Mono: In some respects I felt as if you were arguing in favor of Heglian
institutions, but I know that is not to be the case, as again, in that
particular scenerio you are again creating yet another great govermental
evil.
I think we are in agreement, and possibly even understand each other.
Callei: "NATURE hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as
that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body
or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the
difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can
thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as
well as he. " Hobbes Leviathan Chapter 8 paragraph one) and
"From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of
our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which
nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to
their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their
delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from
hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than
another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a
convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with
forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his
labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the
like danger of another. " (Same Chapter 8 para 3)
I'd paraphrase, but he explains it better than I could.
____________________ It's like kegel exercises for your throat.~Monolycus
Shade
Fanatic
Posts: 289 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 29/4/2003 at 07:38 AM
I hate to jumpp in on the middle of this one when I've been so busy lately,
but I keep reading an argument that just makes my head spin. People keep
attempting to draw parallels between a political party and Shmeng. Shmeng
is apolitical folks, it's Devin's love child. Child rearing is not a
political process. And no matter what the courts mayt do after the fact,
parents can still snap their childrens' necks if they get to far out of
hand. This site is not built on democratic principles, otheriwse there
would not be a pantheon, nor would all of us be lacking the ability to edit
each other's stories and delete each others comments. A democracy would
only exist if we could all effect each other individualy on an equal level.
This site is not a democracy.
Shmeng is not a republic, peoples vote's bear very little relation to the
chnging of the 'physical' rules of the site. Devin can, and has opted to
turn the world off at times, and it was not the voice of the many, but the
voice a a very select few who were enjoying its existance and the who Devin
liked that kept the site alive. Devin can not be swayed by the popular vote
because he doesn't have any reason to. He can not be voted out, he cannot
be ousted by a political coup, unlike the physical world outside the
electrons of this site, in the event of an attempted palace take-over,
Devin can shut down the site and register the name Shmeng.com for all of
eternity. therefor building a truly impregnable wall around the nation in
question.
In many ways, Shmeng is more like a religion in which we can actually speak
to the head God, and some of the deities. Hell, even our last present
member of the pantheon makes time to come on when she can, But she's also
in the middle of making her own legends. Quite honestly, the sometimes
joking sometimes serious references we make to Devin's godhead are the only
accurate depiction of the site there can be. Devin rules with an absolute
fist, and if he declares someone or something to be in a state of holding
power over the rest of the faithful, Then that person has power over the
faithful until Devin says otherwise. If one of the faithful get's out of
the line, it is only fitting that they be smited. If someone climbs to the
top pf the temple and declares their atheism, well, let the lightning flow,
and if it doesn't come from Devin himself, well how many religions feature
a god who does his/her own dirty work after the first few thousand ticks of
the worlds heart anyway? (In this case, machine beats instead of years)
That is what the trusted few on the pantheon are all about.
To bring this back to the top of the metaphoric page, it is a beautiful
thing that we have a medium and forums in which to discuss our views on
life, politics, and everything else. Just don't get so caught up in the
debate that we make the mistake of declaring the forum and the medium to be
succeptible to the same issues we are discussing. And remember: Shmeng is
not a democracy" Our votes have neither been solcited, nor have they any
power. Shmeng is a power unto its(Devin)self, and I for one wouldn't have
it any other way.
____________________ It is only through the lack of sex that humanity derives the need for an
all encompassing blind love. And in that moment of extreme horniness with
no relief in sight, in that moment can be found the birth of religion.
-Me
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 29/4/2003 at 03:49 PM
I was going to take a few days off, but screw it... I'm already in for a
penny.
Dolo: S'okay. You're not the only one around here that does that.
DK: I'm not sure which underlying evils of Hegelian thought you are
referring to. I've been pretty close to Marxist in everything that I've
laid out so far, and Marx and Engels came directly from the tradition of
Young Hegelians (The primary point of contention being that, for Hegel, the
world is conditioned by ideas and society represents a kind of social
evolution of the spirit, wheras Marx had a distinctly material view and
focused almost entirely upon material conditioning, specifically the means
of production). Squid raised some concerns about the rôle of the
individual in society (which I would downplay as an abstraction that
needn't concern us), but even this can be remedied if he applies Max
Weber's definition of class struggles which overlap Marx's fairly neatly
except for the greater dynamic rôle that the individual plays.
