Global Economies in trouble.

[maple_leafs182]

You would figure with all the technological advances up until the 1930's (electricity, mass production, fertilizers, etc...) since say 0AD, that people would not be starving.

It is because we put our faith into a system that we don't bother to question that fucks the majority over. Currently, we don't give a care about others or how much suffering they endorse as long as we live a safe, secure life with cell phones that can make pancakes for us, that is all that matters.

We could end world hunger if we wanted to, it is only a choice, but we would rather fight stupid fucking wars and wonder who tiger woods is sleeping with.

Truth be told, I am getting tired of it, I am stealing these words from a song but whatever, "give me your logic, your definition, the words you twist to justify your position of mass starvation and blind air strikes, every problem is solved with a fight". This is a serious question, please answer it.

Seriously guys, quit thinking in politically correct ways and look at what we are putting each other and this planet threw.

It really does suck, we are headed for a global depression where billions of people will suffer, it isn't like someone shook up the planet and everything has gone disarray, all that is changing is the illusion of what we believe to be wealth.

[Wild Bill]

How much of Obamas orgy of spending ended up in the pockets of the commoner? Very very little. It went to wealthy corporations.

All these policies were designed to rob regular people of their wealth, and all that wealth ended up in the pockets of government lobbying corporations and wealthy Americans.

This just ISNT socialism no matter how many times you try to claim it is.

Maybe, Dr. Dre. Still, there are other possibilities.

One common factor I have noticed about socialists in my life is that almost invariably they are NOT practical people! They are "big picture" people that tend to take the details for granted. Teachers would be a good example. Most truly believe that they know all about something because they have taught it from a book, despite having little or no hands on experience.

As a generalization, they usually are not technicians, engineers or basically just the type of personality I dub "utilitarian", or "always looking for what actually WORKS".

At the same time, I've also noticed that politicians, especially Liberal ones, tend to be lawyers or academics. There are a few exceptions but one would be hard pressed to "name three!" Even those exceptions would not likely fall into my "utilitarian" category.

Now that I have a nice glowing bed of coals for the inevitable flames, let me give my actual premise:

Obama and his type of policicians do NOT intend to transfer wealth from ordinary folks to wicked corporations! That's just the consequence of their actions because they are totally inept with the details!

They always have a noble goal. They just always have a loopy, stupid and poorly thought out and implemented system to try to accomplish the goal! In this case, they give money to big corporations but they assume that those corporations will use the money to stay in the USA, providing all those jobs for the "little guy".

We see of course what actually happens. Many of those recipient corporations either just pocket the money or worse yet, use it to move production to other countries, taking the jobs with them!

A noble goal implemented by a "big picture", academic style approach that just doesn't work. If you want something to work you need people familiar with the details and who have the right sort of "utilitarian" personality to get all the inevitable "bugs" out BEFORE you start your system, rather than experiencing all the pain and expense involved with trying to fix those bugs afterwards, if ever!

It's worse with politicians, because a working solution is rarely their actual goal! They're much more interested in APPEARING to deliver something than actually doing it! As FireSign Theatre paraphrased Richard Nixon, "You can fool most of the people most of the time, and that's enough!"

Please note that I'm not disagreeing with you about the EFFECTS of Obama's stimulus approach. I'm making the claim that he is not evil, just not practical. I believe the man has a good heart. It's unfortunate that it has grown so big it's pushed up his neck and squeezed out his brain!

"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."

[Michael Hardner]

It is because we put our faith into a system that we don't bother to question that fucks the majority over. Currently, we don't give a care about others or how much suffering they endorse as long as we live a safe, secure life with cell phones that can make pancakes for us, that is all that matters.

People want cell phones and pancakes... probably the majority do... and the system delivers it to them. The majority continues to do better, so it's hard to see how they're ***'d over.

We could end world hunger if we wanted to, it is only a choice, but we would rather fight stupid fucking wars and wonder who tiger woods is sleeping with.

World hunger is ending - at the pace that people wish to devote to the problem.

Truth be told, I am getting tired of it, I am stealing these words from a song but whatever, "give me your logic, your definition, the words you twist to justify your position of mass starvation and blind air strikes, every problem is solved with a fight". This is a serious question, please answer it.

