[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]

[Not Logged In / Login / Register]

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

		Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 10/31/2009 7:57 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Basically it's quiet out there because people are sick and tired: 1. People are sick and tired of being raped and pillaged by taxes; 2. People are sick and tired of being endlessly in debt to bankers who print up loan-money out of thin air; 3. People are sick and tired of the 26,000 new laws and regulations that are made at the federal, state and local levels EVERY year across the U.S. alone; 4. People are sick and tired of the media lying to them and truncating the spectrum of speech to just the "politically correct" or what the corporate sponsors want; 5. People are sick and tired of working their whole lives and having nothing to show for it; 6. People are sick and tired of having their kids go WITHOUT while 1% own 90% of the wealth; 7. People are sick and tired of losing money in the stock market and having the value of their homes drop; 8. People are sick and tired of having to spend ever more money at the grocery store because their Federal Reserve Notes are turning into shit; 9. People are sick and tired of listening to politicians that have been bought and paid for by K-street lobby firms and corporations; 10. People are sick and tired of obeying "laws" that have been enacted by special interests; 11. People are sick and tired of shopping at Wal-Mart knowing fully well that they are buying products made by slave labor (often children) in China. 12. People are sick and tired of having governments and police telling them what to do, when to do it, how to act, what to eat, which direction to fart. 13. People are sick and tired because the "food" they eat from most grocery stores is not food at all but "profit margins" for some corporate chain. 14. People are sick and tired of being scared and herded around by real or imagined pandemics; 15. People are sick and tired of living on a planet where no one knows anything and everything is a mystery, a theory or illegal; 16. People are sick and tired of their governments failing to disclose technology that could be vital to the general well-being of the world; 17. People are sick and tired of having crappy health and never enough good sex; 18. People are sick and tire of ever expanding government; 19. People are sick and tired of listening to morons and idiots that can't think because they have gone to public school and/or drink too much beer and other alcoholic poisons; 20. People are sick and tired of this entire fucking universe and the abortion that supposedly runs it known as "God." 21. People at the MIND-X -- the only place in the universe where something IS actually happening -- are sick and tire of waiting for the Singularity or at least the arrival of AI that will blow away all of the idiots, morons and "Gods" that are causing 1 - 20 above. James Jaeger [Reply]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 10/31/2009 8:50 PM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	13. People are sick and tired because the "food" they eat from most grocery stores is not food at all but "profit margins" for some corporate chain. Technocrats wanted to lower the cost of food to grow the economy, so they subsidized the soy and corn industries, with support from the processed food industries. Then they realized that everyone would be malnourished to the point that they would commit errors that would harm the economy, so they legislated nutritional requirements for processed foods, again with support from the processed food industries. This also made it hard for new companies to get into the market and differentiate themselves. The right wing invoked "free market principles" to convince their minions that it was ethically wrong to further regulate the industry such that people would have a clue about how empty processed food calories really are. To pre-empt opposition, the "organic" label is being embraced (infiltrated) gradually by those same corporations, calling it "natural" (although agriculture is just about 10,000 years old and always changing). Unfortunately, activism to improve the situation has been polluted by specious notions of "natural" with regard to genetically modified foods, which is hardly the issue at all. Pesticides and herbicides that are unhealthy for human consumption pervade our food but we hear more about the "controversy" of genetically modified food (which could hold part of the solution to our problems in the food industry). [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 10/31/2009 9:37 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Technocrats wanted to lower the cost of food to grow the economy, so they subsidized the soy and corn industries, with support from the processed food industries. Then they realized that everyone would be malnourished to the point that they would commit errors that would harm the economy, so they legislated nutritional requirements for processed foods, again with support from the processed food industries. This also made it hard for new companies to get into the market and differentiate themselves. The right wing invoked "free market principles" to convince their minions that it was ethically wrong to further regulate the industry such that people would have a clue about how empty processed food calories really are. To pre-empt opposition, the "organic" label is being embraced (infiltrated) gradually by those same corporations, calling it "natural" (although agriculture is just about 10,000 years old and always changing). Unfortunately, activism to improve the situation has been polluted by specious notions of "natural" with regard to genetically modified foods, which is hardly the issue at all. Pesticides and herbicides that are unhealthy for human consumption pervade our food but we hear more about the "controversy" of genetically modified food (which could hold part of the solution to our problems in the food industry). Exapted, you are spot on with this but instead of going to all the trouble writing the above paragraph, you could have summed it up in one sentence: GOVERNMENTS ARE THE ENEMIES OF HUMANITY. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 10/31/2009 9:47 PM by antistatist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Divide and conquer. Oldest trick in the book. If you can get the citizens to hate each other, they will forget who's holding all the guns to their heads. [Reply] [Parent]

		The Government Tit posted on 10/31/2009 9:49 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>If you can get the citizens to hate each other, they will forget who's holding all the guns to their heads. That's right. Have you read Larken Rose's book HOW TO BE A SUCCESSFUL TYRANT? This book is a must-read for all those weenies out there that think they need a government tit to suck on their whole lives. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Government Tit posted on 11/01/2009 10:42 AM by antistatist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Haha, no, I haven't read that. But it sounds interesting. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Government Tit posted on 11/01/2009 1:30 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Haha, no, I haven't read that. But it sounds interesting. This is a cognitive dissonant nightmare for the lumpen person who is comfortable with their government. Hear that REDquist? James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 12:58 AM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	11. People are sick and tired of shopping at Wal-Mart knowing fully well that they are buying products made by slave labor (often children) in China. Did you ask Chinese "slave workers" what they think about your concerns? [Reply] [Parent]

		Walmart Uses Slave Labor? posted on 11/01/2009 11:45 AM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Did you ask Chinese "slave workers" what they think about your concerns? While doing the research for ORIGINAL INTENT, we had to go through many books, periodicals and audio/visual materials, from both the "Left" and "Right" on this and all the other issues discussed in the documentary. While there are some Chinese workers that have benefited from "authoritarian capitalism" a number of sources, including research by Pat Buchanan and documentary filmmaker, Robert Greenwald (OUTFOXED and WALMART-The High Cost of Low Price), that not only confirm the claimed working conditions, the later has filmed such conditions with documentary testimony from various ex-Walmart managers. So the statement that, when you buy products from a WALMART, you are supporting Chinese slave labor and many times minor slave labor, is accurate and verifiable. So stop doing it. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Walmart Uses Slave Labor? posted on 11/01/2009 3:09 PM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I do not shop at Walmart. There isn't even one anywhere near me. I'm not saying that working conditions in Chinese sweatshops are great. I'm saying that many of those "slaves" could not be happier having these shitty jobs, because going back to wherever it was they came from would be even worse. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Walmart Uses Slave Labor? posted on 11/01/2009 5:32 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>I do not shop at Walmart. There isn't even one anywhere near me. I'm not saying that working conditions in Chinese sweatshops are great. I'm saying that many of those "slaves" could not be happier having these shitty jobs, because going back to wherever it was they came from would be even worse. So the WALMARTS of the world are their knights in shinning armor? I guess the slave drivers in the American South said the same thing about the men and women they imported from Africa. these are all justifications for human rights violations. A nation (China) that has a government that keeps its population in such poverty that working in a slave "sweatshop" is a STEP-UP is no nation decent American companies should be supporting or doing business with just so their CEOS (and stockholders) have enough money to pay the rent on their hookers apartments. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 1:01 AM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	13. People are sick and tired because the "food" they eat from most grocery stores is not food at all but "profit margins" for some corporate chain. What the heck does that even mean? Every product you buy is made by somebody who normally cares about his profit margins. Those people have to eat too, you know. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 1:41 AM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Read my comment above FYI. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 11:47 AM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>What the heck does that even mean? Every product you buy is made by somebody who normally cares about his profit margins. Those people have to eat too, you know. You know Frink, the fact that you even have to ASK about this statement shows me how far gone you are. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 3:03 PM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Well I'd also prefer my food to be grown by selfless magical elves. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 1:07 AM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	8. People are sick and tired of having to spend ever more money at the grocery store because their Federal Reserve Notes are turning into shit; People should be concerned about inflation, but to describe current situation as "money turning into shit" is dishonest. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 11:49 AM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>People should be concerned about inflation, but to describe current situation as "money turning into shit" is dishonest. Frink, you have obviously failed to do any homework. Read THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND and watch the movie FIAT EMPIRE http://www.FiatEmpire.com and then get back to me with your modified statement. Thanks, James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 3:00 PM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I don't need to watch a movie to know what my own money are worth now. There are problems with having growing national debt and inflation is one of them. But you are claiming that the dollar already is worth shit and you apparently have difficult time buying stuff in a grocery store. And that's a lie no matter how much research you want me to do. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 5:23 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>I don't need to watch a movie to know what my own money are worth now. Yes you do because you don't what the definition of "shit" is. >There are problems with having growing national debt and inflation is one of them. Inflation is a RESULT of something not a cause of something. >But you are claiming that the dollar already is worth shit and you apparently have difficult time buying stuff in a grocery store. And that's a lie no matter how much research you want me to do. The dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was installed. At what point do you want to call the dollars shit, when it has lost 99% of its purchasing power or when it's lost 100% James http://www.FiatEmpire.tv [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 6:35 PM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	1913? Really? Were you keeping all your money under the mattress all that time? Well, that would suck. But then again your cannot blame Fed for such a stupid decision. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 10:04 AM by Big Monkey	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Its not perfect but its good enough. Its a book called The Shack. I think you might enjoy it JJ. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 10:13 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	FYI - inflation is simply caused by printing of money. That's it. As technologies develop, systems improve and labor is more and more efficient, you'd think we'd be in a constant state of DEFLATION! Inflation is a trick word taught by hack economists to ignorant university students so that they may obfuscate the simple reality that the ONLY culprit and ONLY cause of monetary instability is the Federal Reserve and its legions of fools (any one working for IRS, Fed, Treasury) and its court of corrupted elite (politicians, wall-street movers and shakers). Hell, I know enough people personally that make insanely ridiculous amounts of money on just trading paper, all the while helping push the mechanism that prints money faster and faster. As for you JJ, people aren't sick and tired enough - all they need is a little shove. Perhaps American's are just to sheeplish to act any more - we've been bred dumb and fat - too lazy and self absorbed to act until it's "too late"? I think so. Don't worry, BO will solve our problems through rhetoric and charisma. LOL! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 10:57 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You guys need to bring some of this stuff to the "church of doojie web page", and check out "doojie's pen". http://www.churchofdoojie.com [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 11:51 AM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Most of us may need to go to the Church of the DoJ. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 1:58 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Doojie, I just went to your site and all was good except for your INSANE "Write the displayed characters" section which rejected me about 10 times even though I clicked the check boxed and filled out all fields. Lighten up on all the log-in and log-out horseshit. I thought you liked FREEDOM. The below is what I tried to post at your site but my FREEDOM was blocked by idiot-web development. A new documentary on the US Consitution is completed and about to be released. The doc is called ORIGINAL INTENT and features Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, G. Edward Griffin, Edwin Vieira and Ted Baehr. See http://www.FiatEmpire.com/producers for more info. Also See http://www.FiatEmpire.tv if you are wondering how the Federal Reserve funds all the unconsitutional activity you see around you. James Jaeger P.S. Good site Doojie. [Reply] [Parent]

