or in the abyss. It finds its equilibrium through them. Whatever we may do, excess will always keep its place in the heart of man, in the place where solitude is found. We all carry within us our places of exile, our crimes and our ravages. But our task is not to unleash them on the world; it is to fight them in ourselves and in others. Rebellion, the secular will not to surrender of which Barres speaks, is still today at the basis of the struggle. Origin of form, source of real life, it keeps us always erect in the savage, formless movement of history."

And no, I didn't have anything better to do today.

[Gunny]

Gunny, it is the power elite who have the most outrageous sense of entitlement, and it is that, perhaps more than anything else, that everybody in OWS are opposed to. Fortunately I have a job, and it is in my spare time that I support #Occupy. We are opposed to them running their companies into the ground by gambling with other's peoples money in the hopes of making a profit. And when their addiction to greed ended with them squandering other people's livelihood, the people lost out. And then what happened? We were told that these big banks are just too big to fail, and so billions of tax dollars went to keep them afloat. Then what happened? The big losers running these companies were rewarded record bonuses with the taxpayers money. This is an inflated sense of entitlement. Many laws were broken, even the government admits to that. But for corrupt reasons nobody has been put in jail for their crimes, years after their pursuit of greed has sent the global economy into free-fall. This is economic injustice and that is why people are protesting. We are told to tighten our belts while the fat cats engorge on the feast that we the people produce with our labor, yet are denied from joining in. And we are told to shut up and look for jobs that don't exist. To shut up and stop doing what it is our founding fathers did: fight for economic justice. You will not hear this in the mass media because it has been swallowed up by the news corporations who go to great lengths to please corporations in exchange for advertising dollars. Don't listen to their lies.

You hear about the occasional protestor lashing back out at the police, but I myself have never witnessed a protestor stupid enough to do what the police want: respond violently to violent provocations by the police, so that they can justify brute force to shut down demonstrations. Maybe the following is what you speak of ConHog?

Protestors violently try to assist this Iraq war vet protestor, who was protected by the police when they shot a tear gas canister at his head, and then served by them when they just stood watching his immobile, injured body.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHKYUJZghYo&feature=related

The raging, violent elderly that can only be subdued by hosing them in the face with pepper spray.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/11/16/elderly-woman-blasted-with-pepper-spray-how-the-photo-happened/

Protestors violently standing still with their arms locked together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4

Protestors violently sitting down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIccco4PRRk

Protestors violently submitting to the confines of a “free speech zone” (I'm sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment). The Bill of Rights is dead. Most people in this country don't realize it because they never exercise their rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig


There are many places where communities can live without constant interference and imposed authority? Really? Not that I know of. And even if that were true, nothing could ever make me leave my own country. It's my country and I will always work to change it for the better. The Spaniards tried to erect local autonomy in 1936, and these efforts were very successful in meeting the people's needs. What the people at the time were not successful at was fighting off a right-wing military machine. The world is dominated by strong nation-states, the most powerful of which impose economic hegemony on the rest of the world via multinational corporations. You can conquer militarily: the British Empire screwed over countries like China and India, for example. And the only way countries such as these have gained freedom from imperialism is by erecting strong centralized governments of their own. You can also conquer economically, which is much more thorough, subtle and effective: third world countries host sweatshops because the peoples there are desperate for work due to geographic displacement and/or cultural disintegration. It's not that human beings choose to be ruled over. It's that the world is largely made up of those who have won the wars, and those with the guns have the power to repress their own people. People don't want real community you say? I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I think a yearning for community is what liberals and conservatives, the left and the right, red states and blue states (you know, the usual illusory divisions propagated by the mass media so that the power elite can "divide and conquer" the vast majority of this country's people) share the most.
http://www.alternet.org/story/153624/can_gift_exchange_fix_the_problems_of_capitalism_a nd_rebuild_our_lost_community_/

Of course, for real community to be possible then people have to have a mindset of cooperation and not competition. Our society is extremely competitive, and cooperation is basically shunned unless it's "quid pro quo." The belief that human nature is fundamentally competitive is particular to extreme cultures such as our own. Deep down we are a very cooperative species--we are just taught to repress it. Proof lies in the fact that before the relatively recent rise of money-based economies, gift-based economies were the rule. Long ago people didn't give to others in their community only to get something in return. Rather, people provided goods and services to each other because that's just how things were done, and a process of mutual gain was the natural result of such cooperative behavior. Thus, to deny that a society can run smoothly based on cooperation is to deny the vast majority of human history.