Shade: That was a very nice speech, and I will have to remember it in the
event that anyone actually makes that claim (viz. that Shmeng is a
democracy or even a political body). Since I was the only one who invoked
the name of the website by way of making an illustration, I presume your
comments are aimed at me. Not only did I not say that Shmeng was a
democracy, I stated fairly explicitly that I don't believe that a true
democracy has ever existed. My second comment in which I used the name of
Shmeng (I presume that is the one you are referring to; my first comment
only said that people here have different priorities) was used as a
material example only. You said that you have been busy lately, so it is
understandable that you did not read what I was actually saying as closely
as you otherwise might have before you came running to the rescue. While
Shmeng might not be a political party, it certainly seems to be rife with
office-style politics.
This is not the first forum this kind of thing has happened in. Honestly,
it would help if people actually read what someone was saying before
responding entirely out of context to it. Also, as difficult as it is
sometimes for me not to become defensive, that is a knife that cuts both
ways. If your aim is simply to undermine whatever your opponent says by
any means necessary or take a contrary position simply to be contrary, I
will pick up on that. Both Squid and DK have disagreed with me within the
context of the present debate, and I am completely open to that.
Demonstrate to me where I am wrong, but do not resort to articles of faith,
ingenuine Devil's advocacy, or sophistry. No matter how categorical my
tone might sound, I am interested in debate and not "winning and losing"
fights. Perhaps I can do no better than to quote Montaigne here: "All I
say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not
speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
~M.
Anya
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 29/4/2003 at 04:43 PM
More or less, I agree wholeheartedly that there has not been a full
democracy, if any democracy at all, in America. Perhaps an attempt or so
to make such a system, but all I see is us having freedom of speech...IF
that (if so, I think we're damn lucky to have that, seeing how oppressive
some of our leaders are/have been). Either way, the debates and arguements
have been quite an interesting read.
I would also like to bring up an interesting chain that can be well
lengthened by gluttonous feelings or acts...if care is not taken.
An...interesting pyramid working from the bottom to the top. Hmm...what
was the saying. Ah! Little things build up? Maybe I pointed out
something too obvious, maybe not. Just thought I'd bring this up since
fascism has been brought up in a several previous posts.
Give it time...it might just happen (if not already). Ever since there's
been tormented souls over 9/11, the thoughts of agony and revenge has been
echoing in the human soul. Well, WAY before that...but more revelant in
this generation by the reaction of that event.
fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of
government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
jin·go·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jngg-zm)
n.
Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign
policy; chauvinistic patriotism
nationalism
n 1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]
2: the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are
superior to those of any other nation
pa·tri·ot·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr--tzm)
n.
Love of and devotion to one's country.
Seeing how some things have been going these past years, I am beginning to
fear what may become of America. However, these are just my thoughts. I'd
prefer to live here more than a lot of places in the world...for now. Once
more, my share of weed. *passes it on*
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 29/4/2003 at 06:07 PM
I think I'll just summerize my points that the problem with Democracy is
that it is based on the idea that people as indivuals are free and have
power while providing a structure to prevent total anarchy. While this is
a very seductive idea the unfortunate truth is that the majority of the
human species cannot function as individuals, thus "packs" if yoo will, are
formed and furthermore, the United States from the beginning was never
interested in giving power or liberties to indiviuals, only to the
packs.
If this is because of social conditioning or the human's natural function
is irrelivent, it would only to take effort to give indivuals freedom and
power. However, the packs are directed against the required effort by the
alpha dogs and it works because putting forth the effort is
INCONVENIENT!
Oi...
____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else to
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 29/4/2003 at 06:10 PM
I would also like to invite anyone who supports the system of Democracy
employed by the US to speak their perspective so that we can RESPECTFULLY
debate. I really find it difficult to understand said philosophy unless
well....