		Scum Removal in Progress posted on 11/01/2009 1:06 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>FYI - inflation is simply caused by printing of money. That's it. That's exactly right. When idiots and morons on TV use the word "INFLATION" they usually say sentences like: "The Fed is doing their best to control inflation." This is an idiot statement that PROVES that the speaker went to public school and/or is on alcohol and/or pharmaceutical drugs. What they mean to say is as follows: "The Fed is doing their best to avoid inflating the money supply by monetizing debt or lower fraction reserve requirements." >As technologies develop, systems improve and labor is more and more efficient, you'd think we'd be in a constant state of DEFLATION! Yes, exactly. But what the fucks in the banking system do is continuously print up money. This INFLATION of the MONEY SUPPLY causes PRICES TO RISE because the PURCHASING POWER of the dollar is turning into SHIT. BUT when: 1. hard-working technologists -- such as you folks here at the MIND-X and places like MICROSOFT -- make computers and things cheaper, due to your commendable productivity) AND 2. hard-working slave labor from places like China are used to PRODUCE products; THEN this causes PRICES TO LOWER. LOWER PRICES + HIGHER PRICES = NO PRICE CHANGE, a false sense of reality and preemption by tricky elites.(1) Thus, YOUR productivity (technologists and slave workers) is being sucked up (neutralized) by the LOSS of purchasing power caused by the BANKER FUCKS in the Federal Reserve System and all the related (multinational) corporations that benefit from early access to FIAT money, prime-rate borrowing and special gov privileges bestowed by a purchased congress. >Inflation is a trick word taught by hack economists to ignorant university students so that they may obfuscate the simple reality that the ONLY culprit and ONLY cause of monetary instability is the Federal Reserve and its legions of fools (any one working for IRS, Fed, Treasury) and its court of corrupted elite (politicians, wall-street movers and shakers). Well said. >Hell, I know enough people personally that make insanely ridiculous amounts of money on just trading paper, all the while helping push the mechanism that prints money faster and faster. Yes the WORMS and PIGS that infest Wall Street in the name of "CAPITALISM" or "free enterprise" would have been lined up and SHOT in Stalin's Russia. These SCUM produce nothing of value but simply "surf the system" to make "profits" from the transactions on money that are a result of the hard work from the rest of us. >As for you JJ, people aren't sick and tired enough - all they need is a little shove. There is no question that if the SCUM on Wall Street and the SCUM that have infiltrated the Congress and Supreme Court are not handled, there will be a serious and bloody revolution in this country. I DO NOT WANT OR ADVOCATE THIS BECAUSE THERE IS A WAY TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM: VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS FROM OFFICE AND CONTINUE WITH THIS POLICY UNTIL THINGS CHANGE FOR THE BETTER (meaning, we get back to a Constitutional Republic with a true free enterprise capitalist system on backed currency). See http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/overthro w.htm >Perhaps American's are just to sheeplish to act any more - we've been bred dumb and fat - too lazy and self absorbed to act until it's "too late"? I think so. Don't worry, BO will solve our problems through rhetoric and charisma. LOL! American's still have the vote and if that doesn't work they will vote with the arms the Founders gave them to "keep and bear." James Jaeger ------------------------ (1) Just like the frog that is boiled in a kettle of slowly heated water, the elites want to BOIL you (and eat your productivity) but not kill you - yet. So the trick of printing money and siphoning off productivity (for 100-room mansion and Mercedes payments) is to not awaken the sleeping giant. You keep them asleep by the following methods: o Public school indoctrination; o Cable TV mass media; o Political correctness from the Hollywood-based motion picture industry; o Marxist-infiltrated colleges and universities; o Endless incarceration for trivial and bogus "crimes" such as pot and DUI; o Bogus two-party system that is controlled from above by corporate Globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); o Endless emergencies and "danger" in the environment ("Cultural Pessimism"); o Destruction of alternative, non-gov, places to run (such as the Family unite, the church, and non-profit organizations). [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/01/2009 3:03 PM by godchaser	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	. A Twenty One Gun Salute for the Death of Humanity, James- (: Don't get me wrong; the list is spot on but it's no secret that corrupt-establishment is the seed of change/progress. (I've never heard of a Conquer elected Saint.) To that, selling "Patriotism" suggests there's something more to be done than participate as we already do; in its fading necessity. -Calls of outrage inevitably incites little more than sympathy for the over-reaching credit it offers 'elitist-gov. agenda'? You see my meaning: despite any lingering nostalgic hangovers of revolution, this height of preoccupation can't ever be more than activity in the machine itself. Same as all human-endeavor, it's mercifully seamless or even innocuous. To that, mekanik drawing close to many that profit on the back of (intangible) leverage is perfect example of today's knee jerk-reflection of yesterday's (sensory) brick & mortar barter. The activity of generating disposable gain defines progressive posture. Because this "activity" is less tangable than an edifice complex doesn't bespeak spiraling corruption, anymore than innominate tech.-activity is obliged insidious practice. (The fact that tech's deliberatly shelved or otherwise, is meaningless in the shotgun view.) Look, what would you do if you were counted among the anonymity of elitist-circle.. would you compound societal projections of guilt and succumb to martyrdom, or do all you could to perpetuate opportunistic advantage. Sound familiar- That's Transhumanism through & through. Not to mention, inevitable-Liberty for All. -And notice i didn't sellout the question with 'what would you do' to make the world a better place, silly talk. Clearly, seeming injustice is the nature of life wanting to sustain itself. Proof enough that it's not at all a rat race between haves and have nots, given heavy handed power-establishment literally fuels the fire in the belly of life-sustained. It matter of factly 'perpetuates' tech advance. When i saw Ray was aware of this reality, i started to look a lot closer at what he was saying about the future. Rich-poor/gov-citizenry opposition holds no lasting significance, obviously. Although i would be interested in hearing some ghost stories held at the big-boys dinner table mekanik. No doubt the motions discussed are as practically forthright as any enamored and well-meaning activists might fashion themselves. Cheers Boss- ;) - [Reply] [Parent]

		Wacko posted on 11/01/2009 11:39 AM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	James and exapted, You are both wacko here, because you are both fundamentally opposed to free markets. “NO NO” you’ll howl – I’m stupid if I think we have a free market. In our economy, commerce has substantial freedom and that freedom includes the right to respond and adapt to regulation and taxation by government. Business will cut deals with government, if government permits or encourages it. If government is sufficiently predatory, it can come to control most of the economy. That’s the road we are on. Business and its practices are seldom much of a problem, and freedom is always the solution. As to your list, James, it’s clear you are a misanthrope. It would have been better if you had just stuck with “GOVERNMENTS ARE THE ENEMIES OF HUMANITY” or better “GOVERNMENTS ARE THE GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY”. P.S. To antistatist “If you can get the citizens to hate each other, they will forget who's holding all the guns to their heads.” Good one, so long as everyone realizes that only government (and the occasional criminal) can get away with holding a gun to the head of the people. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Wacko posted on 11/01/2009 12:09 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I'm not getting you here. If government is sufficiently predatory, that's the road we are on. Then you're saying we should all be more predatory to stabilize the power of government. Lock and load? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Wacko posted on 11/01/2009 12:12 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	after the civil war and slaves were freed cotton still needed picking and plantation owners were faced with a new paradigm. this turning point was the key to modern business. the thing the plantation owners and all business owners learned was this: when you own slaves they are your capital equipment. you have to feed them, medicate them, house them, wash them etc. after the emancipation proclamation they had to pay the slaves to work and what they learned at that point changed economics. they could rent people instead of owning. no housing costs, no clothing costs, no minimum wages, what could be better. if they starved or died no problem get another one. let them live under a piece of bark in the woods. even if we can't use children anymore we can still pay under subsistence levels and if that becomes an issue like minimum wage laws then we will move to the third world. screw em. the more wonderful thing is that it extends the slave pool to include all ethnicitys. the corporate structure and global free trade breaks down any protection for workers. we can either work for what the cheapest labor source will work for or starve. yes brother the free market is perfect as long as the govt doesn't get their beak into the frakis. tell me how this is right materially or ethically. more specifically how does this help america in the long run. i don't know what you do for a living but the other day i was talking to attorneys and they were saying legal sweatshops are a reality in india. law firms here are farming out their work to these businesses in india to american educated lawyers in india. just let the ball keep rolling like this. you will be squeaking and i don't mean like a wheel that needs greasing i mean like the rats you are. [Reply] [Parent]

		Benedict Arnold-CEOs posted on 11/01/2009 2:25 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>tell me how this is right materially or ethically. This is a difficult subject and one I am currently pulling my hair out over. Specifically: How can one believe in FREE markets yet curse corporations when "all" they do is venture out to employ the cheapest labor? After thinking about this question for a while, here is how this resolves for me: When a U.S. corporation leaves its nation's shore for labor in some other nation like Communist China, that corporation is obtaining labor NOT on the FREE market, but on the SLAVE market. The people in China live under a Communist dictatorship. This means their gov points guns at them and tells them what to do. They are slaves. If the China-guns gov tells its people that "You will work at the factory that supplies WAL-MART because this is good for China, i.e. the GROUP" -- then that worker does just that, they work in the slave-labor sweatshop for the "greater good of the greater number" -- as some here are fond of advocating. So when Benedict Arnold-CEOs from American then abandon their American workers so they can hire Chinese workers for $3 per day -- and thus pocket the profits for their "STOCKHOLDERS" -- they are GUILTY of, not only TREASON against their home nation, the USA, but guilty of assaulting the very meaning and honor of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. In short, they have a gal calling themselves "capitalists," for what they are is nothing less than SLAVE MASTERS, no less than the disgusting people the dominated the American South prior to emancipation. And I believe the Globalists that dominate today's "free" trade world will eventually go down in history as no less than the slave master Americans fought in the civil war. But in reality, they will be denounced even more for their motives are motives of PURE greed, not necessity. These Benedict Arnold-CEOs have the option of using labor in free markets but they choose to use slave labor in so-called "authoritarian capitalist" nations (as apologists for the Global Slave System, such as FOREIGN AFFAIRS magazine, like to euphemize it) just for greater "stockholder value." The slave owners of the American South had no choice, as lack of technology forced them to use slaves. It was not ALL about profits them, it was about survival. But today's WALMART-type Benedict Arnold-CEOS are as despicable as they come and they will have their day of judgment -- as soon as the Peoples of Earth get around to it. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Benedict Arnold-CEOs posted on 11/01/2009 2:52 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	This is what I was trying to point out when I was talking about how our {relative} freedom as Americans (and yes - although we are not completely (read: idealistically) free -- we are freer than most people have been throughout history) is more often than not paid for by the enslavement of the world at large. Our opulence often comes from our { free } exploitation of the non-free world. This is why, in the end, no one can 'protect' freedom. Right now, we're playing a zero-sum game. We are indoctrinated to the idea that we can purchase our freedom if we compete hard enough, and contrary to what schools teach us, we are not born into freedom, but born into a Dosadi experiment where only the most ruthless sociopathic individuals rise far enough to attain 'freedom'. Funny thing is, they never truly achieve freedom either. They are dependent on the people they subjugate for their 'freedom' and could not exist any other way. People always seem to oscillate between two extreme polarities: co-dependence (socialism) and independence (capitalism) -- but I think there's a middle path. Inter-dependence. No one exists in a vacuum. No one is an island. No one is the center, unless everyone is the center. This is the beauty of open source, including the new social media paradigm. De-centralization works by taking a center { a center of wealth, power, etc. } and OPENING it, that is, giving a greater number of people access to it. America was founded on exactly this idea. To take power and control and open it up to a larger segment of the population. They just didn't go far enough, but it's the same open source principle. The technological revolution that is washing over us NOW is taking the same principle a step farther. We are open sourcing EVERYTHING in our lives. Our social interactions, our political power, our wealth, our knowledge. I think we'll move away from a society built on set rules, and develop an adhocracy. No single set of rules can ever define every situation. With instantaneous global communication comes the ability to fluidly adapt a set of solutions to any problem on an individualized, yet networked basis. It's like having all the minds on the planet working on each and every problem: 'two heads are better than one' taken to it's exponential limits. This kind of ground up egalitarianism will simultaneously realize the most optimal features of both collectivism and individualism. We will continue to bust apart old nodes of power, turning them into highly complex relationships and inter-connected netwerks, diverse channels and connections of power, wealth, and expression. [Reply] [Parent]

		Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 3:03 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	This is what I was trying to point out when I was talking about how our {relative} freedom as Americans (and yes - although we are not completely (read: idealistically) free -- we are freer than most people have been throughout history) is more often than not paid for by the enslavement of the world at large. Our opulence often comes from our { free } exploitation of the non-free world. This is why, in the end, no one can 'protect' freedom. Right now, we're playing a zero-sum game. We are indoctrinated to the idea that we can purchase our freedom if we compete hard enough, and contrary to what schools teach us, we are not born into freedom, but born into a Dosadi experiment where only the most ruthless sociopathic individuals rise far enough to attain 'freedom'. Funny thing is, they never truly achieve freedom either. They are dependent on the people they subjugate for their 'freedom' and could not exist any other way. People always seem to oscillate between two extreme polarities: co-dependence (socialism) and independence (capitalism) -- but I think there's a middle path. Inter-dependence. No one exists in a vacuum. No one is an island. No one is the center, unless everyone is the center. This is the beauty of open source, including the new social media paradigm. De-centralization works by taking a center { a center of wealth, power, etc. } and OPENING it, that is, giving a greater number of people access to it. America was founded on exactly this idea. To take power and control and open it up to a larger segment of the population. They just didn't go far enough, but it's the same open source principle. The technological revolution that is washing over us NOW is taking the same principle a step farther. We are open sourcing EVERYTHING in our lives. Our social interactions, our political power, our wealth, our knowledge. I think we'll move away from a society built on set rules, and develop an adhocracy. No single set of rules can ever define every situation. With instantaneous global communication comes the ability to fluidly adapt a set of solutions to any problem on an individualized, yet networked basis. It's like having all the minds on the planet working on each and every problem: 'two heads are better than one' taken to it's exponential limits. This kind of ground up egalitarianism will simultaneously realize the most optimal features of both collectivism and individualism. We will continue to bust apart old nodes of power, turning them into highly complex relationships and inter-connected netwerks, diverse channels and connections of power, wealth, and expression. This is a beautiful and thoughtful vision Pan and one I think can materialize. But before I can say that without reservation, could you please define what you mean by OPEN SOURCE? Do you mean Free by this term? I know what "open source" means in connection with programming, i.e., everyone can have access to the source code running the app or OS), but I'm having a difficult time applying this term to socio-political macroeconomics. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Claptrap posted on 11/01/2009 3:18 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	a beautiful and thoughtful vision “De-centralization works by taking [wealth, power] and Opening it, that is giving a greater number of people access to it.” Its neo-Marxist claptrap James, and you’re a cheerleader. “This kind of ground up egalitarianism will simultaneously realize the most optimal features of both collectivism and individualism.” More claptrap from someone who doesn’t produce anything, and wants to be given wealth and power. You have met the enemy, James, and it is you. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Claptrap posted on 11/01/2009 3:48 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Its neo-Marxist claptrap James, and you’re a cheerleader. Not so fast REDquist. I asked him to define exactly what he means by "open source." >“This kind of ground up egalitarianism will simultaneously realize the most optimal features of both collectivism and individualism.” Well maybe this IS possible. It depends on whether one is looking at all this in a one-planet mode or a multi-planet mode. What makes sense in a one-planet civilization may not make sense in a two- or multi-planet civilization. Remember, sharing resources (open source, I guess) is a ZERO-SUM game when on one planet, but as humanity expands out into an INFINIT universe of resources, who looks like the fool: the FAT PIG sitting there worried about sharing or the UNIVERSAL ENTREPRENEUR that has bigger fish to fry? >more claptrap from someone who doesn’t produce anything, and wants to be given wealth and power. Maybe. >You have met the enemy, James, and it is you. Oh really? My refusal to be dognatic about some subject or system and my willingness to admit that I don't have all the answers (yet) makes me an ENEMY? Please?! Are you projecting yourself Dude? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Claptrap posted on 11/01/2009 4:15 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	As soon as I posted, I realized that maybe you were baiting the rube. In which, my apology. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Claptrap posted on 11/01/2009 6:04 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>As soon as I posted, I realized that maybe you were baiting the rube. In which, my apology. Well no, I actually wansn't, I was sincerely trying to understand WHERE he was coming from before I jumped down his throat. I think Pan is basically a good guy and has a fertile productive mind. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 3:21 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Ok... First, let's define "source" in a general way (of course I'm borrowing from software-speak, since that's where the term was first coined, but I will endeavor to show that the principle was in operation long before the term was coined). By source, I refer to DNA (as the source of genetic information), food, or any accumulation of wealth, influence or power. The supermarket is a 'source'. The government is a 'source'. My body is a 'source'. The sun is a 'source'. Basically, any thing where energy, power, wealth, or resource is collected, is a 'source'. Open source is the ability to 'crack open the shell' and open up access to the 'code' (or seed, etc.) of a source. Just like open source software that allows users to modify it. Just like free markets. I think one of the underlying principles in open source is the idea that the 'center' (or 'source) is not sacred, or sacrosanct. That is, it is open to modification, or input from it's users. Just like the genetic code (which is constantly re-defined by each 'user'). So, this is good, this is sort of why I brought this up again - because it appears to me that there is no universal consensus on the 'definition' of open source (and, I think, if we look at the underlying operation of 'open source' we should see that it's something that should constantly be redefined - hence, 'adhocracy'). Anyway, those ex-brits who began the conquest of this continent did exactly this, when they constructed the constitution, etc. of this country. They took centralized power out of the hands of the king and his lackeys, and 'open sourced' it to a greater number of people ('government for the people by the people'). If we can just get past the veneer of this (resting on the laurels of what THEY did), and understand the UNDERLYING operating principles, which were open source, we can apply these principles to our lives, to our governments, our economy, etc. Open source is incestuous. It's fecund. It's diverse. It loves to mate and mutate. It's chaos, and transformation. Inter-connectedness. On a practical level, it's precisely what the internet, and by extension Twitter, Facebook, etc. are achieving, by a ground-up method. They're inter-connecting people in a way that allows them to circumvent centralization of power. They're blowing up nodes. Consumers are now producers as well. The very act of 'consumption' will now be married to the act of 'producing'. That is to say, they will indistinguishable from each other. Each act of consumption will also produce something at the same time. This is already becoming true, rapidly, of online content...I can see it extending to all other aspects of our lives, as this technology continues to penetrate our daily spheres. To me, it's the difference between a diverse ecosystem, or a monocultural one. Adhocracy. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 3:27 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I guess another way to look at it is 'open source' increases the mutation rate of any system, and thus speeds it's evolution, because there is a wider variability of input. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 3:40 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And here's an overly simplified concrete example: Let's person 'n' has a problem. A dilemma. A challenge. Something she/he doesn't know what to do about it. This person whips out the iPhone (ok, more likely to be implanted contacts or whatever - subcortical cybermodem...doesn't really matter...that's a topic for a different discussin). Right, with me so far? This person get's on the web, and transmits the details/essence of their problem/dilemma/challenge to the web (perhaps to a forum like this one - or a social networking site). This person get's immediate feedback from a multitude of people, first from those that person is closely connected to, but later from people more removed as well (now, I know what most would say here - that's information overload! BUT, there are ways to deal with that too -- ranking systems and AI filters to organize the data in a meaningful way -- metatags and semantic webs). With a plethora of solutions (also rated by statistical analysis and simulation AI's), this person very quickly receives the optimal solution to whatever the problem may be. In real time. Now, someone might say, 'that sounds like a high-falutin idear, but WTF? this ain't star trek'...and I say: what do you think social networking sites are doing right now? Laying the foundation for this very thing I'm talking about. The infrastructure for this is materializing right in front of our eyes, and this is why I've been posting all the news connected with this topic, so we can understand, and prepare for it's implications now, instead of just twiddling our thumbs while we wait for the first 'Tweetbomb'. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 4:00 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And yet another way to look at it is by asking ourselves what we do here on this forum? What do you do by posting all this stuff? Making documentaries? Blogs? You are attempting to solve something you see as a problem, by reaching a wide audience via the internet. You are doing this with something you see as a massive, pervasive problem. I'm merely suggesting that people can do the same thing, to solve all the daily problems that they face. Doesn't actually matter what that problem is, people will use social networks to solve it. It doesn't have to be a high-minded "important" problem for social media to get involved. Interestingly though, is that when people adapt to solving things in this way, a large portion of people's problems become less problematic, and hence there are fewer problems in the world to solve...or at least people will move on to problems of a different nature. And this adaptation will train people to solve things in this manner, and they will apply this process to progressively harder problems, using the same techniques. I understand your vehemence towards a state-run collectivism of any sort. The kind of thing I'm proposing is a bottom-up collectivism, one that isn't enforced, but is sought simply because it's rewards will be so obvious to everyone that they won't want to do it any other way. It doesn't any enforcement or, as you put it, 'men with guns', simply because it's inherently appealing to everyone. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 1:02 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>I guess another way to look at it is 'open source' increases the mutation rate of any system, and thus speeds it's evolution, because there is a wider variability of input. Agreed, however open source doesn't seem to be what people want. I alredy proposed a new monetary system based on CITChecks. Remember? That's about as open source as one can get, no, allowing individual people to CREATE the money supply rather than banks or governments. Didn't individual people create the money supply when they mined gold? What has changed? James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 1:06 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Since people became civilized(heh), they have progressed toward a more collectivist midset. You know the educational system promiotes this, and McLuhan points out the more subliminal forces that shape the collectivist tendency in his exploration of print media. We deceive ourselves into thinking that our solutions are the process of our thoughts, and simply by discaring individual process in favor of generalized empirical processes, we will find nirvana. Telecommunications revolutions are creating a change in that mindset, but it takes time. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 1:10 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	collectivism sucks. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 1:12 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I prefer getting a head. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 1:33 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	collectivism sucks. Who does collectivism suck for? [Reply] [Parent]

		What is Collectivism posted on 11/02/2009 2:05 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Who does collectivism suck for? As I have exhaustively tried to explain at this forum: Point 1. When we focus on making the GROUP (collective) able -- we get shit (totalitarianism). Point 2. When we focus on making the INDIVIDUAL (person) able -- we get an able GROUP. "Collectivism" and "collectives" are terms that refer to people who practice point 1 above and can't seem to comprehend point 2. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 2:13 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I have a few more questions for you James. I have heard you say in previous posts that a society that strengthens individuals, strengthens the collective efforts of those individuals. Isn't this admitting that collectivism (in some form) still plays a part in society? There are two ways to look at collectivism: Top down. This is the kind of communism/socialism you despise, and I happen to agree with you. It's collectivism enforced from a position of authority. Bottom up. There are many real life examples of this kind of collectivism. We usually call it something like community action. Churches, missions and charities. Neighborhood clean up crews. Spontaneous outreach. Free festivals, concerts, and events. Baking a batch of cookies for your neighbor. The open source movement (in general, as there are a lot of different approaches to it) is an example of the second kind of collectivism. It's individuals deciding to participate in an open society, rather than being forced to by a higher authority. You're example of 'stronger individuals make stronger collectives' is completely compatible with this (in fact, it's the same thing). The only difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that the anarchist believes in taking it just half a step further than the libertarian. Kind of like how an atheist only believes in one less god than the religious. Free markets are not only consistent with open source principles, but open source principles, I believe, are the UNDERLYING driving force behind free markets. 'Open source' is like free markets in hyperdrive. It comes down to flow. When a resource accumulates in one place (like damming a river, or water collecting in a puddle) it stagnates. When it flows it open's up new channels. Open source seeks to increase the flow in every possible direction at once, causing more resources to flow at a faster rate (as opposed to HOARDING, which only causes things to grind to a halt). It's not about forcing people to give against their will, it's about showing people the underlying mathematical soundness of the 'pay it forward' principle. You can toss aside sentimentality, and STILL show that increasing the flow of resources, through generosity, actually increases the profits for the person doing so. The greedy have it all wrong, if they actually wanted to make as MUCH AS POSSIBLE, they would open up the floodgates through generosity. This is how we play a positive sum game. you can see this stirring in things like micro-loans, open source software, spontaneous gift economies, Burning Man festival, etc. It's precisely like Manfred Macx says's in Accelerando, "To get ahead in this world, you have to give." Real altruism is opposed to BOTH the self-interest meme, AND the self-sacrifice meme. Humans are NOT inherently self-interested (even if they act this away at times). NOR are they inherently self-sacrificing (and it's pretty easy to show that self-sacrifice is itself a form of self-interest). The integration of all this is altruism. Altruism is actually INCLUDING the self in the whole, not excluding the self (or self-sacrifice). To realize that one's self (and needs, wants and desires) are CONGRUENT with the needs of the whole (this is your 'strong individuals make strong collectives' argument) is the keystone to the successful marriage of the all/one. The open source movement encapsulates all these principles...it seeks to open access to anything imaginable (whether this is political power, money, products, energy) in order to ENABLE individuals to become more self-sustaining, more self-reliant, precisely so that they can then OPEN SOURCE more resources and ENABLE others to OPEN SOURCE more resources who can then ENABLE others to OPEN SOURCE more resources who will then ENABLE others to OPEN SOURCE more......and more and more....... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 2:16 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Point 2. When we focus on making the INDIVIDUAL (person) able -- we get an able GROUP. YES! When we { note "we" is a group } So you're saying that as a GROUP we must empower, enable and strengthen INDIVIDUALS who will then grow strong enough to help enable, strengthen and empower OTHER individuals who will then in turn grow empowered enough to ENABLE and EMPOWER other individuals. This is exactly what anarchy, egalitarianism, voluntarianism, open source, or gift economy is about! (choose whichever label suits you best) cheers Pan [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 2:36 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Also, the desire for a 'minimal government' I think can be summed up like this: you want autonomy, but you want it to be secure. That is, you want some kind of 'protection' in place (in the form of minimal government) that will ensure that no one else can take away that autonomy. I keep trying to point out that this is akin to getting out of bed on the wrong side. Starting off on the wrong foot. Once you accept even 'minimal government', it's a slippery slope to total subjugation (although some forms of 'minimal governments' take longer to reach the point of totalitarianism). This is why I say you can't 'protect' freedom. There is no security that can ensure freedom. But, it can be nurtured, by advancing, promoting and nurturing open source principles, not by enforcing them, but by encouraging people to adopt them, and adopting them yourself. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 2:38 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Also, it's this 'need' to secure our freedom that LEADS us to slavery! (I know, ironic) Underlying it is FEAR. Fear that someone may take away our freedom. So we willingly sacrifice our freedom for 'security'. When we let go of fear, we are free. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/05/2009 7:59 AM by codesimian	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	willingly? I don't remember being asked for permission to destroy USA's Constitution by contradicting it with the (extremely unpatriotic and terrorist-loving) "Patriot Act" laws. More government secrets cause more terrorism. George W Bush helped the terrorists get stronger. But more to the point... variations of a quote from Benjamin Franklin about freedom vs security: The saying has also appeared in many paraphrased forms: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 2:40 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Also, the desire for a 'minimal government' I think can be summed up like this: you want autonomy, but you want it to be secure. That is, you want some kind of 'protection' in place (in the form of minimal government) that will ensure that no one else can take away that autonomy. I am getting round to the idea that: ONE DOES NOT NEED GOVERNMENT FOR PROTECTION One can hire private security for the body, house, neighborhood, but how do you pay for security above this level, ie the state, country? James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 3:03 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	One can hire private security for the body, house, neighborhood So you reduce 'security' (i.e. government) to a micro-level instead of the macro-level. What would happen if a company offered a product on a 'pay what you want to' model? (the answer may surprise you) Government, in my mind (even 'minimal governments' - though these are obviously better than big governments) is the same as paying someone $50 to stop a thief from stealing $5...you lose $45 more than if you just chalked up the theft to 'overhead' (little birds swoop in to steal crumbs all the time - we shouldn't worry about them - EVER). As time goes by, the costs of this 'security' increase exponentially, as we need more and more enforcers to watch everyone (so that $50 becomes $75, then $100, then $125 -- all to prevent a measly $5 from being stolen). It's not COST EFFECTIVE. It's cheaper to find more efficient to find ways to produce stuff, and to exploit deeper, bigger caches of resources in more efficient methods, than it is to prevent a few LITTLE BIRDS from stealing a grape or two now and then. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 3:40 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Here's another example: reducing (or eliminating) the drinking age REDUCES criminal drinking by minors, and the negative social/health effects associated with drinking. De-criminalizing heroin use and setting up harm-reduction centers REDUCES criminal heroin use and all it's negative associations (including transmission of disease). Abstinence only sex education INCREASES teen pregnancy and disease, while handing out condoms for FREE reduces them. Teaching children to appreciate, respect, and ACKNOWLEDGE their sexuality, and allowing them CHOICE (informed) also REDUCES pregnancy and disease. Experiments have proven this empirically. We are shown over and over again that authority always makes things worse, and yet (like the heroin addict) we keep relying on it. Now THAT's crazy. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 3:44 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	how do you pay for security above this level, ie the state, country? Why would you need security above this level anyway? (at least for a large nation) Do you really think America (or any country with a huge population) could be successfully occupied? Seriously, our military (the BEST dressed military in the world ;) is having a SERIOUSLY hard time occupying tiny countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (ok, Afghanistan isn't exactly TINY per se, I mean it's fairly big geographically - but there aren't that many people there...compared to North America for example). So who in their right mind would want to invade? It's not a cost effective thing to do, so defense on that level is a TOTAL waste of money. [Reply] [Parent]