Seriously guys, quit thinking in politically correct ways and look at what we are putting each other and this planet threw.

It really does suck, we are headed for a global depression where billions of people will suffer, it isn't like someone shook up the planet and everything has gone disarray, all that is changing is the illusion of what we believe to be wealth.

It's easy for an intelligent person to be negative - because you can see a wider picture, and understand what really happens in the major power grabs, you can see through the greed and deception.

But the good stuff happens naturally all the time, and it's almost invisible. There is good in commerce: social interaction as well as physical needs being met. Social change tends to happen on the heels of economic progress, from what I can see.

The challenge for intelligent people is to realize that just because they see more negative out there, it doesn't mean that that is all there is.

Reasons for optimism ?

- more freedom across the world, less totalitarianism: more freedom of expression, freedom to follow non traditional lifestyles

- less starvation

- cold war ends means a smaller bankroll for regional wars

- more communication globally, on every level

- environmental consciousness is increasing

- general economic benefits are spreading, even though they are spreading unevenly they do get to the poorest peoples too

- technology continues to solve problems too

Add your own here.

[dre]

People want cell phones and pancakes... probably the majority do... and the system delivers it to them. The majority continues to do better, so it's hard to see how they're ***'d over.

World hunger is ending - at the pace that people wish to devote to the problem.

It's easy for an intelligent person to be negative - because you can see a wider picture, and understand what really happens in the major power grabs, you can see through the greed and deception.

But the good stuff happens naturally all the time, and it's almost invisible. There is good in commerce: social interaction as well as physical needs being met. Social change tends to happen on the heels of economic progress, from what I can see.

The challenge for intelligent people is to realize that just because they see more negative out there, it doesn't mean that that is all there is.

Reasons for optimism ?

- more freedom across the world, less totalitarianism: more freedom of expression, freedom to follow non traditional lifestyles

- less starvation

- cold war ends means a smaller bankroll for regional wars

- more communication globally, on every level

- environmental consciousness is increasing

- general economic benefits are spreading, even though they are spreading unevenly they do get to the poorest peoples too

- technology continues to solve problems too

Add your own here.

Iv posted this before.... it shows that there has been huge progress globally in improving how humans live. 200 years ago only 2 countries had a life expectancy of over 40.

Edited January 10, 2011 by dre

[M.Dancer]

I'm aware of its definition, and in my observation the tech boom is still going strong.

The tech boom is over. We are in a tech wave. Tsunami sized...

[bloodyminded]

Maybe, Dr. Dre. Still, there are other possibilities.

One common factor I have noticed about socialists in my life is that almost invariably they are NOT practical people! They are "big picture" people that tend to take the details for granted. Teachers would be a good example. Most truly believe that they know all about something because they have taught it from a book, despite having little or no hands on experience.

As a generalization, they usually are not technicians, engineers or basically just the type of personality I dub "utilitarian", or "always looking for what actually WORKS".

At the same time, I've also noticed that politicians, especially Liberal ones, tend to be lawyers or academics. There are a few exceptions but one would be hard pressed to "name three!" Even those exceptions would not likely fall into my "utilitarian" category.

Now that I have a nice glowing bed of coals for the inevitable flames, let me give my actual premise:

Obama and his type of policicians do NOT intend to transfer wealth from ordinary folks to wicked corporations! That's just the consequence of their actions because they are totally inept with the details!

They always have a noble goal. They just always have a loopy, stupid and poorly thought out and implemented system to try to accomplish the goal! In this case, they give money to big corporations but they assume that those corporations will use the money to stay in the USA, providing all those jobs for the "little guy".

We see of course what actually happens. Many of those recipient corporations either just pocket the money or worse yet, use it to move production to other countries, taking the jobs with them!

A noble goal implemented by a "big picture", academic style approach that just doesn't work. If you want something to work you need people familiar with the details and who have the right sort of "utilitarian" personality to get all the inevitable "bugs" out BEFORE you start your system, rather than experiencing all the pain and expense involved with trying to fix those bugs afterwards, if ever!