Ok fj1200, here's some passages from The Rebel, in response to your response "The problem isn't Camus.":

"Man is born into a world of production and social relations. The unequal opportunities of different lands, the more or less rapid improvements in the means of production, and the struggle for life have rapidly created social inequalities that have been crystallized into antagonisms between production and distribution; and consequently into class struggles. These struggles and antagonisms are the motive power of history. Slavery in ancient times and feudal bondage were stages on a long road that led to the artisanship of the classical centuries when the producer was master of the means of production. At this moment the opening of world trade routes and the discovery of new outlets demanded a less provincial form of production. The contradiction between the method of production and the new demands of distribution already announces the end of the regime of small-scale agricultural and industrial production. The industrial revolution, the invention of steam appliances, and competition for outlets inevitably led to the expropriation of the small proprietor and to the introduction of large-scale production. The means of production are then concentrated in the hands of those who are able to buy them; the real producers, the workers, now only dispose of the strength of their arms, which can be sold to the "man with the money." Thus bourgeois capitalism is defined by the separation of the producer from the means of production."

"It has undoubtedly been correct to emphasize the ethical demands that form the basis of the Marxist dream. It must, in all fairness, be said, before examining the check to Marxism, that in them lies the real greatness of Marx. The very core of his theory was that work is profoundly dignified and unjustly despised. He rebelled against the degradation of work to the level of a commodity and of the worker to the level of an object. He reminded the privileged that their privileges were not divine and that property was not an eternal right. He gave a bad conscience to those who had no right to a clear conscience, and denounced with unparalleled profundity a class whose crime is not so much having had power as having used it to advance the ends of a mediocre society deprived of any real nobility. To him we owe the idea which is the despair of our times—but here despair is worth more than any hope—that when work is a degradation, it is not life, even though it occupies every moment of a life. Who, despite the pretensions of this society, can sleep in it in peace when they know that it derives its mediocre pleasures from the work of millions of dead souls? By demanding for the worker real riches, which are not the riches of money but of leisure and creation, he has reclaimed, despite all appearance to the contrary, the dignity of man. In doing so, and this can be said with conviction, he never wanted the additional degradation that has been imposed on man in his name. One of his phrases, which for once is clear and trenchant, forever withholds from his triumphant disciples the greatness and the humanity which once were his: 'An end that requires unjust means is not a just end.'"

"If... rebellion could found a philosophy it would be a philosophy of limits, of calculated ignorance, and of risk. He who does not know everything cannot kill everything. The rebel, far from making an absolute of history, rejects and disputes it, in the name of a concept that he has of his own nature. He refuses his condition, and his condition to a large extent is historical."

"Moderation is not the opposite of rebellion. Rebellion in itself is moderation, and it demands, defends, and re-creates it throughout history and its eternal disturbances. The very origin of this value guarantees us that it can only be partially destroyed. Moderation, born of rebellion, can only live by rebellion. It is a perpetual conflict, continually created and mastered by the intelligence. It does not triumph either in the impossible or in the abyss. It finds its equilibrium through them. Whatever we may do, excess will always keep its place in the heart of man, in the place where solitude is found. We all carry within us our places of exile, our crimes and our ravages. But our task is not to unleash them on the world; it is to fight them in ourselves and in others. Rebellion, the secular will not to surrender of which Barres speaks, is still today at the basis of the struggle. Origin of form, source of real life, it keeps us always erect in the savage, formless movement of history."

And no, I didn't have anything better to do today.