		Gov is Unnecessary posted on 11/02/2009 3:48 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>So you reduce 'security' (i.e. government) to a micro-level instead of the macro-level. And all the micro-level securities of all the people all over add up to macro-coverage. >paying someone $50 to stop a thief from stealing $5...you lose $45 more than if you just chalked up the theft to 'overhead' (little birds swoop in to steal crumbs all the time - we shouldn't worry about them - EVER). This does make sense. But what about 9/11? It DOES seem that the biggest expence that came out of 9/11 had nothing to do with 3,000 people in a tower. Because of a handfull of buildings, some jets and about 3,000 people, the U.S. has spent over a trillion on the Irag War and seen the lives of hundreds of thousands killed (Americans and Iraqis) and all of us are suffering with loss of civil rights and other freedoms. You are correct, BIG GOV is WAY too expensive. Civilization can no longer afford it. And it is evident that those in GOV use all these "little bird" crimes as justifications for endless expansion. Do you think people in general are going to eventually realize this? It is very difficult to tell people they don't need a government any more. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Gov is Unnecessary posted on 11/02/2009 4:04 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You are correct, BIG GOV is WAY too expensive. Civilization can no longer afford it. And it is evident that those in GOV use all these "little bird" crimes as justifications for endless expansion. Exactly. This is how they instill fear, that leads to people giving their consent to be governed - "fear thy neighbor" leads to more police, more military, more government. Because, hypothetically, some misguided misanthrope MIGHT steal $5 from me tomorrow, I need to preemptively give the government $50 today to prevent this (instead of just taking that lost soul under my wing and helping him find a better way - I'm reminded of a middle eastern tale of a merchant who catches a thief...and instead of turning the thief in to the authorities (who would cut off his hands) he teaches the thief how to be a merchant). Do you think people in general are going to eventually realize this? Well, the cynical like to...oh, fuck it, I don't want to talk about the cynical anymore...ummm, this is why I harp on the social media so much...to me, it's DIRECT evidence that the masses are waking up, and putting together their own open society from the ground up...turns out that widespread, cheap (or free), ubiquitous communication is a cornerstone. Being able to reach out to people when you need to is a better form of 'security' than authority. That's why I like Twitter, Facebook, etc. because it's growing this movement at an exponential rate (not because there is any particular thing about any of these services - it's just that they are all opening people's eyes to what is possible when we all connect with each other - and it's the first time this has been seen on such a massive scale). It is very difficult to tell people they don't need a government any more. I agree. I've tried the whole yelling atop a soapbox bit, and you just get funny looks. That's why I turn to the internet now, and social media. Of course, the capstone on all this is free energy and molecular manufacturing.....but just because we don't have the "holy grail" yet, doesn't mean that there aren't already forces moving towards this goal. We need to put as many cellphones and internet connected mobile devices into the hands of as large a population as we possibly can, and then people will SPONTANEOUSLY do the rest. [Reply] [Parent]

		Shutting Down Social Networks posted on 11/02/2009 4:46 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pan you have a good head and a good heart, as I have said before, but I think you just need a little more practice on how to market your ideas. Just as RED was not convinced that I am for free markets until I better communicated my ideas to him, you are going to have to better convince me exactly how you would propose to merge the principles of individualism with the principles of collectiveism and aboid ending up with a socialist society, ie a society where no one has the pride of ownership and pride of productivity. I assume you understand why the Soviet system failed, but pleae tell me your understanding of how and why it failed. Yes this is a test. Please be brief though, no discertation. >Exactly. This is how they instill fear, that leads to people giving their consent to be governed - "fear thy neighbor" leads to more police, more military, more government. Because, hypothetically, some misguided misanthrope MIGHT steal $5 from me tomorrow, I need to preemptively give the government $50 today to prevent this (instead of just taking that lost soul under my wing and helping him find a better way - I'm reminded of a middle eastern tale of a merchant who catches a thief...and instead of turning the thief in to the authorities (who would cut off his hands) he teaches the thief how to be a merchant). True. RED do you have a problem with the above paragraph? ___ No ____ Yes >Well, the cynical like to...oh, fuck it, I don't want to talk about the cynical anymore...ummm, this is why I harp on the social media so much...to me, it's DIRECT evidence that the masses are waking up, and putting together their own open society from the ground up...turns out that widespread, cheap (or free), ubiquitous communication is a cornerstone. Yes, as I stated I think you can better apply the OPEN SOURCE idea to things like communication and ideas better than to products and resources. I would steer away from these because when you say anything that sounds like nationalizing resources or socializing production or removing ownership of personal property you are treading on thin ice. People like their shit. They like their stuff and they like their guns. And you can't blame them. Maybe later in some more enlightened world where ideas and communication have been open sourced, you will have a condition of such abundance peole won't giv a shit about their shit. But the hand cut of thing is a good story. >Being able to reach out to people when you need to is a better form of 'security' than authority. Well this was the idea behind the Founders' Militia in the Second Amendment. Everyone provides the security for themselves and their neighbors. The Second Amendment OPEN SOURCES security, no? >That's why I like Twitter, Facebook, etc. because it's growing this movement at an exponential rate (not because there is any particular thing about any of these services - it's just that they are all opening people's eyes to what is possible when we all connect with each other - and it's the first time this has been seen on such a massive scale). All these "social networks" are still a bunch of crap until the CENTRALIZED Verizon network that carries the Twitter and FAcebook and phone conversations is totally and complete removed from the equasion. The only way I know this can be done is a PEER-TO-PEER, SELF-REPAIRIING NETWORK must be established. Then there IS no "service provider" as the NETWORK is the provider. As soon as NO ONE has any phone BILLS or Twitter Bills or ISP service charge Bills or broadband bills, THEN you have a REAL social network. Right now all you have is a mob of dumb kids that THINK their free. The Feds could shut down your "social" network tomorrow as fast as they closed all the airports on 9/11. >I agree. I've tried the whole yelling atop a soapbox bit, and you just get funny looks. That's why I turn to the internet now, and social media. I am THINKING of addressing this subject in my next documentary. But still I am unconvinced it's possible at this time. This is why I quizzed you above. >Of course, the capstone on all this is free energy and molecular manufacturing..... Well Tesla already tried to go down this road and he got shut down. The powers-that-be won't fund my TESLA project because I tell a politically incorrect story that disparages the MORGAN-EDISON-GE powers-that-be. See http://www.mecfilms.com/tesla >but just because we don't have the "holy grail" yet, doesn't mean that there aren't already forces moving towards this goal. True, but you need to get the following things to happen otherwise sit isn't happening: 1. a real PEER-TO PEER network (where my phone/computer passes your data/comm if you pass mine) is established; 2. the Tesla story is told so the world knows what a bunch of greedy fucks they are dealing with and never again trusts them with power; 3. the monetary power the greedy fucks depend on, i.e., FIAT MONEY, is shut down. 4. all of the congressmen and congresswomen in the HOUSE and SENATE are VOTED OUT at the federal, state and local levels for reasons stated in http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/overthro w.htm If 1-4 aren't happening, nada is happening. >We need to put as many cellphones and internet connected mobile devices into the hands of as large a population as we possibly can, and then people will SPONTANEOUSLY do the rest. Until they are shut down per lack of point 1 above. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Shutting Down Social Networks posted on 11/02/2009 5:07 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	1. a real PEER-TO PEER network (where my phone/computer passes your data/comm if you pass mine) is established; This sounds awesome. I wonder if exapted has any ideas about this. I tend to trust in organizations like Google, Mozilla, and Skype (foolishly? idk) to lead the way towards this. I'm not implying that they've already achieved these goals, just that they SEEM to operate by the underlying principles of open source, which should serve as an example (hopefully). 2. the Tesla story is told so the world knows what a bunch of greedy fucks they are dealing with and never again trusts them with power; You know who like to spread stories of Tesla? Steampunks. They are a great example of DIY, ground up social networking, and they DROOL over Tesla, and will talk your ear off about him. Contact some people in the steampunk culture, maybe feature some of them in your documentaries. 3. the monetary power the greedy fucks depend on, i.e., FIAT MONEY, is shut down. Yes. I don't really have much to contribute to this aspect. I bought some liberty dollars once (handed them out to people). 4. all of the congressmen and congresswomen in the HOUSE and SENATE are VOTED OUT at the federal, state and local levels for reasons stated in http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/overthro w.htm I don't know. From a personal philosophical standpoint, I think voting is giving in to the system. Maybe voting someone OUT of office is different. I'd prefer if we just stopped paying attention to them. Stopped paying taxes, stopped sending children into the military. Basically alienate them, and REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE in their schemes. If 1-4 aren't happening, nada is happening. Well, I find hope in the day to day incremental steps that are being taken. To me, it looks like the foundation is being laid for an egalitarianism, by PEOPLE. Until they are shut down per lack of point 1 above. Hmmm...yeah, we need to circumvent all the comm corporations. I can see dozens of technologies that *potentially* could do this (nantennaes come to mind)...I guess it's a matter of who will put 2 and 2 together. [Reply] [Parent]