It's worse with politicians, because a working solution is rarely their actual goal! They're much more interested in APPEARING to deliver something than actually doing it! As FireSign Theatre paraphrased Richard Nixon, "You can fool most of the people most of the time, and that's enough!"

Please note that I'm not disagreeing with you about the EFFECTS of Obama's stimulus approach. I'm making the claim that he is not evil, just not practical. I believe the man has a good heart. It's unfortunate that it has grown so big it's pushed up his neck and squeezed out his brain!

"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."

No doubt you have a good heart too, Wild Bill, and without the intelligence squeezed out!

However, I disagree with much of what you say here.

First of all, I imagine it's probably true that the sonofabitch Obama has a "good heart."

I would disagree that he's a socialist; certainly he leaned left in the olden days (though how far remains in question; how many far-left socialists oppose same sex marriage?), but as President he is a corporate-friendly fellow. This is institutionalized, to the point where being otherwise would make it extremely unlikely one woud get to be president. (And if they did, say, like a Nader or somebody, he'd be crucified even if he did make it.)

No, Obama's policies aren't socialist; only in the perverse but usual sense: socialism for the rich.

He's doing what the Republicans would have done as well. Differet details, no doubt, but fundamentally the same thing. Hell, we know this, because we know--not speculate, but know--that Republicans were behind the upward transfers of wealth. They were broadly supportive of many of the same notions they now screech about for purposes of electoral gain.

No, Obama is not a socialist; he's a pretty ordinary president, centrist in the Clintonian manner.

Edited January 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Wild Bill]

I would disagree that he's a socialist;

No, Obama is not a socialist; he's a pretty ordinary president, centrist in the Clintonian manner.

Then he falls into the category of my OTHER totally anecdotal, unsupported generalization. He's a politician!

Either way, he's an "idea" man with no idea of how to actually MAKE IT WORK!

BTW, I'm not disparaging those who aren't "utilitarians". We need a balance of both types to make the best society. Most of our problems today come from poor support for the "detail" way of thinking. When you go for a job today, they ask if you have a certificate, NOT if you know how to do the job! The two things are not the same.

A Utilitarian can build you a bridge that works great but may be a bit ugly. Socialists and academics will build you a thing of beauty but you're often risking your life by driving across it...

[bloodyminded]

Either way, he's an "idea" man with no idea of how to actually MAKE IT WORK!

There seems to be a lot of evidence for this view, yeah?

I can honestly feel badly (but not terribly...sort of in a detached way) for all the liberals who heralded Obama's election as a new era, some sort of beginning of an awakening. Their disillusion must be unpleasant. The fact that his campaign won an advertising award for Best Marketing Campaign should have at least raised their eyebrows a little, but we've become so accustomed to advertising that we forget it is often dishonest in an essential sense.

[dre]

There seems to be a lot of evidence for this view, yeah?

I can honestly feel badly (but not terribly...sort of in a detached way) for all the liberals who heralded Obama's election as a new era, some sort of beginning of an awakening. Their disillusion must be unpleasant. The fact that his campaign won an advertising award for Best Marketing Campaign should have at least raised their eyebrows a little, but we've become so accustomed to advertising that we forget it is often dishonest in an essential sense.

I think the problem is that people overestimate the power that the US president has over domestic affairs. They expected him to shake up the system, but the system was designed to resist such a shakeup by an activist executive branch. All he can do is whine and beg the to parties to make meaningfull changes and hes been consistantly told to go fuck himself by both parties.

People expected him to do the kinds of things only an autocrat or a king can do.

Having said that... He IS an incredible pussy, and it doesnt seem like he actually wants to fight the system over any of this stuff. Hes also probably corrupt as hell by this point.

[bloodyminded]

I think the problem is that people overestimate the power that the US president has over domestic affairs. They expected him to shake up the system, but the system was designed to resist such a shakeup by an activist executive branch. All he can do is whine and beg the to parties to make meaningfull changes and hes been consistantly told to go fuck himself by both parties.

People expected him to do the kinds of things only an autocrat or a king can do.

Having said that... He IS an incredible pussy, and it doesnt seem like he actually wants to fight the system over any of this stuff. Hes also probably corrupt as hell by this point.

Agreed, and agreed.