Try again. I don't always agree with unadulterated grred, but I can respect the fact they EARNED it. I have no respect for losers who demand that those who have earned subsidize the fact they are too lazy to. If these OWS fags worked half as hard at getting a job or working one as they do demanding what someone else has earned, there'd be no issue here.

[Abbey Marie]

'Tis the season when many of us celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. As Jesus preached, it is rarely easy to do the right thing. Hence I think the protestors suffering police brutality for demanding economic justice deserve our thanks and praise; not only for standing on the side of the poor, but for remaining non-violent in spite of being beaten for exercising their constitutional rights. It is easy to allow oneself to counter violence with violence. Albert Camus understood the importance of remaining peaceful in trying to make a better future:
From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood. His only existence, in the midst of suffering and oppression, was contained in this identity. The same movement, which intended to affirm him, thus brings an end to his existence. He can claim that some, or even almost all, are with him. But if one single human being is missing in the irreplaceable world of fraternity, then this world is immediately depopulated. If we are not, then I am not.... The rebels, who have decided to gain their ends through violence and murder, have in vain replaced, in order to preserve the hope of existing, "We are" by the "We shall be." When the murder and the victim have disappeared, the community will provide its own justification without them. The exception having lasted its appointed time, the rule will once more become possible. On the level of history, as in individual life, murder is thus a desperate exception or it is nothing. The disturbance that it brings to the order of things offers no hope of a future; it is an exception and therefore it can be neither utilitarian nor systematic as the purely historical attitude would have it. It is the limit that can be reached but once, after which one must die. The rebel has only one way of reconciling himself with his act of murder if he allows himself to be led into performing it: to accept his own death and sacrifice. He kills and dies so that it shall be clear that murder is impossible. He demonstrates that, in reality, he prefers the "We are" to the "We shall be."


I may not agree with your ideas, but I appreciate your sincerity and politeness. Welcome to the board. :cool:

[ConHog]

Try again. I don't always agree with unadulterated grred, but I can respect the fact they EARNED it. I have no respect for losers who demand that those who have earned subsidize the fact they are too lazy to. If these OWS fags worked half as hard at getting a job or working one as they do demanding what someone else has earned, there'd be no issue here.

I love the stupidity of saying that people are greedy for wanting to keep what they earned.... That's not greed. that's just right.

[logroller]

Gunny, it is the power elite who have the most outrageous sense of entitlement, and it is that, perhaps more than anything else, that everybody in OWS are opposed to. Fortunately I have a job, and it is in my spare time that I support #Occupy. We are opposed to them running their companies into the ground by gambling with other's peoples money in the hopes of making a profit. And when their addiction to greed ended with them squandering other people's livelihood, the people lost out. And then what happened? We were told that these big banks are just too big to fail, and so billions of tax dollars went to keep them afloat. Then what happened? The big losers running these companies were rewarded record bonuses with the taxpayers money. This is an inflated sense of entitlement. Many laws were broken, even the government admits to that. But for corrupt reasons nobody has been put in jail for their crimes, years after their pursuit of greed has sent the global economy into free-fall. This is economic injustice and that is why people are protesting. We are told to tighten our belts while the fat cats engorge on the feast that we the people produce with our labor, yet are denied from joining in. And we are told to shut up and look for jobs that don't exist. To shut up and stop doing what it is our founding fathers did: fight for economic justice. You will not hear this in the mass media because it has been swallowed up by the news corporations who go to great lengths to please corporations in exchange for advertising dollars. Don't listen to their lies.

Agreed; the bank bailouts were stupid; but the founding fathers faced far worse than pepper spray.