____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else to
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 29/4/2003 at 06:39 PM
Well, I'm no fan of the system, but I think the point of it was a
compromise between the flexibility and speedy beaureaucracy of a monarchy
and the equality and freedom of democracy.
If we were a total democracy, it would take FOREVER to get reforms enacted,
because everyone has a different point to argue. Some would want this much
change, others would want more, and still others would want an entirely
different solution or none at all. Debating an issue could take months,
maybe even years.
Whereas if you have a total monarchy, you can enact instantaneous reform,
but you run the risk of getting a crappy king/queen. And then where would
you be?
OOC: By the way, this is a nice forum to read when I'm bored at work...
Better than the editorials at the newsstand, even, although this discussion
has started to get repetitive. Mono, you should really run a blog...
____________________ Piggy's got the Conch!
Remy
Occasional Poster
Posts: 34 Registered: 29/4/2003 Status: Offline
posted on 30/4/2003 at 05:10 AM
The question is if something like a true democracy realy exists or could
even exist. As Ironboot said, it would slow most changes down. But one
could find ways to solve this problem, for example by providing all
neccessary information needed by people to develope their own opinion on a
certain issue and then letting them vote without any previous discussions.
But a far graver problem is that a system like that would be dependent on
the benevolence and impartialness of the ones who are providing these
information. Another problem would be that certainly not everyone would be
willing or able to keep up with all issues he has the right to vote in.
____________________ "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing." - Oscar Wilde
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 30/4/2003 at 07:31 AM
Um... thank you, Boots. I think. I don't really know anything about the
blogging industry, but I think that is safe to presume that with my
spectacular inability to get a point across, most people would petition to
minimise the size of my soapboxes. I should just wear a sticker on my
forehead with that quote from Cool Hand Luke... "What we have here is
failure to communicate". It might save time.
And welcome, Remy. I think that you were on the right track with your
observations. Although I don't think that anybody can count on benevolence
or impatiality from the people who provide information to the public, the
reason I advocated a free and competitive press was to try to circumvent
the flow of information (and thus the democratic process) from being
hijacked by special interests... which I believe has happened.
Okay, I think Boots is right in that I am becoming repetitive so I am going
to try to keep a lower profile for a bit. Carry on.
~M.
Remy
Occasional Poster
Posts: 34 Registered: 29/4/2003 Status: Offline
posted on 30/4/2003 at 08:17 AM
The thing that is wrong with the press is that it is dependent on profit as
well as any other branch in the industry. It needs its readers as well as
companies advertising in its publications. Any company advertising
regularly in a magazine or newspaper can have a certain influence on the
way this publication deals with certain issues by simply threatening not to
advertise in it anymore. I hope that this problem will be solved by the
internet in the near future, even today there are some web pages around
which are definately going in the right direction.
Yet another issue is the kind of newspaper read by the majority of the
people. I don't know about the situation in the USA but here in Germany as
well as in Great Britain the yellow press dominates a large amount of the
market. And although every newspaper is not totally neutral when it comes
to politics the stuff printed by these publications can only be described
as being polemic.
____________________ "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing." - Oscar Wilde
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 1/5/2003 at 02:06 AM
Well Remy, I truly despise Oscar Wilde, and am extemely bothered by his
quotes but I will forgive yoo because yoo are well spoken for someone who
(I am assuming) does not speak English has a first language.
My favorite US newspaper is by far the Weekly World News because I find it
to be a very important political statement. It's easy to doctore photos,
or write captions on photos and write a story about them. It's easy to
make a bunch of BS up. It's easy to get people to buy it. The only real
differeance I can see between the WWN and the more accepted forms of media
is that the lies in the WWN are generally recognized as for what they are
rather than accepted as truth. I believe Hearst said "yoo take the
pictures, I'll write the articles." (please correct mee if that is not the
quote)
The media however is predominatly a puppet of both the governement and
moreso the Corperations that advertise in said publications.