[maple_leafs182]

People want cell phones and pancakes... probably the majority do... and the system delivers it to them. The majority continues to do better, so it's hard to see how they're ***'d over.

They can have there pancake and cellphones, my point was that people have become so apathetic and self orientated that they neglect or ignore the major problems of society.

World hunger is ending - at the pace that people wish to devote to the problem.

It may be slowly declining at the moment but an economic downturn can easily reverse that trend. Overall we are still nowhere near actually solving the problem.

It's easy for an intelligent person to be negative - because you can see a wider picture, and understand what really happens in the major power grabs, you can see through the greed and deception.

But the good stuff happens naturally all the time, and it's almost invisible. There is good in commerce: social interaction as well as physical needs being met. Social change tends to happen on the heels of economic progress, from what I can see.

The challenge for intelligent people is to realize that just because they see more negative out there, it doesn't mean that that is all there is.

Reasons for optimism ?

- more freedom across the world, less totalitarianism: more freedom of expression, freedom to follow non traditional lifestyles

- less starvation

- cold war ends means a smaller bankroll for regional wars

- more communication globally, on every level

- environmental consciousness is increasing

- general economic benefits are spreading, even though they are spreading unevenly they do get to the poorest peoples too

- technology continues to solve problems too

Add your own here.

The biggest thing I disagree with is that you say there is more freedom across the world. I think there is probably more slavery now then any other time in history. It may not be the conventional slavery that we are accustom to reading about, it is a new form of slavery, economic slavery. We live in a time where countries are predominantly controlled by financial institutions and their affairs. The well being of the citizens is becoming less relevant, ending hunger in a nation is a distant thought.

I think it was you that said I am trying to change the world, I am not, I am trying to change the way you think, the way you look at problems and how we should go about solving them.

If we want to solve world hunger we should look at what creates it. It is either there is a lack of food or it is that the people lack the purchasing power to obtain the food, Would you agree with that?

So what leads to the lack of food or the peoples lack of purchasing power, essentially it is the current economic system. I am sure we can make it better by somehow increasing our productive capacity which would lead to an increase in economic prosperity but even then there will still be people that get the short end of the stick.

[Michael Hardner]

They can have there pancake and cellphones, my point was that people have become so apathetic and self orientated that they neglect or ignore the major problems of society.

What do you expect ? People don't even act in their own SELF interest if it is too difficult or takes too much time. This is why they have to print DO NOT EAT on silica gel packets in LARGE letters.

I guess if they printed DO NOT EAT in small letters some folks would look at the packet and say... "What does this say ? I can't read that... I'm not going to make the effort to hold it closer to my face, instead I'll just eat it and see what happens..."

It may be slowly declining at the moment but an economic downturn can easily reverse that trend. Overall we are still nowhere near actually solving the problem.

A downturn will only reverse the trend temporarily.

The biggest thing I disagree with is that you say there is more freedom across the world. I think there is probably more slavery now then any other time in history. It may not be the conventional slavery that we are accustom to reading about, it is a new form of slavery, economic slavery. We live in a time where countries are predominantly controlled by financial institutions and their affairs. The well being of the citizens is becoming less relevant, ending hunger in a nation is a distant thought.

This is more freedom. The 'new form of slavery' you're talking about is actually a choice. People choose to work in factories because it is better than the alternative. Economics makes it so.

I think it was you that said I am trying to change the world, I am not, I am trying to change the way you think, the way you look at problems and how we should go about solving them.

If we want to solve world hunger we should look at what creates it. It is either there is a lack of food or it is that the people lack the purchasing power to obtain the food, Would you agree with that?

So what leads to the lack of food or the peoples lack of purchasing power, essentially it is the current economic system. I am sure we can make it better by somehow increasing our productive capacity which would lead to an increase in economic prosperity but even then there will still be people that get the short end of the stick.

If you want to destroy the current system, and it sounds like you do, then you will set us back and put us farther away from your goals.

[maple_leafs182]

What do you expect ? People don't even act in their own SELF interest if it is too difficult or takes too much time. This is why they have to print DO NOT EAT on silica gel packets in LARGE letters.

I agree.

A downturn will only reverse the trend temporarily.

The severity of the downturn determines the length and by the looks of it we are headed for a severe downturn.