There are many places where communities can live without constant interference and imposed authority? Really? Not that I know of. And even if that were true, nothing could ever make me leave my own country. It's my country and I will always work to change it for the better. The Spaniards tried to erect local autonomy in 1936, and these efforts were very successful in meeting the people's needs. What the people at the time were not successful at was fighting off a right-wing military machine. The world is dominated by strong nation-states, the most powerful of which impose economic hegemony on the rest of the world via multinational corporations. You can conquer militarily: the British Empire screwed over countries like China and India, for example. And the only way countries such as these have gained freedom from imperialism is by erecting strong centralized governments of their own. You can also conquer economically, which is much more thorough, subtle and effective: third world countries host sweatshops because the peoples there are desperate for work due to geographic displacement and/or cultural disintegration. It's not that human beings choose to be ruled over. It's that the world is largely made up of those who have won the wars, and those with the guns have the power to repress their own people. People don't want real community you say? I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I think a yearning for community is what liberals and conservatives, the left and the right, red states and blue states (you know, the usual illusory divisions propagated by the mass media so that the power elite can "divide and conquer" the vast majority of this country's people) share the most.
http://www.alternet.org/story/153624/can_gift_exchange_fix_the_problems_of_capitalism_a nd_rebuild_our_lost_community_/

Of course, for real community to be possible then people have to have a mindset of cooperation and not competition. Our society is extremely competitive, and cooperation is basically shunned unless it's "quid pro quo." The belief that human nature is fundamentally competitive is particular to extreme cultures such as our own. Deep down we are a very cooperative species--we are just taught to repress it. Proof lies in the fact that before the relatively recent rise of money-based economies, gift-based economies were the rule. Long ago people didn't give to others in their community only to get something in return. Rather, people provided goods and services to each other because that's just how things were done, and a process of mutual gain was the natural result of such cooperative behavior. Thus, to deny that a society can run smoothly based on cooperation is to deny the vast majority of human history.



Long ago/ Where? Spain, ca 1936; and what happened? Oh yea, they got rolled on, and our stubborn competitive mindset is the reason they're not living as fascists. The business of power IS power; that's been true since the dawn of recorded history.

Its easy to sit in relative peace and splendor and rally against the very mechanisms which provide for our blessed existence. Please name a place and time where mortality rates were what we have now in the US? Why do you think we enjoy stellar medical care, clean water, bounties of food and free time? Shocking as is may seem, its not community cooperation; but rather, the development and investment by corporations operating under the regulatory protection of a sovereign nation, providing for mutual defense in service to a united people in pursuit of happiness.

You wanna donate your time to the soup kitchen, good on ya; but remember where that food came from...I'm doubting it was somebody's backyard.

[fj1200]

Of course, for real community to be possible then people have to have a mindset of cooperation and not competition. Our society is extremely competitive, and cooperation is basically shunned unless it's "quid pro quo."

Ok fj1200, here's some passages from The Rebel, in response to your response "The problem isn't Camus.":

And no, I didn't have anything better to do today.

And?

Oh, and competition doesn't rule out cooperation. Cooperation happens every day within corporations and between corporations.

[kywul]

Agreed; the bank bailouts were stupid; but the founding fathers faced far worse than pepper spray.




Long ago/ Where? Spain, ca 1936; and what happened? Oh yea, they got rolled on, and our stubborn competitive mindset is the reason they're not living as fascists. The business of power IS power; that's been true since the dawn of recorded history.

Its easy to sit in relative peace and splendor and rally against the very mechanisms which provide for our blessed existence. Please name a place and time where mortality rates were what we have now in the US? Why do you think we enjoy stellar medical care, clean water, bounties of food and free time? Shocking as is may seem, its not community cooperation; but rather, the development and investment by corporations operating under the regulatory protection of a sovereign nation, providing for mutual defense in service to a united people in pursuit of happiness.

You wanna donate your time to the soup kitchen, good on ya; but remember where that food came from...I'm doubting it was somebody's backyard.