		Keep Flushing posted on 11/02/2009 5:42 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>This sounds awesome. I wonder if exapted has any ideas about this. I tend to trust in organizations like Google, Mozilla, and Skype (foolishly? idk) to lead the way towards this. Why would ANY corporation want to cut their BALLS off? Unfortunately: WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE HUMAN RACE IS OFTEN/USUALLY NOT (THAT) GOOD FOR ANY GIVEN CORPORATION. It's like police powers. What if the police solved all crime and there were no more criminals, could the police department then be disbanded? Entities that come into being in the universe seem to have to justify their existence until they are literally FORCED out of existence. No comm company, or ISP, is ever going to fund and deploy a system that, when it's working, the measure is that THEIR service is needed LESS. So a true PEER-TO-PEER network would simply have to be BUILT by one of you guys in your garage. Just BUILD it and start USING it. Build two phones and give one of them to your best friend with the directions on how to build a third. Then get the exponential expansion happening. As more and more people build a phone and USE it, the NETWORK thickens hence its QUALITY improves. Suddenly, before you know it, a million people are talking and texting to each other for just the cost of batteries. Up front you make absolutely certain there are no patents or technology that the blood sucking corporate lawyers can then attach when the Establishment realizes this is WORKING and no one is GETTING RICH off it. This means your garage wizards must use off-the-shelf technology that anyone can get an modify and/or develop some patented technology and then place it into the public domain. Yes someone will have to forego becoming a millionaire for humanity. Anyone out there have THESE kinda balls? If these things and sacrifices AREN'T happening then you kids are just a bunch of dreaming freaks going nowhere. >I'm not implying that they've already achieved these goals, just that they SEEM to operate by the underlying principles of open source, which should serve as an example (hopefully). SEEM is the operating word. Believe me that don't give a SHIT about you and any network. >You know who like to spread stories of Tesla? Steampunks. They are a great example of DIY, ground up social networking, and they DROOL over Tesla, and will talk your ear off about him. Contact some people in the steampunk culture, maybe feature some of them in your documentaries. I would need about $10 million to produce my TESLA story independently and be able to say fuck you to DreamWorks, MGM and SONY (who have all "approved" the screenplay but won't give me the money until I get one of the directors on their fucking list). Are there 500,000 Tesla freaks out there worldwide that would chip in $20 each to make this picture? >Yes. I don't really have much to contribute to this aspect. I bought some liberty dollars once (handed them out to people). Your contribution is your understanding. >I don't know. From a personal philosophical standpoint, I think voting is giving in to the system. NEVER take this stance. When you and your friends fail to vote you let all the other idiots take power by default. THIS is why we now have an abortion for a government. By voting out all the incumbents you accomplish the following: 1. You don't have to put ANY attention on WHO to vote for or their "qualifications" because you don't give a DAMN about their qualifications. Elected servants are supposed to REPRESENT the People NOT have QUALIFICATIONS. 2. Just like a blind person will sooner or later hit the bulls eye if they keep firing shots at the target, YOU and a voter keep firing in NEW guys to office and sooner or later you will hit the bulls eye as well. You will know you hit the bulls eye: WHEN THINGS GET BETTER, NOT WORSE. WHEN GOV ACTUALLY GETS SMALLER AND ALL THE TOTALITARIANS ARE GONE. 3. WHEN this happens, THEN you can STOP automatically voting incumbents OUT. The name of this system is: KEEP FLUSHING UNTIL THE WATER GETS CLEAR. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Keep Flushing posted on 11/02/2009 5:49 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I would vote for impeachments or recalls. I would certainly vote someone OUT of office, but never IN. [Reply] [Parent]

		Defensive Voting posted on 11/02/2009 5:53 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Unfortunately we have to vote defensively. You have to assume that all those that are in there now are installed by a corrupt system thus they, to be safe, should all go. Haven't you ever been employed at a corporation when EVERYONE was fired at the same time. I have. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Mass Firing is "Normal" posted on 11/02/2009 5:55 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	P.S. This is how corporate America handles "personnel problens" all the time. You think this mass unemployment is an accident, no it's corporate America purging less than desirable employees. Mass firing, like mass extinctions, are a part of the smokestack, fiat-fueled system. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Defensive Voting posted on 11/02/2009 5:56 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Nope, I haven't (never worked for a corporation). But, for me voting someone into an office is contradictory to my ethical position, since I don't want anyone to have authority over me, or anyone else. I would definitely vote to fire a politician, but not to hire one. I would also vote to repeal laws, if the opportunity ever arises. Personally, I find it more important to remain true to my ideals than to succeed. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Defensive Voting posted on 11/02/2009 6:01 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	It's commendable to be true to you ideals but you also have to be pragmatic otherwise you will never see your ideals materialize. JAmes [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Defensive Voting posted on 11/02/2009 6:14 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I understand the pragmatism thing, I just choose to ignore it (maybe that's why I'm not successful yet? ;) There is a huge diversity of people in the world...I'll let others be pragmatic. In all honesty, I belong in a Taoist monastery...not really sure why I haven't ended up in one, except that 'life' happens when you're not looking :) There's room enough in the world to have extremophiles, and people in between, and when it comes to ethics I am one. I would accept death before I ever willingly supported authority or told a lie. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Defensive Voting posted on 11/02/2009 6:52 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>or told a lie. Well just remember: truth is relative to truth. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Gov is Unnecessary posted on 11/02/2009 4:07 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	But what about 9/11? It DOES seem that the biggest expence that came out of 9/11 had nothing to do with 3,000 people in a tower. Because of a handfull of buildings, some jets and about 3,000 people, the U.S. has spent over a trillion on the Irag War and seen the lives of hundreds of thousands killed (Americans and Iraqis) and all of us are suffering with loss of civil rights and other freedoms. This is an example of what happens in an authoritarian world. Things like this wouldn't happen in an open society (or at least SO rarely that it would be on the same statistical probability as getting hit by an asteroid). [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Gov is Unnecessary posted on 11/02/2009 4:08 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/ecosmack down-solar-versus-pets/ Further evidence of stupidity at large in America. This is WHY we can not progress as we should. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/05/2009 8:22 AM by codesimian	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	minimal government In USA, voting to influence government actions is less effective than playing a video-game for the purpose of creating the next version of that game. Regardless of how well you play Quake 2, your actions in the Quake 2 game have little effect on the design of the Quake 3 game. There is no way you can play Quake 2 (regardless of how high your score is in the internet games) that would cause the game software business to create "The Sims" instead of Quake 3. Its going to be Quake. You have no choice. If you want "The Sims", thats a different country. Go live there. Your vote does not count. There are more direct ways of communicating with the USA government (Example: I recently emailed California's Inspector General, whose job it is to expose government waste and stupidity), but government should be required to obey the median (or average) intentions of the people. Anything less than the people telling the government what to do, how to do it, and when, and having the government apologise and beg for forgiveness to avoid impeachment... anything less than that is slavery of the people. Don't forget who is the boss. Don't forget the USA government's obligation to start doing that and apologise for taking so long to start doing it. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 4:14 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Ok... First, let's define "source" in a general way (of course I'm borrowing from software-speak, since that's where the term was first coined, but I will endeavor to show that the principle was in operation long before the term was coined). Basically, any thing where energy, power, wealth, or resource is collected, is a 'source'. Pan, by this definition I am going to have to agree with REDquist, this does sound like Marxism. Even though the idea of sharing is a great ideal, what it comes down to is WHO are the PRODUCERS of WHAT? As a movie PRODUCER I KNOW that products don't just "accumulate." PRODUCTS, meaning the VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS that one exchanges with society for the wherewithal to service, are made from SUB-PRODUCTS and these are assembled using money, know-how and sweat into PRODUCTS. Thus MY PRODUCTS are not a free SOURCE for anyone else than ME and who I want to SELL them, or GIVE them to. Period. Anything else is Marxism. Let me now be more specific: YOU SAY: >By source, I refer to DNA (as the source of genetic information), True, DNA is the source of genetic information. >food, False. Food is grown in the ground and PRODUCED from SEEDS and SWEAT LABOR. Food is thus NOT a "source" for YOU it's a PRODUCT made by a hard-working PRODUCER that in no way should OPEN SOURCE this unless he's PAID for it. >or any accumulation of wealth, If the above Farmer PRODUCED the FOOD and then SOLD it for MONEY, then this MONEY is a store of value for his WORK. If he then "ACCUMULATES" this "wealth" in a bank, that "accumulation of wealth" is NOT YOUR SOURCE. You have no right to it unless you exchange something YOU made with SWEAT for the FOOD. This is the way it works. IF however this "accumulation of wealth" is money accumulated by BANKERS making FRACTIONAL LOANS or monetizing debt (making money out of thin air) then this MONEY is NOT the property of the BANKERS but STOLEN WEALTH from society, specifically that hard-working farmer just described. Such bankers should thus be rounded up and JAILED for fraud and grand theft ASAP and the stolen fist money distributed back to society. >influence or power. Since these are intangibles they may be better candidates for your OPEN SOURCE society. There is a vast difference between TANGIBLE PRODUCTS and INTANGIBLES. Knowledge, love, communication, cooperation can all be more open sourced for all to share, but If I have spent 15 years writing my TESLA screenplay, fuck you if you think you are going to OPEN SOURCE it to the world. I have already OPEN SOURCED my last movie FIAT EMPIRE to the world and all I received back in 4 years is about $80,000. Since we live in a sick and desperate society where people are so raped by the bankers, governments, insurance companies and multinationals, there scarce way that people will pay for something when they can have it for free. >The supermarket is a 'source'. All the products in a supermarket are the RESULTS of sweat LABOR. They are only a source of EXCHANGE. You give the PRODUCERS your DOLLARS and they give you the PRODUCTS. >The government is a 'source'. No the government is a PARASITE ON CIVILIZATION AND HUMANITY. When the gov GIVES to YOU it TAKES from someone else. What's so difficult for socialists to comprehend about that statement? Govs should have NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA involvement in markets or commerce in any way shape or form. >My body is a 'source'. Oh come on, this definition is WAY too ad hoc, so ad hoc its almost as bad as the COMMERCE CLAUSE. 'Congress can regulate interstate commerce AND ANYTHING THAT EFFECTS IT.' The S-Court added the CAPITALIZED part. How "open source" of them. Now they use this as a justification of REGULATING the shit out of anything and everything. >The sun is a 'source'. True. How there you have it. The sun is the ONLY source ... at least for this little shit speck of mud in the vacuous lethality. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 3:32 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	everyone can have access to the source code running the app or OS YES. In this case, our 'laws' and our 'government' are the app/OS. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 3:56 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pan, I've been pushing ideas similar to this for about 25 years now. The medium is the message. Another gentleman named Mark Kinney was also deeply involved in this idea of networking, and now his son is developing alternative networked economic systems in Mexico. Pioneering folks were working on this for many years. At one time, I could count on the fingers of my hand the number of people visible developing integrative systems, from New Zealand, New Caledonia, even some folks who were smuggling out info from behind the Iron Curtain. Now there are thousands of people working across the planet seeking to develop what you call open source networking, developing alternative currencies, and in some places even using "leftover" cell phone time purchased as a form of money for trade. You are right. I've been saying it for years. We're moving away from ideology and simply toward integrative action. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/01/2009 4:23 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Awesome. I've learned that 'open source' is not invented, it's actually discovered. It happens to be the way biology does it, and because of our progress in information theory and chaos, and complex systems, we're finally realising that we can apply these 'principles' to ANY system - and that system becomes more efficient and enjoyable to all involved. James is still stuck in the polarisation aspect of it all, he seems to think that there are only two choices: absolute individualism, or absolute collectivism, basically the one/many dichotomy (and he correctly identifies top-down, state run socialism as a destructive force - but hasn't quite made the leap from that to a BOTTOM UP, voluntary, by-participation only egalitarianism - basically, an 'open source' society - pay it forward BY CHOICE, not by coercion). Open source 'principles' blow up this notion. Just keep spreading the word, people are about to get it on a large scale I think. An open letter was recently sent to Ban Ki Moon from a scientist explaining just how important open source is to the world, and solving it's problems...we're getting there...and of course, social media (like THIS site, for example) is accelerating this process. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source? posted on 11/02/2009 3:46 PM by Oceans With-in-me	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open source is an approach to the design, development, and distribution of software, offering practical accessibility to a software's source code. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations. Before open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; the term open source gained popularity with the rise of the Internet, which provided access to diverse production models, communication paths, and interactive communities. Software development costs in organizations have been touted as being approximately 15% of total costs. This indicates that the value of one over another development methodology is more of a marketing decision (which customers and pricing models) as much as it is about the design of software. The open source model of operation and decision making allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, and differs from the more closed, centralized models of development.[1] The principles and practices are commonly applied to the peer production development of source code for software that is made available for public collaboration. The result of this peer-based collaboration is usually released as open-source software, however, open source methods are increasingly being applied in other fields of endeavor, such as biotechnology. [Reply] [Parent]