This is more freedom. The 'new form of slavery' you're talking about is actually a choice. People choose to work in factories because it is better than the alternative. Economics makes it so.

Being able to choose where you want to work isn't freedom. Freedom is waking up and being able to do what ever it is you wish to do.

If you want to destroy the current system, and it sounds like you do, then you will set us back and put us farther away from your goals.

I don't want to destroy the current system, I want people to start questioning it. Maybe this isn't the most prosperous or sustainable system. Maybe there are alternatives that would work more favourably for all of us.

What makes you so sure that this is the way we should run society.

[Bonam]

What makes you so sure that this is the way we should run society.

It might not be the best way, but it's the best way we've discovered so far. Seems to work well, considering the remarkable progress we've made recently, as compared to the centuries and millenia before.

[Michael Hardner]

Being able to choose where you want to work isn't freedom. Freedom is waking up and being able to do what ever it is you wish to do.

Providing for yourself is freedom. What you're talking about is having someone take care of you, it sounds like. Maybe like being a baby in a playpen or a member of a harem.

I don't want to destroy the current system, I want people to start questioning it. Maybe this isn't the most prosperous or sustainable system. Maybe there are alternatives that would work more favourably for all of us.

More education can make the system better without overhauling. The 60s saw social change that manifested itself in economic ways too.

What makes you so sure that this is the way we should run society.

If you don't want to destroy the current system, then this is the way you think we should run society too - you just want to elevate peoples' consciousness, man.

[dre]

I don't want to destroy the current system, I want people to start questioning it. Maybe this isn't the most prosperous or sustainable system. Maybe there are alternatives that would work more favourably for all of us.

The problem isnt our system so much as the fact its been partially highjacked. We need to tweak the system to make sure that political power is allocated per vote like it basically used to be. But this doesnt require a major rethinking. A variety of special interests have figured out a way to game the system and we just need to close those loopholes.

[M.Dancer]

The problem isnt our system so much as the fact its been partially highjacked. We need to tweak the system to make sure that political power is allocated per vote like it basically used to be. But this doesnt require a major rethinking. A variety of special interests have figured out a way to game the system and we just need to close those loopholes.

Like it used to be? On which alternate universe? The enfranchise right now is greater than at any previous time in history...along with a better informed electorate. We don't have to look long ago or far away to see the truth in this. As far as "special interest groups" ....there have always been such and instead of trying too use the rules to win they used to make the rules....ie the house of lords, propertied classes and the church. Today the inheritors of those mantles have no where near the power or quite frankly wish it. The special interest groups we shoul;d fear the most are the socialists....

[dre]

Like it used to be? On which alternate universe? The enfranchise right now is greater than at any previous time in history...along with a better informed electorate. We don't have to look long ago or far away to see the truth in this. As far as "special interest groups" ....there have always been such and instead of trying too use the rules to win they used to make the rules....ie the house of lords, propertied classes and the church. Today the inheritors of those mantles have no where near the power or quite frankly wish it. The special interest groups we shoul;d fear the most are the socialists....

In this universe. The special interest lobby has NEVER been as influential, and as well funded as it is today in both Canada and the US, and in general elections have never been as expensive as today which makes politicians more beholden to doners.

In 1995 there was 727 lobbiests and today theres almost 5000 (those are just the registered ones theres actually many thousands more). 15 Full time registered lobbiest for every member of parliament... following them around all day long, offering quid pro-quos etc.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/wendymesley/2010/04/why-are-there-more-lobbyists-than-ever.html

Edited January 12, 2011 by dre

[M.Dancer]

In this universe. The special interest lobby has NEVER been as influential, and as well funded as it is today in both Canada and the US, and in general elections have never been as expensive as today which makes politicians more beholden to doners.

In 1995 there was 727 lobbiests and today theres almost 5000 (those are just the registered ones theres actually many thousands more). 15 Full time registered lobbiest for every member of parliament... following them around all day long, offering quid pro-quos etc.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/wendymesley/2010/04/why-are-there-more-lobbyists-than-ever.html

And what exactly do you mean by quid pro quo?