I already stated why we enjoy such a comfortable (albeit declining) standard of living. Multinational corporations, the most powerful of which have been based here in the US (WWII gave us many international advantages), have for decades exploited the "weakest" countries of the world. Americans have primarily been the customers of these companies, and we have benefited from their neocolonial practices. It was the cheap labor, raw materials, lack of pollution laws, etc. in the world's developing countries which "our" companies have long taken advantage. We are about to reap what we have sown, however. The world's economies have become less and less distinct, globalization has been on the rise, and the power elite no longer recognize borders. Multinational corporations have sold out the manufacturing sector, moving their operations overseas, and the people no longer have the jobs to import goods. We don't really produce anything anymore, making us dependent on imports, but since the middle class is disappearing and the poor will soon have no social safety net, it won't be long until the US is a third world country--like the banana republics where there is an oligarchy in control, and the rest of us have neither economic nor political power.

Perhaps I seem like someone who hates my own country, but that is not at all true. In fact, I think it's because of our freedom-loving traditions that I think there's still a chance to avert a future of neo-feudalism. People need to wake up to the fact that this country's politicians and CEOs do not care about us or our freedoms or our well-being. All the rhetoric about fighting for our freedoms is just that. Maybe if people can see through all the propaganda we can stop boasting about freedom so that we can reclaim it.

I don't want to donate my time to the soup kitchen. My posts should have made that abundantly clear by now. I want a society in which it is not corporations which produce what we consume, but our own communities. It is not shocking to me that community cooperation accounts for almost nothing in this country. I already stated that myself. (Although community gardens do contribute a lot of the food that goes to the needy). That is precisely the problem. Agribusiness is a a wonderful example. Wendell Berry describes the dissolution of America's farming communities in The Unsettlling of America.

Keep your respect for the pigs. They deserve to be wealthy because they have worked so hard to get it. But don't forget to pay the same respect to Mexico's drug cartels, Afghanistan's warlords, and burglars. They all work hard too.

[LuvRPgrl]

I already stated why we enjoy such a comfortable (albeit declining) standard of living. Multinational corporations, the most powerful of which have been based here in the US (WWII gave us many international advantages), have for decades exploited the "weakest" countries of the world. Americans have primarily been the customers of these companies, and we have benefited from their neocolonial practices. It was the cheap labor, raw materials, lack of pollution laws, etc. in the world's developing countries which "our" companies have long taken advantage. We are about to reap what we have sown, however. The world's economies have become less and less distinct, globalization has been on the rise, and the power elite no longer recognize borders. Multinational corporations have sold out the manufacturing sector, moving their operations overseas,.
So,let me get this straight, because our corporations have been using cheap labor overseas for manufacturing, its causing them to sell out and move their corp.'s overseas??

And, how can the SELL OUT and MOVE their corp.'s overseas, I mean, how can they move them if they just sold em?




since the middle class is disappearing and the poor will soon have no social safety net, it won't be long until the US is a third world country--like the banana republics where there is an oligarchy in control, and the rest of us have neither economic nor political power.

.

any stats/facts to support that?

[fj1200]

I want a society in which it is not corporations which produce what we consume, but our own communities.

Why should consumers have to pay more for what they wish to consume?

[ConHog]

Why should consumers have to pay more for what they wish to consume?

Not to mention. Who wants to be limited to enjoying only locally produced products?

[logroller]

I already stated why we enjoy such a comfortable (albeit declining) standard of living.

Perhaps I missed it; was it...?


Multinational corporations,
Indeed; that would be accurate.


the rest of us have neither economic nor political power.

When was the last time you participated in a community action group or business committee? Did you write to your representatives, expressing your concerns? I have, it was addressed. How about writing to a multinational corporation, expressing your concerns for their actions local to yourself? I'm no stranger to disgruntled preponderance, but nothing is a substitute for action. Believe it or not, companies and government alike are responsive to a motivated public who participates using the regular channels; occupy/protesting is not regular, its rebellious.


I think it's because of our freedom-loving traditions that I think there's still a chance to avert a future of neo-feudalism. People need to wake up to the fact that this country's politicians and CEOs do not care about us or our freedoms or our well-being.


By and large, people don't care; government and corps recognize this. I believe Charles Schwab said, "Profits, like sausage, are most revered by those who know the least about what goes into them." Same goes for freedoms in my opinion. An incalculable amount of blood, sweat and tears goes into providing us with what we have in this country. Try living without the amenities provided by corporations; you are FREE to do so.