		Open Source Legal Profession posted on 11/01/2009 4:24 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>YES. In this case, our 'laws' and our 'government' are the app/OS. I will agree that LAW should be OPEN SOURCE, meaning one should NOT have to PAY for legal advice. When lawyers require taxpaying citizens to PAY them for a recital of the laws binding them to a social contract, this is not only RAPE of the citizenry, but double dipping. This system has as it's final outcome more and more complex laws. Once LAWYERS see that they can make a PROFIT from ever more complex "laws" because their "billable hours" go us, they seek, knowingly of unknowingly, to make the law longer and more complex so ONLY they can understand and interpret them. We already see a backlash on this with the current insane 2500 page health "care" bill trying to push its way through Congress like a turd that's just a little too big for an ass hole. So, the profession of LAW should be NON-profit and the meaning and application of the LAW should be out sourced or citizens should REFUSE to obey any more laws. WE ARE NOT A NATION OF LAWS WHEN SUCH LAWS ARE WRITTEN BY AN ELITE PROFESSION OR NON-PERSON CORPORATE ENTITIES. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Open Source Legal Profession posted on 11/01/2009 8:28 PM by godchaser	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	. -We're moving away from ideology and simply toward integrative action.- O-h hell, yes. Wish i had said that. I've congratualted you for pointing this out before d. Would be interested to see some ref. of the specific momentum you speak to. ____ James i think your suggestion that outsourced incentive is effectively trading a domestic living wage for that of foreign-slavery is accurate, but relative nevertheless. Likely many Americans would suggest their making little better than slave wage. Which you've often inferred. Was surprised to hear you argue a distinction even by motion of contrasting argument. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Benedict Arnold-CEOs posted on 11/01/2009 8:07 PM by epicurus	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	It's not a matter of choice for them. The Federal Reserve may have started out as the central bank of the US, but after 1945 (and the Bretton Woods agreement, and the Marshall Plan, etc...), the Fed became the de facto central bank of the world. That was great news for Wall Street, as it opened up massive new opportunities for bankers and financiers, worldwide. Wall Street became a money laundry for oil sheiks, drug dealers, and war profiteers. It was a disaster for the American people, because it created a domestic cost structure that made the US industries uncompetitive in world trade. Dollars and dollar-credit being more available in the US, over time it became more expensive and less profitable to produce anything here, mostly because of credit driven inflation. If you are a true free marketer, you must necessarily advocate the elimination of the nation-state entirely, because borders and national currencies are artificial constructs that impede free trade. Most free-traders who like to think of themselves as nationalists do not understand or do not admit this. Usually, free trade advocates are also the kind of people who reject global governance and global currency. But this is the ultimate goal of globalization and international capitalism. The people who run things know this. The dollar reserve system has just about driven the US into the ground. What started as a major advantage for America has become a major liability, as the real economy has become hollowed out. However, they are too happy about their short-run profits to be concerned about what it means for America in the long run. Also, they own the government and the major political parties, so there is little or no chance of fixing this (within the system). The world is just about Fed up with eating dollars, and are now making moves to unseat the dollar as reserve currency. Protecting dollar hegemony has seen the US military become the enforcement arm for the Federal Reserve. But there are limits to military power. Economic forces will topple even the mightiest empires, eventually. Free marketers had better understand and accept their position in the world as globalists, with the ultimate goal being the subjugation or elimination of the nation state. International trade is seriously impeded by the need to conduct trade in disparate currencies and according to any number of arbitrary local laws and regulations. You can't have it both ways, you can't be a free trader and a nationalist, because these concepts are mutually exclusive. In other words, some measure of protectionism is a necessary component of national sovereignty. The choice is yours. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Benedict Arnold-CEOs posted on 11/01/2009 9:47 PM by epicurus	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	test [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Benedict Arnold-CEOs posted on 11/02/2009 7:49 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Well said, Epicurus. I'm for competing currencies even at the community levels. Also, Smedley Butler's statement, "War Is A Racket", explains the US militatry role in the growth of our economy. Religion, nationalism, all of it sprang from the same sources, and all of it will eventually fall, or be complpetely altered by new forces of telecommunications. Howevere, I think now that individuals are caught between the decline of centralism and the emergence of individual empowerment, or what Pan calls open source. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Benedict Arnold-CEOs posted on 11/02/2009 10:03 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	the unobvious truth is globalism was never an economic strategy it was a socio ploy. we now have enticed all the old gaurd anticapitalists into the game. they cannot afford a military confrontation now. it would destroy them economically. now that we have indoctrinated them we can begin to institute some protection from slave labor and adjust currency values. [Reply] [Parent]

		The Newer World Order posted on 11/02/2009 10:38 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>It's not a matter of choice for them. The Federal Reserve may have started out as the central bank of the US, but after 1945 (and the Bretton Woods agreement, and the Marshall Plan, etc...), the Fed became the de facto central bank of the world. True. >That was great news for Wall Street, as it opened up massive new opportunities for bankers and financiers, worldwide. Wall Street became a money laundry for oil sheiks, drug dealers, and war profiteers. Probably. >It was a disaster for the American people, because it created a domestic cost structure that made the US industries uncompetitive in world trade. Dollars and dollar-credit being more available in the US, over time it became more expensive and less profitable to produce anything here, mostly because of credit driven inflation. If you are a true free marketer, you must necessarily advocate the elimination of the nation-state entirely, because borders and national currencies are artificial constructs that impede free trade. Most free-traders who like to think of themselves as nationalists do not understand or do not admit this. Usually, free trade advocates are also the kind of people who reject global governance and global currency. But this is the ultimate goal of globalization and international capitalism. The people who run things know this. The dollar reserve system has just about driven the US into the ground. What started as a major advantage for America has become a major liability, as the real economy has become hollowed out. However, they are too happy about their short-run profits to be concerned about what it means for America in the long run. Also, they own the government and the major political parties, so there is little or no chance of fixing this (within the system). The world is just about Fed up with eating dollars, and are now making moves to unseat the dollar as reserve currency. Protecting dollar hegemony has seen the US military become the enforcement arm for the Federal Reserve. But there are limits to military power. Economic forces will topple even the mightiest empires, eventually. Free marketers had better understand and accept their position in the world as Globalists, with the ultimate goal being the subjugation or elimination of the nation state. International trade is seriously impeded by the need to conduct trade in disparate currencies and according to any number of arbitrary local laws and regulations. You can't have it both ways, you can't be a free trader and a nationalist, because these concepts are mutually exclusive. In other words, some measure of protectionism is a necessary component of national sovereignty. The choice is yours. Yes well stated. If you create a free trade zone, such as Hamilton did between the several states, a mighty government must rise above to coordinate that trade. This is exactly what's happening on a global scale at this time. The free trade zones created by GATT and NAFTA have already given rise to the European Union and an emerging regional government out of Brussels. As NAFTA consolidates the US with Canada and Mexico, we will have the North American free trade zone and this will eventually be merged with the Euro zone and a world government, like the mighty US government over the states, may emerge. This is not necessarily a bad thing provided such government is not totalitarian in nature and is placed under the U.S. Constitution or a constitution that respects the same values. However all indication is that it will be totalitarian in nature and rights will become "privileges." So, you say take your pick. I guess, given the above, my pick is to call for greater protectionism and keep nation states in perpetuity and use this position as a bargaining chip against the international Davos group. Also shut down the Globalists' emerging totalitarian state by rescinding all or part of NAFTA and levying taxes similar to Smoot Harley on the EU that has so effectively used the VAT tax against U.S. corporations. But beyond this, AMERICANS MUST REGAIN CONTROL OVER THEIR CONGRESS AND SUPREME COURT. Control over the Congress I believe can be accomplished by voting out incumbents. Control over the Supreme Court can be by means of Article III Section 2. But, in order for Article III Section 2 to be effective, control over the Congress must be obtained by the People for it is only the Congress that can circumvent the jurisdiction of the Court via Article III, Section 2. I think Globalism is going to fold up anyway because it's built on sand. You yourself stated several times that the dollar is the de facto world reserve currency and this is true. There is however is a serious push to instate the SDR as a global currency. The problem with the dollar, as is the problem with any fiat currency backed by debt, is there will never be enough money in circulation to service the outstanding principle, so yet more debt will have to be monetized. This is, in essence, a Ponzi that has been unfolding for about 300 years, and is one of the reasons globalization HAD to happen: to expand the pool of potential borrowers. In my view it is thus inevitable the dollar is going to crash sooner or later possibly bringing down so-called "free" trade and globalization with it. Of course the Party of Davos will desperately attempt to replace the dollar with the EURO and/or the SDR but since both are also fiat currencies, they will simply be starting a new Ponzi in the hopes that the international public will not notice. But the Public WILL notice this time and they will probably be rejected for some other system, or at least a currency that provides redemption as a check and balance. And yes there will probably be international banking criminals incarcerated and sent possibly to your Guillotine. So what's new. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Newer World Order posted on 11/03/2009 12:07 AM by epicurus	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Congress should define a basic set of worker's rights and minimum environmental standards. Anyone who wants to trade with us who does not meet the standards will simply be tariffed up to a level that will cost them more than it would to comply with the requirements. They will then have an incentive to comply. At some point we must stand on principle and refuse to do business with exploiters. We don't allow that kind of stuff here, so we shouldn't allow people to profit from circumventing our own standards. --- It's a paradox of capitalism. Aggregate demand can never be enough to clear the market, because worker income must always be less than cost of production + profit. This is the cause of boom and bust cycle. I think this is true of fiat or commodity money systems. As you said, the game requires perpetual expansion into new markets, either to find outlets for the overproduction of goods, or cheaper labor to lower the cost of production. --- More in the spirit of this board... some are mentioning open source models and social networking. We must decentralize money creation, removing it from the purvey of both government and private institutions. When we have a truly open and decentralized monetary system that transcends and is untouchable by governments or corporations, we will unlock the true creative potential of this world economy. We'll have the best of both worlds, national sovereignty and free trade. The Internet is the key. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Wacko posted on 11/01/2009 12:41 PM by antistatist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>P.S. To antistatist “If you can get the citizens to hate each other, they will forget who's holding all the guns to their heads.” Good one, so long as everyone realizes that only government (and the occasional criminal) can get away with holding a gun to the head of the people. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. In case my name wasn't obvious enough, I am, in fact, an anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist/what-have-you. [Reply] [Parent]

		a Misanthrope: To Be or Not Be posted on 11/01/2009 1:22 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>James and exapted, >You are both wacko here, because you are both fundamentally opposed to free markets. REDquist, I though we went through all this. Apparently you have a deep-seated need to label at least one person a week as anti-free market. I am NOT anti-free market. I LOVE and APPLAUD free markets. Sheesh. Will you please GROK that?! >“NO NO” you’ll howl – I’m stupid if I think we have a free market. REDquist, you're stupid if you think we have a free market. :) >In our economy, commerce has substantial freedom No it doesn't. Have you read the insane COMMERCE CLAUSE lately, courtesy of the S-Court. Dr. Vieira discusses this in ORIGINAL INTENT. >and that freedom includes the right to respond and adapt to regulation and taxation by government. Government has NO RIGHT to regulate ANYTHING that has to do with COMMERCE. Nada. >Business will cut deals with government, if government permits or encourages it. If your business can commandeer the Guys with Guns (gov) and my business cannot, then I guess you win. All gov is is GUYS WITH GUNS. Period. >If government is sufficiently predatory, it can come to control most of the economy. That’s the road we are on. ALL govs are predatory. It's their stock and trade. Duh! >Business and its practices are seldom much of a problem, and freedom is always the solution. All this pedantic idealism. >As to your list, James, it’s clear you are a misanthrope. I have considered such diagnosis but would more accurately describe myself as a schitzo-misanthrope as I have a love-hate relationship with humankind. But at least I ADMIT it. All you folks out there worshiping AI and robots and the Singularity must ALSO hate mankind at times otherwise you wouldn't be so eager to replace it with NON-humanity. >It would have been better if you had just stuck with “GOVERNMENTS ARE THE ENEMIES OF HUMANITY” or better “GOVERNMENTS ARE THE GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY”. Whatever you prefer. >P.S. To antistatist “If you can get the citizens to hate each other, they will forget who's holding all the guns to their heads.” Good one, so long as everyone realizes that only government (and the occasional criminal) can get away with holding a gun to the head of the people. True. As much as I rant and rave about govs, no one has yet totally convinced me that their NON-state system will succeed. All the anarchist and non-statist theory and postulates sound fine and dandy, but I want to see an EXPERIMENT done where it WORKS. THEN I WILL BE A TRUE BELIEVER and TOSS MY MISANTHROPIC TENDENCIES. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: a Misanthrope: To Be or Not Be posted on 11/01/2009 4:33 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	j, the rat comment wasn't directed at you. the economic slavery in a capitalistic system is not isolated with the third world or emerging nations. it happens here. the jews, the english and the americans made capitalism what it is. IF YOU DON'T HAVE CAPITAL YOU ARE NOT A CAPITALIST. CAPITALISM IN A FOR HIRE SEMI-DEMOCRACY IS EVIL regulated capitalism with unions and minimum wage protection that demands living wages is a good thing. what we experience as we move to the singularity is a reduction in the required workforce. just like what happened to farming. unions could protect us. what needs to happen is work hours reduce untill there is no work. we reduce the hours untill there is full employment. there, ive said it. that is the secret to weathering the singularity transition. was that so difficult? would that be so painful? only for the work nazis that could not bear the idea of someone getting something they did not bleed for. [Reply] [Parent]

		Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/01/2009 5:16 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>the economic slavery in a capitalistic system is not isolated with the third world or emerging nations. it happens here. the jews, the english and the americans made capitalism what it is. I guess. >IF YOU DON'T HAVE CAPITAL YOU ARE NOT A CAPITALIST. Everyone has some form of capital. Capital is defined as the MEANS of PRODUCTION. Capital is, but not limited to, the following: 1) Labor; 2) Machinery; 3) Know-how; 4) Money; 5) Land Thus everyone is a capitalist. Everyone has SOME of 1 - 5. It's how one person uses the 1 - 5 that they started with. Every single mega millionaire started with limited supplies of 1 - 5 and then used them wisely and built an empire. When all the empire building space on Earth is used up, we expand to Mars and then the various Moons in the Solar System. Then when that's used up we expand to the next star system and so on. There is PLENTY of everyone and there is nothing wrong with this CAPITALISTIC expansion, meaning the USE OF CAPITAL TO PRODUCE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT ARE NEEDED AND WANTED BY SOCIETY OR CIVILIZATION. What becomes wrong with capitalism is when successful capitalists do any of the following after they make it or reach a position of power or responsibility: 1) Use their money, connections or celebrity to in ANY way influence the passage of ANY laws or government regulation; 2) Buy up any resources or corner any market so as to inhibit or prevent others from becoming successful; 3) Fix prices by colluding with other large firms; 4) Consolidating into monopolies and then raising prices; 5) Filing patents to lock out others from competing in a given market or product; 6) Colluding with unions to inhibit or shut out able, qualified workers; 7) Using their power to enslave employees, citizens or others or treating same unfairly or inhumanly in any way; 8) Running roughshod over the environment or in any way outsourcing pollution to the public or taxpaying domain; 9) Excessively consolidating and then using the cry of "too big to fail" in order to extort public funding out of bankruptcy; 10) In any way using corporate power to indoctrinate the public on political, scientific or social matters; 11) Have such a broad Articles of Incorporation that the company is subject to all manner of conflicts of interest or trying to be all things to all consumers. This is a manifestation of greed and arrogance; 12) Putting out overt products (products that do not promote and enable the survival of the dynamics of civilization). >CAPITALISM IN A FOR HIRE SEMI-DEMOCRACY IS EVIL ? >regulated capitalism with unions and minimum wage protection that demands living wages is a good thing. No it isn't. Government has no right to tell a corporation how much it will pay someone in a given nation. The minimum wage laws are unconstitutional thus illegal. Unions are legal so long as they don't collude with management as they do in the Hollywood-based major movie studios. A society that requires government to "regulate" commerce in order to foster general welfare is a society that has already failed due to prior regulation. The solution is to disband government influence entirely and reject government REGULATED fiat money, the PRIMARY, yet most over looked, regulating entity in an economy >what we experience as we move to the singularity is a reduction in the required workforce. No problem as long as people stop screwing and multiplying from beer. >just like what happened to farming. unions could protect us. Just as stockholders have a right to pool their CAPITAL into corporations labor has a right to pool its CAPITAL (labor and know-how) into UNIONS. Thus anyone who is anti-union is also, ipso facto, anti-capitalism. >what needs to happen is work hours reduce until there is no work. we reduce the hours until there is full employment. If population decreases this makes sense. If not there will be a lot of unhappy people all over "out of work." These people will then inevitably "go criminal" under one or more of the 26,000 laws made every years by the nation's "lawyers." >there, ive said it. that is the secret to weathering the singularity transition. was that so difficult? would that be so painful? only for the work nazis that could not bear the idea of someone getting something they did not bleed for. What do you mean by "work Nazi"? What's wrong with people working as hard as they want? That's capitalism and good capitalism so long as the capitalist entity doesn't violate 1 -12 above. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/01/2009 5:33 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	one through twelve are the natural forms if left unregulated work nazis are the "haves" who don't consider the work anyone else does as contributing to their success. they themselves are "the fountainhead". nothing anyone else did had any bearing on their success.not the road builders or the engineers or the pioneers or the janitors or the police or the soldiers, all are lower beings. they should be used like turtles on the lake to walk on to their private island. they are paranoid, rendered sleepless and terrified by the notion anyone including their grandmothers would receive one nickle of their wealth without working for it. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/01/2009 6:08 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>work nazis are the "haves" who don't consider the work anyone else does as contributing to their success. they themselves are "the fountainhead". nothing anyone else did had any bearing on their success.not the road builders or the engineers or the pioneers or the janitors or the police or the soldiers, all are lower beings. they should be used like turtles on the lake to walk on to their private island. they are paranoid, rendered sleepless and terrified by the notion anyone including their grandmothers would receive one nickle of their wealth without working for it. I assume you're not refering to Jews, right? :) James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/01/2009 6:38 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	i wrote a long reply but i will cut it to: no, i am talking about republicans in their current configuration and their minions like rupert and rush and beck and hannity. corporate economic idealists and their toadies [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/01/2009 6:51 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>i wrote a long reply but i will cut it to: no, i am talking about republicans in their current configuration and their minions like rupert and rush and beck and hannity. corporate economic idealists and their toadies Oh! I thought you were talking about liberal Jews or something. Really no difference, Jews - Republicans, whatever. All want bigger government, more Borg. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/02/2009 9:27 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Surely not the Jews! That's God's chosen! ;) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/07/2009 5:38 PM by aldersondrive2007	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	BTw, I was just scolling a bit and have to say that the dialogue here between James and Zombie is much more indicative of what is constructive. Notice that, as far as I could see in a glance, that both parties offered polite and articulated debate without either positing personal attacks. This is an example of two people who come from different ideological positions talking without resorting to name calling. Now, this is comming from Me, who has done a bit of this, but mainly as a response to an individual who has a propensity to resort to personal attacks, of which I respond to, but don't initiate as a rule. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/07/2009 8:24 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	a, you evidently were not around for the nasty confrontations between myself and some of the pods. i was embarrassed to let myself be drawn into those. everytime i lose my temper i regret it aferward. i have come to believe that these guys on this forum who are provoking confrontation are doing it for some odd reason. i think maybe they are psych students working on their disertation and finding out what makes people lose their tempers is what interests them. some of these pods are evidently not stupid but they seem to follow some judgemental line of logic. it doesn't seem real somehow. the legitimate posters here are genuinely interested in what others think and to find out if their own theories are valid. i have yet to see a posting of a genuinely stupid person. on the other hand i do detect postings intented to provoke an emotional response. i am learning not to fall prey to their ploy whatever it is. some of the people here have more than one persona. cheers zombiefood [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/07/2009 8:46 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	machines, money and land are the same labor and know how are the same. labor and know how are how i made it through money, machinery and land can hire slave labor at a volumn you cannot match. . it is like a gambling card game. you sit in with some whales and you get lucky and start winning they have cash reserves. but when your luck changes you run out and you are beaten. they could lose a thousand times what you have and still be ok. they will win in the long run. you might be better but you cant weather the down times like they can. success with labor capital happens but like the cadillac welfare mother it is a case of dramatic instance. i know. i had incredible luck to go with my labor capital. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Where Capitalism Fails posted on 11/08/2009 2:23 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>machines, money and land are the same Only in that they are considered "capital" by economists. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/02/2009 8:39 AM by Oceans With-in-me	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://vidego.multicastmedia.com/player.php?v=vr00 wlt0 [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/02/2009 10:27 AM by Oceans With-in-me	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	How wonderful it is to be forgiven for a mistake! Relief floods through us. It feels as if a giant weight has been lifted from our shoulders. We may still shudder when we think about what we did, but in the next thought, we remember we have been forgiven. We really appreciate the person who realizes it was just a misunderstanding or a mistake, and says, "Hey, its all right. Let's forget it and get on with our lives." [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/02/2009 12:50 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	garbage. why post this? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/02/2009 4:08 PM by Oceans With-in-me	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	To which garbage doth though worthy opponent refer the to pray tell? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Why People Are Sick and Tired posted on 11/03/2009 9:48 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Religious buffoonery. :-) [Reply] [Parent]