The system DOES NOT get anything done with any kind of speed. The reason
why is because the government is divided by parties which bicker less about
actual issues and more about partisan BS. Even as a Liberal, I believe the
system should be balanced but this should be a balance of extremes not of
virtual the sames, because otherwise the only real thing there is to argue
about is partisan polotics and nothing gets done.
There is of course the ominous "Shadow Governement" that was getting so
much mystified media attention not to long ago. If this "Shaodw
Governemnt" actually exsists, then that's whos pushing the buttons that
make things happen in an instant (launching a volley of ICBMs at a
residential district in an Islamic country for example).
____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else
to
/>
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
Remy
Occasional Poster
Posts: 34 Registered: 29/4/2003 Status: Offline
posted on 1/5/2003 at 02:38 AM
Thanks Squid, how very generous of you. I owe you for that
____________________ "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing." - Oscar Wilde
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 1/5/2003 at 04:49 AM
I know that by saying the following I am only going to enhance my growing
reputation as a tinfoil wearing freak, but... don't be so quick to dismiss
the Weekly World News as all fabrications. I followed the WWN very, very
closely for a number of years and many stories that they reported could be
found by other news services (none of the cover stories like "Bat Boy Ate
My Brain", mind you). A very high percentage of the "smaller" or "filler"
stories appeared in News Of The Weird or as offbeat Fortean spaces in other
newspapers several weeks before they appeared in WWN. It has only been
relatively recently that the WWN has relied more heavily on "made up"
stories and I have noticed that it coincided with a much more conservative
content (ie; Osama Bin Laden Cuts Deal with Space Monsters or Saddam
Hussein Ready To Unleash Flesh Eating Virus). This may no longer be the
case, but in the old days the WWN used to actually dispatch reporters to
cover stories... usually just interviewing anyone who said that their
toaster was possessed and taking a few snapshots of a showroom toaster with
some dramatic lighting to go along with the text.
I guess the reason that I am concerned about an a priori dismissal is that,
while a spirit of informed skepticism is a very healthy thing, an automatic
and unthinking rejection of data is every bit as unproductive as gullibly
swallowing everything that you see. If I were an unscrupulous person, I
would not bother to hide anything that I did... rather, I would just give
the WWN the exclusive rights to cover my story. Once Serena Sabak, Ed
Anger and the rest of the Hee Haw gang attached their names to it, people
would have a good laugh about my EMP Doomsday device and never give it
another serious thought. I think that the best way to cover one's tracks
would be to just put it all out in plain sight. The truth may or may not
be out there, but it rarely has much of an impact if it comes out of Boca
Raton.
~M.
dead-cell
Fanatic
Posts: 344 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 1/5/2003 at 04:03 PM
Funny Mono. However if I here flesh eating Virus one more time I will blow
someones head off. So many times I have heard it called a virus from so
many creible news groups. It is a flesh eating Bacteria can't they get that
one thing right. My appologies for this post having to do nothing with
communism, or democracy.
____________________ co-worker: "Your gay!?"
myself: "Didn't you see my rainbow pin?"
co-worker: "I just thought you liked skettles."
-(yes, it actually happened to me)
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 1/5/2003 at 04:48 PM
Good catch, Herr Cell! Necrotizing fasciitis is actually caused by a
mutated strain of the streptococcus A bacterium (the same li'l critter that
gives us strep throat). We could use a good proofreader like you at all
future staph (sic) meetings!
~M.
dead-cell
Fanatic
Posts: 344 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 3/5/2003 at 09:24 PM
Proofreader you say...hmmm you've never seen one of my shcool pappers have
you. Im am but a humble ex-biology major. Actually streptococcus is already
in your throat, been there before you said your first word. Bahh didn't
mean to give a biology lession; I could go on for longer.
____________________ co-worker: "Your gay!?"
myself: "Didn't you see my rainbow pin?"
co-worker: "I just thought you liked skettles."
-(yes, it actually happened to me)
Rogue
Member
Posts: 199 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 6/5/2003 at 04:15 PM
Squid, you summarised my viewpoint exactly a few posts ago. Democracy
works because it provides a sort of moderated pit fighting arena.