All the rhetoric about fighting for our freedoms is just that. Maybe if people can see through all the propaganda we can stop boasting about freedom so that we can reclaim it...I want to live in a society in which it is not corporations which produce what we consume, but our own communities.

"We'll all be drinkin that free bubble up, and eatin that rainbow stew."



I don't want to donate my time to the soup kitchen. It is not shocking to me that community cooperation accounts for almost nothing in this country. I already stated that myself. (Although community gardens do contribute a lot of the food that goes to the needy). That is precisely the problem.
So then what, leave other people in the community to do it or let people starve? What exactly is YOUR solution? Have you tried to organize your neighborhood?
You ever tried growing your own food and eating only what was in season and using wood for fuel? That is the level of technology which is sustainable at the community level.


Keep your respect for the pigs. They deserve to be wealthy because they have worked so hard to get it. But don't forget to pay the same respect to Mexico's drug cartels, Afghanistan's warlords, and burglars. They all work hard too.

I think people should be free to use drugs, but that's not really the point. The point is that, in the short term, its easier to take from others then it is to build. that's what warlords, cartels and burglars do. Which is far different from capitalism, free trade, multinational corporations etc. These are examples of cooperation; which enables a society to grow more industrious and a higher std of living/ greater population is sustainable, thus enabling a greater difference between rich and poor as evidenced by a growing middle class. Overall, the standard has risen, and will continue to do so unless, as you argue, we return to isolationist policies. To say the middle class is disappearing is farcical; the wealthy would never let that happen, that's who bears the burden of a progressive tax system.

[ConHog]

psst hey kywul, or whatever.

The standard of living hasn't declined in the last 30 years. Instead , the expectations of the poor have risen. How many "poor" people do you know that drive newer vehicles, everyone in their families have cell phones, eat out every night, and oh yeah have a flat screen television connected to an xbox?

That's not poor my man.

[kywul]

Oh. My. God. I can't help but say I am absolutely stunned at the simple-minded retorts to my posts. It's as if logroller, ConHog, luvRPgrl, Gunny have absolutely no interest in thinking critically about these issues, you just simplify and dumb down the issues in trying not to discern the truth, but to merely win an argument. The only reason I've posted what I have is because I thought maybe there was a chance that reasoning with people would be worth my while.

The crux of the problem, imo, is that the issues I have brought up are not being taken seriously enough. Hence they are not being discussed in a serious manner. The middle class is disappearing. Wall Street is shamelessly looting this country's wealth, they are not "earning" it in any legitimate sense of the word. Our economic system is self-destructing. These are uncontroversial facts. What's sad is that the issues are just brushed off as "gobbledy-gook" because the media is obsessed with reality tv, professional sports, the sex lives of politicians, Obama's proof of citizenship, etc. These are weapons of mass distraction.

I can't justify wasting more time on this forum. For those who are interested in following the real issues, the following links are quite informative:
counterpunch.org
truthdig.com
alternet.org
democracynow.org

[logroller]

Oh. My. God. I can't help but say I am absolutely stunned at the simple-minded retorts to my posts. It's as if logroller, ConHog, luvRPgrl, Gunny have absolutely no interest in thinking critically about these issues, you just simplify and dumb down the issues in trying not to discern the truth, but to merely win an argument. The only reason I've posted what I have is because I thought maybe there was a chance that reasoning with people would be worth my while.

The crux of the problem, imo, is that the issues I have brought up are not being taken seriously enough. Hence they are not being discussed in a serious manner. The middle class is disappearing. Wall Street is shamelessly looting this country's wealth, they are not "earning" it in any legitimate sense of the word. Our economic system is self-destructing. These are uncontroversial facts. What's sad is that the issues are just brushed off as "gobbledy-gook" because the media is obsessed with reality tv, professional sports, the sex lives of politicians, Obama's proof of citizenship, etc. These are weapons of mass distraction.