Lobbyists serve their purpose in a democracy...they represent everything from nursing mothers to tree nursaries...while on the otherhand weigh the right to lobby government against the right to vote limited to male property owners over the age of 21...or back a 140 years when over 40% of males had no right to vote....clearly the trend is towards greater democracy (which includes the right to lobby) not away from it (which given your post, would disallow the right to lobby)

Edited January 12, 2011 by M.Dancer

[dre]

And what exactly do you mean by quid pro quo?

Lobbyists serve their purpose in a democracy...they represent everything from nursing mothers to tree nursaries...while on the otherhand weigh the right to lobby government against the right to vote limited to male property owners over the age of 21...or back a 140 years when over 40% of males had no right to vote....clearly the trend is towards greater democracy (which includes the right to lobby) not away from it (which given your post, would disallow the right to lobby)

A quid pro quo is an exchange of goods or services. Sometimes politicians will sell legislation in return for the promise of jobs after they leave office... sometimes they get caught accepting straight up bribes. The more time an MP that voters elect spends dealing with the 15+ FULL TIME lobbiests assigned to them the less time they spend doing the publics business.

limited to male property owners over the age of 21...or back a 140 years when over 40% of males had no right to vote....clearly the trend is towards greater democracy (which includes the right to lobby) not away from it (which given your post, would disallow the right to lobby)

Yes if you go back that far its true to say government is more representitive now than it was a hundred years ago. But theres a trend in the last 20 years or so in the opposite direction, and virtually everyone acknowledges its a big problem. Theyve tried various crackdowns in most western countries, and implemented registries like we have in Canada to curtail influence peddling but legislation is generally full of loopholes.

democracy (which includes the right to lobby). In a democracy power is allocated by votes. A voter can write letters to an MP, or try to phone them, but thats entirely different than what we have today which is special interests sending armies of thousands of full time lobbiests to secure certain legislation which is often not in the public interest at all.

For example...

Health Canada's abrupt decision in September to back down from expanding warning labels on cigarette packages came after tobacco company lobbyists waged a co-ordinated, sometimes secretive lobbying campaign, CBC News has learned.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/08/tobacco-conservatives-lobbying008.html#ixzz1AnAH38ox

which given your post, would disallow the right to lobby

No I probably wouldnt do that. I would just make it all public. Id make it illegal to lobby policians except for in special sessions of the legislature where lobbiests could get up in the front of the cameras, and make their case.

Edited January 12, 2011 by dre

[maple_leafs182]

Providing for yourself is freedom. What you're talking about is having someone take care of you, it sounds like. Maybe like being a baby in a playpen or a member of a harem.

If providing for yourself is freedom then why don't we expand on that idea and bring it to a more global scale, together we have the means to provide for everyone without completely destroying the planet.

If you don't want to destroy the current system, then this is the way you think we should run society too - you just want to elevate peoples' consciousness, man.

I don't think this is the way we should run society.

I would love to bring forth a new system but I think it is more important to try and change our way of thinking first. We need a new way of looking at what our problems truly are and a new method of arriving at solutions to those problems, once that happens a new system will be born.

I've said this many times before, our problems are not political or financial, our problems will never be solved if we continue to think that they are. Our problems are and have always been technical, once we realize that and apply that knowledge to real world problems, who knows what we kind of society we will become.

[Bonam]

If providing for yourself is freedom then why don't we expand on that idea and bring it to a more global scale, together we have the means to provide for everyone without completely destroying the planet.

Providing for yourself and providing for "everyone" are very different things. Being able to provide for yourself is earning your own rewards and your own freedoms, being made to provide for others is slavery.

I don't think this is the way we should run society.

I would love to bring forth a new system but I think it is more important to try and change our way of thinking first. We need a new way of looking at what our problems truly are and a new method of arriving at solutions to those problems, once that happens a new system will be born.

It's called "problem solving". First you examine the problem and understand what it's all about. Then, you break it down into substeps: smaller problems that are easier to solve. Then, you apply the knowledge you have to solve those problems, and then you put it all back together.

I've said this many times before, our problems are not political or financial, our problems will never be solved if we continue to think that they are. Our problems are and have always been technical,

In that case you should be overjoyed at the exponentially accelerating pace of technological progress.

once we realize that and apply that knowledge to real world problems, who knows what we kind of society we will become.