Moderated because people like the SEC can step in and call a foul for truly
unethical behaviour, and pit fighting because it is pretty much survival of
the fittest after that. It just so happens that fighting is inconvenient
and too much effort for the vast majority who cannot be bothered with
learning about their political, economic, or even social systems. This
leaves a great stinking pack of sheep with a few wolves to enjoy the
spoils. Wolves who take opportunity, and this in itself is not unethical.
As you know, it is fairly easy to start a business or other financial
scheme if you know how, and birth has nothing to do with it. What does
have something to do with it is mindset, and the one advantage that
rich-born people have over poor-born is the knowledge of where money comes
from and how to obtain it. Not connections, not free gifts, knowledge and
mindset are what divide the haves from the have-nots. In my opinion, this
is exactly what the founding fathers wanted. They were not interested in a
completely fair state or a state that provided equally for all regardless
of how skilled they were or how lazy. All men are created equal...after
that it's a free-for-all and if you want some, you have to go and get some.
Most economic and political systems provide for mobility like this, but
free market (democracy or not is irrelevant these days, markets drive
political systems lately) seems to be especially fertile for this.
In short, blaming the system will not improve the individual's station.
Good thought, diligent effort, and knowing an opportunity when you see it
will. I say, those who have made themselves more competitive by working
and learning and finding another option when they are told there are no
options, these people deserve to be inequal and perched atop stinking piles
of money. Likewise, those who mentally defeat and limit themselves and
make no effort or accept that they are trapped deserve whatever fate
befalls them. All men are created equal, but no two men end up exactly
equal and this is due to their own efforts and inherently fair.
Oh, and I was not born into an aristocracy. Far from it, I am two
generations from Mexico. My grandfather (Z''L) came here with thirty-five
dollars and knew (according to legend) how to say "beer" and "i be here
three weeks" in English and never learned the language particularly well.
He worked hard in a factory, bought and rehabilitated condemned houses, and
retired very well due to the sales and rentals of these houses. He
elevated himself above his birth position, which was youngest of eight boys
in a well-to-do family in Michoacan, and I challenge anyone to tread on the
unsafe ground of telling me how he exploited anyone to get there.
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 6/5/2003 at 09:06 PM
If that is the direction that we are going, then consider your challenge
extended and accepted. I will sweeten the pot by announcing that the
renunciation of friend, foe and family rather than adulterating my
convictions does not hold the slightest terror for me. I broke the ground
and am perfectly aware of how dangerous it is, but I am not the only one
treading upon it. If you wish to take my assertion that property is
inherently theft and that resources to one necessitate depriving another as
an attack against your family name, then that is your own decision. I will
remark, however, that we tend to first recognise and oppose those evils in
others that are most present within our own hearts and minds.
The debate is (again) one of apples and oranges. I am perfectly familiar
with Ayn Rand's principles and have stated already that I reject them as a
capitalist's bromide to help them sleep at night. It would be all good and
well to apply the "laws of the jungle" and natural selection to a situation
if it were anywhere near to being a jungle (or even a natural system), but
to apply them to a civil society which is ostensibly founded upon the
notions of mutual advantage for its members is ridiculous poppycock. If
everyone (or at least a very clear majority) did not imagine a clear
benefit from a society, there would be no society. Do not convince
yourself that everyone plays the game out of a deep and selfless love for
the two per cent or so at the top... they continue to play the game because
the alternative is Hobbes' "...nasty, brutish and short" existence and the
fact that they are trained from birth to chase the shiny carrot of
betterment that is continually dangled in front of their noses. People did
not abandon one jungle merely to compete in another. They formed civil
societies in the hopes of manufacturing a better and more secure present
for themselves.