I can't justify wasting more time on this forum. For those who are interested in following the real issues, the following links are quite informative:


"Simple-minded" ...and I got top billing? Flattery will get you everywhere ;)

You want to discuss these grandiose ideals as if people, or any majority thereof, would be willing to give up the relative ease of the life they have now, and trust me, we've got it easy. So its a tough sell to ask people to step back and cast aside, let alone attack, the mechanisms which has delivered us prosperity unseen in the history of man.

As Jefferson wrote, "... that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." A champion of liberty, Jefferson still owned slaves. In discussing slavery, he borrowed a quote from Tiberious, which i think is relevant here, "We have a wolf by the ears, we can neither control him, nor safely let him go; for we have justice on one scale and self-preservation on the other." There's a time and place to make a stand, but its just not bad enough yet and we must bide our time. To prematurely attack despotic mechanisms would do more to ripen it than bring about its demise.

I suggested that you should consider joining or creating a community service organization. That's a simple way to accomplish the community cooperation you hail as solvent, but that doesn't make me simple-minded. God speed kywul. :salute:

[Gunny]

Oh. My. God. I can't help but say I am absolutely stunned at the simple-minded retorts to my posts. It's as if logroller, ConHog, luvRPgrl, Gunny have absolutely no interest in thinking critically about these issues, you just simplify and dumb down the issues in trying not to discern the truth, but to merely win an argument. The only reason I've posted what I have is because I thought maybe there was a chance that reasoning with people would be worth my while.

The crux of the problem, imo, is that the issues I have brought up are not being taken seriously enough. Hence they are not being discussed in a serious manner. The middle class is disappearing. Wall Street is shamelessly looting this country's wealth, they are not "earning" it in any legitimate sense of the word. Our economic system is self-destructing. These are uncontroversial facts. What's sad is that the issues are just brushed off as "gobbledy-gook" because the media is obsessed with reality tv, professional sports, the sex lives of politicians, Obama's proof of citizenship, etc. These are weapons of mass distraction.

I can't justify wasting more time on this forum. For those who are interested in following the real issues, the following links are quite informative:


No more than I am stunned that a simpleton can actually side with a bunch of do-nothings that think they are entitled to what others have earned. What is there to think about critically here? I go to work so I can give part of my earned pay to support your lame ass because you won't go find a job.

How critical is that? If you think putting your money, income, and or future on the line is not "earning it", then you're just dumb.

You are correct about one thing. The facts ARE uncontroversial. Just not the way you'd like them to be.

Your last line is simple. You can't hang. You want to post in a comfy sounding board where all the ducks quack the same. Feel free to not let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. I have little time and/or patience for lemmings and losers.

Oh, and I deleted your links, thankyouverymuch. Advertise on your own dime.

[fj1200]

The crux of the problem, imo, is that the issues I have brought up are not being taken seriously enough. Hence they are not being discussed in a serious manner. The middle class is disappearing. Wall Street is shamelessly looting this country's wealth, they are not "earning" it in any legitimate sense of the word. Our economic system is self-destructing. These are uncontroversial facts.

That would be your problem; you have not proved your "facts" and even then you would have to tie them to the solution that you propose. It is not "corporatism" that causes your "facts" it is ever increasing intervention by government that causes them. It's rather a paradox that legislators/regulators cause the very things that they seek to remedy. Case in point; Bill Clinton thought that he could limit CEO pay by limiting the tax deductions available to the corporation and as a result, corporations rarely pay more than $1mm in salary but they make up the difference in stock options which balloons compensation beyond previous levels. Also, Congressional Democrats (1990ish) wanted to make the wealthy pay more for yachts, jewelry, etc. which had the effect of the rich no longer buying yachts (domestically at least) which crushed the domestic boat building industry. Who suffered? Blue collar boat builders, not the wealthy. Both of those examples either hurt the middle class or ultimately benefit the wealthy; free enterprise is far more preferred to whatever rules you would impose to advance your vision.

But you've bailed so I guess we'll never hear your rebuttal.