We've been doing precisely that and will continue to do that, it just won't lead to the kind of utopia that you envision.

[dre]

Providing for yourself and providing for "everyone" are very different things. Being able to provide for yourself is earning your own rewards and your own freedoms, being made to provide for others is slavery.

It's called "problem solving". First you examine the problem and understand what it's all about. Then, you break it down into substeps: smaller problems that are easier to solve. Then, you apply the knowledge you have to solve those problems, and then you put it all back together.

In that case you should be overjoyed at the exponentially accelerating pace of technological progress.

We've been doing precisely that and will continue to do that, it just won't lead to the kind of utopia that you envision.

Providing for yourself and providing for "everyone" are very different things. Being able to provide for yourself is earning your own rewards and your own freedoms, being made to provide for others is slavery.

Not at all. The root of social and welfare programs is not altruism its selfishness. Those programs help the wealthy and the middle class more than they help anyone else because a social safety net provides economic and political stability and that makes society more effective as a transactional framework.

being made to provide for others is slavery

No at all. Being made to provide for others is the cornerstone of a society with government. EVERYONE in society pays money into some programs that they dont use or dont benefit from. Iv never been to court before or called the police for help... but I paid more than 40 thousand dollars in income tax last year and bet ya quite a bit went to that. But just like the middle and upper class benefit indirectly from the social safety net I also benefit indirectly from the criminal justice system. In a lawless country I would have a much lower income.

What youre really railing against is the entire concept of human society. All the best countries in the world to live in have a collectively financed government. In every single one theres all kinds of people paying for all kinds of stuff they dont personally want, and dont use.

[Bonam]

Not at all. The root of social and welfare programs is not altruism its selfishness. Those programs help the wealthy and the middle class more than they help anyone else because a social safety net provides economic and political stability and that makes society more effective as a transactional framework.

Contributing to a functional society to the extent that it really is beneficial to the self is something I do not disagree with. The poster I quoted was referring to providing for people on a "global scale". The people of Madagascar can provide for themselves, it is not our responsibility and does not significantly affect the economic and political stability of our society here in Canada.

No at all. Being made to provide for others is the cornerstone of a society with government. EVERYONE in society pays money into some programs that they dont use or dont benefit from. Iv never been to court before or called the police for help... but I paid more than 40 thousand dollars in income tax last year and bet ya quite a bit went to that. But just like the middle and upper class benefit indirectly from the social safety net I also benefit indirectly from the criminal justice system. In a lawless country I would have a much lower income.

What youre really railing against is the entire concept of human society. All the best countries in the world to live in have a collectively financed government. In every single one theres all kinds of people paying for all kinds of stuff they dont personally want, and dont use.

It is a matter of degree and of intention. A certain amount of tax to provide for legitimately useful programs that are within the proper role of government is good. A perpetually growing government that takes upon itself ever more roles and powers and burdens private citizens with ever more taxation to support this inexorable growth is not good.

[dre]

Contributing to a functional society to the extent that it really is beneficial to the self is something I do not disagree with. The poster I quoted was referring to providing for people on a "global scale". The people of Madagascar can provide for themselves, it is not our responsibility and does not significantly affect the economic and political stability of our society here in Canada.

It is a matter of degree and of intention. A certain amount of tax to provide for legitimately useful programs that are within the proper role of government is good. A perpetually growing government that takes upon itself ever more roles and powers and burdens private citizens with ever more taxation to support this inexorable growth is not good.

It is a matter of degree and of intention. A certain amount of tax to provide for legitimately useful programs that are within the proper role of government is good. A perpetually growing government that takes upon itself ever more roles and powers and burdens private citizens with ever more taxation to support this inexorable growth is not good.

Legitimately usefull in this case is a subject judgement on your part though. Other members of society will feel different, and theyll think that some of the things you find "legitimately usefull" or not important.

A perpetually growing government that takes upon itself ever more roles and powers and burdens private citizens with ever more taxation to support this inexorable growth is not good.

Thats totally true. The government at its root is supposed to provide a transactional framework on which an economy can be built. If its too small or to big it wont be effective and the number of transactions will contract.