I am always hearing about the "humble genesis" of this or that monstrous
corporate tycoon as if it had anything to do with the argument. I am
certain that Starbucks or Wal-Mart began as humbly as any multi-national
conglomerate before they took advantage of underhanded tactics (or are
those the "advantages" you were referring to?) to pressure their
competitors out of business. What capitalists always forget is that once a
corporation shakes off those (in most cases mythical) "humble" origins,
arguments about fair conduct and fair reward no longer apply to it. "They
raised themselves up by their bootstraps to get where they are! They
deserve to hoard wealth and deny it to the rest of society!" I
categorically deny that this is the case. After a certain level of wealth
is accumulated, nobody is being rewarded for their "hard work" and "good
business sense", because the work falls on the backs of the exploited
employees, NOT the corporate leeches who reap all the fiscal benefits, even
if these selfsame leeches were the ones who began the corporation in the
first place (in most cases, the person who formed the company does as much
"hard work" as they can manage before selling their companies for
preposterous sums to venture capitalists who gnerated their wealth by one
of three methods already discussed).
"But what about those horrible people who refuse to be exploited? Why
should they be given homes and food and clothing when other people work
hard for their pittances?" The answer to that question is: because we are a
society of alleged human beings and that is what a humane society does. It
takes care of its members. Nobody is clamouring to give an unemployed man
or woman a yacht and take them out on an Edwardian fox hunt, they are
simply trying to make sure that other human beings are fed, clothed and
sheltered. If it galls you so badly that somebody should be given
something for nothing, I would expect you to be much more affronted by the
CEO's who are given millions of dollars in stock options and grand estates
for polishing a chair with their ass and occasionally firing people for a
living. Nobody, read that again, NOBODY is entitled to luxuries, but all
human beings should be entitled to necessities... that is why we call them
necessities. To turn the question I began this paragraph with around: Why
should your children not be given the quality of education and health care
a rich person's children have access to?
But the bottom line here is, once again, this notion that anyone can rise
in the present system. I said this to Squid and I have said this to you:
Nonsense. We accept that EVERYONE can not benefit because of the pyramidal
structure of capital (that is to say, wealth to one means taking it from
someone else), but you console yourself with the notion that ANYONE could
be the top exploiter. I disagree. First, it is not hard work or even
"business sense" that is rewarded. What is specifically rewarded is bad
behaviour. Period. And it can not be any other way. As long as one person
takes an underhanded advantage of the situation (or, in your words, siezes
"opportunities" that present themselves), they will rise over the heads of
honest men. Once that person has established wealth, it is incumbent upon
them to build security for their wealth... that is to say, to make it more
difficult for someone else to deprive of them of it. In no time at all,
the wealthy establish "old boy's clubs" and other elitist measures to
prevent some poor upstart from the majority from cutting into their
profits. Between tax breaks, free resources and other "perks" being given
to the wealthy, and penalties being doled out to the poor, the wealthy are
actually required to SPEND LESS MONEY than the poor are. Quite simply, the
rich and the poor are not even playing the same game; it takes MORE MONEY
(that the poor do not have to begin with) for them to rid themselves of the
shackles that have been placed upon them than it would take a wealthy
person to generate a comparable amount of capital. That is not a system of
rewards and fair play, it is a system of exploitation and benefit to those
who can be most evil.
You are correct in providing a pit-fighting metaphor, but the wealthy are
given others to fight in their stead (and their champions are given machine
guns and body armour) while the poor are tossed into that pit naked. The
system is neither fair nor equally accessible. You are correct about one
thing... "blaming the system" will not better anyone's station. As long as
evil, blood sucking, capitalist swine have all the advantages, nothing will
better the station of the poor.
~M.
Meranda_Jade
Fanatic
Posts: 511 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 7/5/2003 at 06:57 AM
I'm going to have to jump in here after all, it seems. I've tried to stay
out of it, because it really is a pointless argument, and one that people
seem to be incredibly impassioned about. Mono, I love you dearly, but I
have to disagree with you here. I say that ANYONE has the opportunity to
change their status in life. That is proven fact. There really is equal
educational opportunity for all. The child of welfare parents goes to the
same high school as the local doctor's kid, and they have the same chance
to pass or fail. They have the same chance to go to college. (There are
actually social programs in place to allow the child on welfare to go to
college for damn near free.) Now, is it evil for that welfare child to
accept these programs and better themselves, or should they be noble and
let someone else have that scholarship (that they EARNED, perhaps by
working hard in school...) so they can sit in a nasty trailer for the rest
of their lives? So help me, if someone had told me when I was on welfare
that I was just stuck there, that I could not rise above my station, I
would have put a bullet in my head. I don't consider those who rise from
extreme poverty to be inherently evil either. I don't consider the extreme
poor to be inherently good. I've seen people, very poor people, do
horrible, evil things to each other and to their children, and not in order
to gain anything, either. I don't consider the extreme rich to be
inherently evil. A person who has made millions, owns a company that gives
thousands of "poor" people jobs, is not exploiting anybody. Those people
NEED those jobs and they CHOOSE to work for that person. The person who has
made millions and owns a company that is providing jobs to society is
contributing to society. The person sitting in a trailer is contributing
nothing but yet another mouth for a government program to feed. I don't
care what you say, IT IS NOT GOOD AND NOBLE TO ACCEPT WELFARE!!! It is
shameful and degrading. It is the most hateful and miserable existence
imaginable. NOBODY can hold their head up high and be happy with themselves
if they're accepting a handout.
You say that property is inherently theft and that resources to one
necessitate depriving another. How can it be theft to spend money that you
put a lot of personal effort into acquiring on owning a house so you and
your children can be safe and secure? Are all the homeowners in america
directly responsible for the fact that other people have to rent? No,
because anyone who makes a steady living and has good credit can buy a
house.
>"But what about those horrible people who refuse to be exploited? Why
should they be given homes and food and clothing when other people work
hard for their pittances?" The answer to that question is: because we are a
society of alleged human beings and that is what a humane society does. It
takes care of its members.
Not without those members contributing to that society in some way. I've
never read about any society in history that just gave lazy people a free
ride. If everyone in this country were given all of their basic
necessities, food, shelter, clothing, etc. NOBODY would ever do anything,
and there would be no food, shelter or clothing to hand out. You'd have to
put a gun to people's heads to get them to do anything. People seek
pleasure and avoid pain by nature. The urge to avoid pain is stronger than
the urge to seek pleasure, because when people get to a state of existance
that is comfortable for them, they tend to stay right there. It is painful
to live in horrible conditions, starving and cold. So people go to work so
they can have money to buy what they need to make them more comfortable. If
they want a swimming pool in the backyard or a membership to the country
club to make themselves comfortable, and they have the intelligence, skill
and ambition to get to that point, they can and will get there. There is
nothing stopping them. If they get to a point where they're comfortable
with just the house in the suburbs and a compact car, they will stay right
there, because they're comfortable and have no need to try harder for
better things. It's still not a morality issue. It is not evil to scratch
your way to the top. You can get to the top without depriving someone of
their just desserts, because the only one you're competing with is the
person scratching to the top right alongside you. The people who stay where
they are, are depriving themselves if they don't start scratching as well.
I'll tell you a story. Once up on a time there were two girls. They went to
the same school, both came from lower-middle class homes, their fathers
worked in the same factory. One year in school, both girls got pregnant,
had to quit school and wound up living in low-income housing projects on
welfare. Girl A said, "I'm comfortable here, I have a roof over my head, I
get money for food, I don't have to pay utilities. I'm just going to sit
right here and watch tv." Girl B said, " I want something better out of
life, for me and for my child." Girl B studied and got her G.E.D. Through a
government program, she enrolled in classes at a community college. Two
years later, she was able to get a job making enough to move out of the
projects. Girl A thought to herself, " Look at her, she thinks she's better
than the rest of us. What right does she have to get what she wants when I
have nothing?" (there is no one who hates to see the poor succeed as much
as another poor person) She grunted in dissatisfaction, but went back to
watching her soaps on tv. Girl B was living in a nicer apartment in a
better neighborhood, but still said, "No, this isn't good enough for me and
my little boy. We need a house with a yard for him to play in. " She had
gotten good grades in college, enough that she could apply for scholarships
and get into classes at a state college. She worked and went to school, and
four years later had a great job making enough for her to buy a house in a
much nicer neighborhood. By then her son and Girl A's son were going to
school, and because of the city program of bussing children to schools in
different neighborhoods, the boys were in the same first grade classroom.
The two girls were very surprised when they met each other at a school
function. Girl B was nicely groomed and well dressed, self-assured and
happy. Girl A was slatternly, strung out, dejected and very unhappy. Girl A
thought it was terrribly unfair that Girl B had so much while she had so
little. She felt bitter and hateful about Girl B's success, and thought
that Girl B was incredibly stuck-up and flaunting her wealth in the face of
the poor, underpriveleged Girl A. Girl A reassured herself by saying, "At
least I know I'm a good person, I didn't climb over the backs of the poor
to raise my station in life."
The two boys grew up and graduated high school. Girl B's son, Boy B went
to college but wasn't terribly motivated. He struggled through, barely
passing. He got a Master's degree in philosophy, and went and lived in the
basement in his mother's house where he daydreamed bizarre theories that
never came to any kind of conclusion. His mother cooked his meals, washed
his clothes and gave him room and board rent-free. Still, he suffered from
an overall dissatisfaction about his way of life. He was comfortable
though, so he sighed went about his buisness, and became nothing more than
a burden on his hardworking mother. (who should have kicked his ass out to
live in the streets, but he was her son, and she loved him.)
Girl A's son was blessed with a keen intellect. He'd hated his and his
mother's way of life growing up, and was determined to change that. He went
to college on a government grant and took buisness finance. He graduated
with honors and got a job buying and selling companies for a high-powered
corporation. Soon, his net worth was in the millions. He began buying and
selling companies for himself and his net worth shot up to billions. With
these billions he started educational programs aimed at underprivileged
children so they would find it easier to see the possibilities in life and
take action to make their lives less miserable. He started scholarship
funds for the extreme poor to make it easier for them to get the education
they'd need to rise above the pitfalls of poverty.
Who is evil in this story? Who really exploited anything? This story is
supposed to illustrate that no matter the class of people you come from,
you can drastically change your life for better or worse, based entirely
upon your skills, abilities and ambition. If people do not take action on
their behalf, and they stay poor and miserable, IT IS THEIR OWN GODDAMN
FAULT. EVERYONE has to work to get themselves to their comfort level and
EVERYONE has the same chance to get to where they want, even if not
everyone has the same skills, abilities or ambitions to get there. If
you're stupid and/or lazy, then chances are, you're going to be poor. If
you're smart and/or have ambition, chances are you're not.
This post is not addressing the large corporations, old family money,
connections of the aristocracy or anything else that you may bring up to
"prove me wrong." MY point here is to state that EVERYONE in this country
has the same CHANCE to become a megabillionaire. Not everyone has the same
ability to. Those that have the ability to, generally get there. People who
do nothing to improve their lives, especially if they have the ability,
deserve what they get. The fact that you make it a morality issue, I find
disturbing. I cannot agree that it's evil or selfish to improve your
station in life. I do not agree that to take an opportunity such as a good
job or a scholarship, is to take it away from someone more deserving. If
someone else were more deserving, that person would get the scholarship or
job. I think it's ridiculous to think that taking opportunities means that
you're "walking on the backs of the underpriveleged." They wouldn't be
underpriveleged if they were out there taking opportunity as well. And not
all advantage is unfair advantage. Not all advantage and opportunity come
from unethical practices. My final statement on this is, "You CAN change
your station in life for the better, even drastically, and do it ethically.
If you put no effort into working for a living, you cannot expect a living
to be handed to you." That is all.
____________________
Shade
Fanatic
Posts: 289 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 7/5/2003 at 07:10 AM
Hear hear Meranda! Well spoken, and I couldn't agree more.
____________________ It is only through the lack of sex that humanity derives the need for an
all encompassing blind love. And in that moment of extreme horniness
with
no relief in sight, in that moment can be found the birth of
religion.
/>
-Me