		Vote out incumbents posted on 11/02/2009 9:09 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Unless voters take back control of Congress from the corporate interests that have, in essence, purchased it through campaign contributions, the United States may collapse under its debt load or worse. This doesn't have to happen as there is a direct and specific thing Citizens can do. It boils down to one sentence: DON'T VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENTS. Here's what you should do: When you go to vote in congressional elections, carefully look over the candidates and any NEW names you see on the ballot, vote ONLY for them. If you're not particular about parties, don't worry about whether they're Democrats or Republicans -- just vote for anyone that's NOT an incumbent. If you must vote your party, vote ONLY for the new guy. Don't vote for ANYONE that's already in office and trying to run again in your party. Here's how you can do this: This revision comes on the day after the Obama-McCain election where I was able to put into practice what I am recommending above. If you click here you can see a copy of the "GENERAL ELECTION SPECIMEN BALLOT" that was presented to me just before I went into the voting quarters. Both the Democrats and Republicans (aka GOP) hand these out to "help" you vote for their candidate. The graphic I am using here happens to be a Republican specimen so that's why all the Republicans are blackened in. Just ignore this. The names that are circled are who I voted for. So what you do is you take this "Specimen" and place a check mark next to all of the incumbents. You can see my check marks. If you don't know who is an incumbent, ask people around the voting quarters. As you can see I didn't know who all the incumbents were and I found by asking others in the area that most of them did NOT know either. Shameful on all of us. Again, the names that are circled are who I voted for. Again, if you examine the Specimen here, you can see that I avoided voting for every incumbent by voting for a Dem or GOP each time BUT, where available, I always voted Libertarian, as Libertarians usually aren't incumbents. For posts where I didn't know who was the incumbent and there was no Libertarian choice (such as Rep in the Congress 6th District and Rep in the General Assembly 157th District) I spread out my vote for a Dem and a GOP, hoping neither was an incumbent. Here's why this will work: By not voting for any incumbents it's true -- you may be flushing out some good people -- but you have to look at the bigger picture. The majority of the Congress is entrenched. The Founders had no idea people would stay in office so long otherwise they would have placed term-limits on congressmen and the executive from the start. Back in the 18th Century transportation was a problem and the country had a very small population. Thus the Framers wanted to place as few disincentives on people as possible because they wanted people to travel great distances and take part in the government. If there were term limits of say 2 or 4 years, many people would have never run for office because it wouldn't have been worth it. To travel so far, and with such difficulty in a harsh environment where one was needed on the farm simply made no sense. But if a citizen had the opportunity to travel to Washington and make a long-term career of government service, then it made more sense. So this is why we have no term-limits written into the Constitution for congressmen and why the term limit for the president was only written in later. Obviously times have changed. We now have a population of almost 300 million people (plenty of candidates), travel to Washington is no hardship (interstate highway system everywhere) and one farmer can provide for food for thousands of families (mechanized farming). BUT, we now have the opposite problem: an entrenched government that STAYS in Washington too long! Ironically, entrenchment is EXACTLY the thing the Founders did NOT want to happen. They wanted a fluid government where power could easily, and peacefully, be transferred from group to group as the needs of the nation changed. They did NOT want anymore kings or emperors with long lines of succession and the entrenched power that goes with these systems of government. But, again, this is exactly what we have today: entrenched power. And that power is frozen into ostensibly two political parties that, although superficially different, basically bat the ball back and forth to each other and maintain the status quo and keep others out. The problem is, the status quo isn't working because it's destroying the Republic. The Republic, set up by the Framers, is supposed to be a much smaller, more citizen-responsive government. Today, the citizens hardly have any say in their government (due to massive corporate lobbying) and the government has become a debt-ridden empire that stretches across the globe (fueled by unConstitutional fiat money generated by the Federal Reserve System).(2) As oil becomes more expensive, this empire will become an increasing burden on its citizens and its debt load and trade imbalances will eventually cause the dollar, the Imperial currency, to crumble. End of Pax Dollarium.(3) But as I said above, this doesn't have to happen if the People that live in the United States purge the government of the entrenched politicians. My view is that all of them need to go.(4) I know that's drastic, but here's my thinking. If everyone tries to figure out who is "good" and who is "bad," there will be virtually no agreement. People will just fall back on their party lines and the same old, same old debates will continue ad nassium. Thus the only remedy is to flush them all out based on the fact that all of them are in on this together and none of them are causing real change. So if you are a Republican and hate Democrats, fine. Just flush out YOUR Republican incumbents and replace them with new Republican blood. If you are a Democrat and hate Republicans, fine. Just flush out YOUR Democratic incumbents and replace them with new Democratic blood. Both parties will maintain the status quo quantitatively, but BUT, qualitatively, everyone will be new and different. There will thus be no pre-existing social network whereby VOTE SWAPPING (a form of collusion) can take place nor will the social network needed for CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS (a form of bribery) be available nor will the social network needed for allocating PORK (a form of fraud) be available. The NEW congress of NEW congressmen will be left to do NEW things, new things like doing what they are SUPPOSED to do: honestly represent the wishes of their constituents (without vote swapping) while making choices that will be good for the nation. The gridlock in government will thus be attenuated because this gridlock is caused by collusion, bribery and fraud, elements not wanted or envisioned by the Framers. I will thus bet if the congress is purged -- and it goes without saying that this means the complete staffs of each congressman must go as well -- fresh new legislation will more easily be passed. Insane systems of accounting -- such as COST PLUS -- will be ushered out; the unconstitutional money we currently have will be replaced by Constitutional money; the budget will be balanced; the trade deficit will be remedied; the U.S. will stop engaging in wars all over the planet; we will pull back our military from other peoples' lands or require them to pay for security if they really want it; we will re-allocate the budget to proper and prudent uses (such as alternative non-fossil fuel energy), and we will rehabilitate the nation's once-proud space program and go on to develop vast new technologies that only a courageous nation can do while exploring new real estate on new worlds. In this kind of an environment, science and technology will grow and everyone will benefit.(5) Problems facing humanity will be solved with such an abundance, war will seem like a silly remedy an immature civilization once flirted with. The U.S. will again gain respect around the world -- lead by demonstration, not by the exercise of force or by propagandizing the world through our mass media and biased, violence-oriented pop culture. So we're fortunate the Framers of the United States gave us a peaceful method of overthrowing our government whenever it's not working properly. Don't look now, but it's time for a peaceful revolt. Vote out all the incumbents!(6) James Jaeger -------------- (1) See the book, EMPIRE OF DEBT, by Bill Bonner. (2) To find out how the Federal Reserve System finances an entrenched Congress, as well as ever expanding government, see the documentary, FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution at http://www.FiatEmpire.com (3) See the book, THE LONG EMERGENCY, by James Kunstler (4) With the possible exception of Ron Paul, who is the only voice in Congress pointing out the fiat money scam which powers the Empire. Ron Paul, M.D., should run for president because this country needs a physician as soon as possible. (5) See http://sysopmind.com/singularity.html (6) For more information on this subject, see Why Removing ALL Incumbents Will Work at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/overthro w2.htm and see ORIGINAL INTENT c/o http://www.FiatEmpire.com/producers [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 9:49 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Good luck: http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/03/robinson.sch ools.stifle.creativity/index.html [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 11:23 AM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	This new culture has to emerge from a richer sense of human ability. To shape it, I believe we have to leave behind the manufacturing principles of industrialism and embrace the organic principles of ecology. Education is about developing human beings, and human development is not mechanical or linear. It is organic and dynamic. Like all living forms, we flourish in certain conditions and shrivel in others. Great teachers, great parents and great leaders understand those conditions intuitively; poor ones don't. The answer is not to standardize education, but to personalize and customize it to the needs of each child and community. There is no alternative. There never was. The good news is that all around the world there are wonderful examples of people and organizations that are making determined efforts to do things differently in education -- and in business, health care, architecture, communities and cultural programs. There's a wealth of talent that lies in all of us. All of us, including those who work in schools, must nurture creativity systematically and not kill it unwittingly. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 12:57 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	indeed, indeed... how, when the control over access to these things necessary for organic growth are slowly being controlled to greater and greater extent - make no mistake, there WILL come a time when access to the internet will be by pay only... pay, pay. slave, slave. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 1:25 PM by hgrayston22	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	make no mistake, there WILL come a time when access to the internet will be by pay only... pay, pay. slave, slave. What do you mean? Most people pay now for internet access. I wish people would stop using the word "slave" in inappropriate ways. It shows great disrespect to those that actually lived in slavery. Just because you pay for a service that you want does not mean you are a slave. You are supposedly a businessman, you should realize this mekka. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 1:35 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Yeah, I know, but political sensitivity is not one of my traits - never has been. By pay, I mean that actual end user access to REAL information, such as libraries, scientific papers, research material, etc. Most of it, as it is already developing, will be garbage content simply for entertainment - this is not a good use of this type of tech. MIT, admittedly, has experimented with open source information - sharing an ideal that ALL people should have access to real knowledge and not have to pay for it. This is dangerous for the status quo, I think, especially if it takes root and we do this from birth and out... I believe we will have to pay for access to knowledge, but not entertainment of low orders. Also - slavery can take many forms - the word itself is not owned by any group, no matter how pitiful their circumstances - by the way, BOTH the oppressor and the oppressed are equally to blame in this scenario... some civilizations would rather die than be enslaved, even by cultural paradigms. Nes Pa? One can be a slave to one's desires, a slave to a certain ideology and even a slave in the context of working endless hours for no forward achievement other than to make the person you are working for, rich... call it the new serfdom :-) Just saying. No harm meant. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 2:00 PM by hgrayston22	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	slavery can take many forms When discussing economics, there is generally one form. When you are a slave, you are not paid for your labor. When you are bought, the money goes from the slave owner to the slave trader. The slave receives no money. The slave then provides his labor for no money until the day he dies or is freed by his master for some reason. He receives food and board, the quantity and quality of which are entirely the decision of his master. Generally, the minimum of both needed to keep the slave working as hard and long as possible is what is given. If you receive a wage for your labor, then you are not a slave. Just because you pay for something does not make you a slave, not in the whole history of humanity has that ever been the definition of slave. Now, if the internet was free, that would mean that all the people working to provide that service would not be receiving wages. That would mean that they are slaves. Therefore, by saying that the internet should be free you are in fact advocating a slave model. I trust that as an experienced businessman you realize this. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 4:54 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I am advocating a change in our way of operating. An end to profit and an end to profiteering. Using your example - a for profit mentality gives rise to slavery - since this is just good economics - for those in agriculture. However, working eight hours plus per day for just enough to buy a loaf of bread and put shelter over your head, may, in and of itself, not be slavery, but it is certainly serfdom - akin to slavery, ala carte... In my world, everything would be open source, where commodities were exchanged for whatever the direct consumer would pay for it - eliminate intermediaries, bureaucracies and administrators and viola! - you have a system where goods and services are actually representative of their value. As few as possible middlemen - grow food locally, eliminate trash locally, produce energy locally - and by locally, I mean within the city or municipality. I could go on, but this is just s small change (economically maybe not for the middlemen) that would GREATLY benefit individuals in terms of personal wealth. etc.. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 5:17 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	'Pay what you want' for new football videogame Eidos Interactive announced they are offering a downloadable PC version of Championship Manager 2010 to fans on a 'pay what you want' model allowing you to own the full game from as little as a penny (subject to a Ł2.50 transaction fee and minimum payment of one pence). This is the first time an initiative like this has been tried in the videogames market and echoes a similar initiative in 2008 by rock band Radiohead with the launch of their album "In Rainbows". Championship Manager 2010 will become the first football title available for the 2009/10 season and the 'pay what you want' promotion will run until midnight on September 10 - from which point users will be able to download their game purchase directly from this website. All fans need to pay is a Ł2.50 transaction fee plus any additional amount of their choice, starting from just a penny. --- An interesting experiment....it turned out Eidos made MORE money than they expected to... The question is, how many industries can this be applied to?....is there even a limit?... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 5:28 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	This tells us a lot about human psychology, about trust....the biggest problem is fear... I can imagine a 'pay what you want' supermarket, and it would probably be exponentially more profitable than other supermarkets. Pay what you want taxes. Pay what you want gasoline. This isn't socialism, it's hyper-capitalism. Our economists and so called "rational" thinkers have lied to us: people are NOT inherently self-interested greedy monkey-shit-for-brains. It's these types of models that can usher in an open source economy, we need more experiments like this one on a larger scale to get people hip to the idea. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 5:57 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I can imagine a 'pay what you want' supermarket, and it would probably be exponentially more profitable than other supermarkets. Pan This is so obviously true that it makes me wonder why all supermarket chains have not implemented this idea long before now. It must be because none of the people who run supermarkets have IQs anywhere close to your 140. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:10 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I've had the pleasure of visiting a city of 50,000 that operated this way successfully. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:24 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Which city ? How do I get there ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:27 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Black Rock City, NV [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:31 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK Pan, just looked that up. Now point to a real city that operates on a " pay what you want " basis. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:42 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Why do you thik Black Rock City isn't a real city? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:46 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK Pan, I guess it's as real as a lot of the stuff you talk about. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:46 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No, I mean that literally, why do you say it isn't a real city, or to put it another way, what defines a "real" city to you? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:50 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	–noun, plural cit⋅ies. 1. a large or important town. 2. (in the U.S.) an incorporated municipality, usually governed by a mayor and a board of aldermen or councilmen. 3. the inhabitants of a city collectively: The entire city is mourning his death. 4. (in Canada) a municipality of high rank, usually based on population. 5. (in Great Britain) a borough, usually the seat of a bishop, upon which the dignity of the title has been conferred by the crown. 6. the City, a. the major metropolitan center of a region; downtown: I'm going to the City to buy clothes and see a show. b. the commercial and financial area of London, England. 7. a city-state. 8. (often initial capital letter) Slang. a place, person, or situation having certain features or characteristics (used in combination): The party last night was Action City. That guy is dull city. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:56 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	–noun, plural cit⋅ies. 1. a large or important town. 2. (in the U.S.) an incorporated municipality, usually governed by a mayor and a board of aldermen or councilmen. Black Rock City: check. 3. the inhabitants of a city collectively: The entire city is mourning his death. check 4. (in Canada) a municipality of high rank, usually based on population. BRC is not in canada, so N/A 5. (in Great Britain) a borough, usually the seat of a bishop, upon which the dignity of the title has been conferred by the crown. BRC is not in Great Britain, so N/A 6. the City, a. the major metropolitan center of a region; downtown: I'm going to the City to buy clothes and see a show. Ummm...this one doesn't need answering... 7. a city-state. Ummm, ok. 8. (often initial capital letter) Slang. a place, person, or situation having certain features or characteristics (used in combination): The party last night was Action City. That guy is dull city. N/A [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:45 PM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://www.misterw.com/BM2002/bm101b.jpg [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:47 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Exapted Is that you in the photo ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 6:58 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I helped build these: :) http://www.marcusaurelius55.com/images/Crude%20Awa kening%20burning%20man.jpg http://tinyurl.com/yj3ryan [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Vote out incumbents posted on 11/03/2009 7:32 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Sun Microsystems Showcases Open Source Technologies at Educause 2009 http://redhat.sys-con.com/node/1170092 Showcasing its Open Computing portfolio and partner solutions at the Educause Conference 2009, Sun Microsystems is reinforcing its position as a leader in open source technologies for the education community. It today announced that Columbia University will use an open source Sun solution to run its digital preservation project, and also that the University of Zurich is deploying Project Wonderland projects to advance an ambitious global eLearning initiative. Designed to help simplify the implementation of open source technologies and achieve cost-effective interoperability, the Sun Open Computing portfolio includes Sun Open Storage, OpenSolaris™ Operating System, Sun Open Archive solutions and the OpenSPARC™ T1 processor. These technologies, along with partner solutions, are now being demoed at Sun’s booth at the Educause Conference. [Reply] [Parent]

		What is Slavery? posted on 11/04/2009 11:20 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>I wish people would stop using the word "slave" in inappropriate ways. It shows great disrespect to those that actually lived in slavery. Huh! You don't think paying debt service on money created out of thin air is slavery?(1) Slavery today for many is MUCH worse than it was 200 years ago. 200 years ago your servatude at least garnered you quarters and food, today's slaves have to pay for this as they slave off endless interest payments and pay taxes that the founding people would think totally and completely INSANE. James ----------------- (1) See http://www.FiatEmpire.tv [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? posted on 11/04/2009 11:37 PM by hgrayston22	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Huh! You don't think paying debt service on money created out of thin air is slavery? Huh. No I don't, especially since your concept of the money supply as debt reflects complete ignorance of basic economics. Slavery today for many is MUCH worse than it was 200 years ago. 200 years ago your servatude at least garnered you quarters and food, today's slaves have to pay for this as they slave off endless interest payments and pay taxes that the founding people would think totally and completely INSANE. As they say, don't talk about someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Being an actual slave was a terribly demeaning institution, and the subsistence-level food and board were no comfort. There was debt and interest back then as now. Only back then they would throw you in debtor's prison if you fell behind on your payments. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? posted on 11/04/2009 11:47 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Huh. No I don't, especially since your concept of the money supply as debt reflects complete ignorance of basic economics. Since you're aparently not willing to watch my film, maybe you should watch MONEY AS DEBT at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=MONEY+AS+DEB T&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f# It's a good primer. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? posted on 11/04/2009 11:44 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What we have now is more akin to serfdom, with a higher standard of living. In the end, whether you call it slavery or something else, we do not have total autonomy. And that's the point. Until we do, we cannot call ourselves a just or equitable society. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? posted on 11/04/2009 11:56 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	True. Whereas MONEY AS DEBT explains the mechanics of fractional reserve banking and monetizing debt, the movie ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM (available on Google Video) explicates how we, as a society, have submitted to debt slavery. The same dominating slave-master mentality is still in existence, it's just morphed and been refined into the current system. The absolute horror of this system is the fact that people (like this guy) are so indoctrinated, they don't even realize they ARE slaves. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? posted on 11/05/2009 6:45 AM by hgrayston22	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What we have now is more akin to serfdom, with a higher standard of living. In the end, whether you call it slavery or something else, we do not have total autonomy. And that's the point. Until we do, we cannot call ourselves a just or equitable society. This is an interesting point. Slavery means having no autonomy at all. Not receiving a wage for your labor. You are saying that slavery is not having complete autonomy, being able to do whatever we want, whenever we want. That seems like an extreme view. For one thing, even if you are born with inherited millions or billions of dollars, you still don't have complete autonomy, because of the law. But if you are like most people, you have to work for a living and you have to also follow the law. So no complete autonomy, for anyone. These are universal rules for everyone on Earth, from the poorest drudge to the most powerful leaders. Call everyone on Earth a slave or a serf if you wish. But if you call everybody some label, you cheapen the label to the point of meaninglessness, and you defile the memory of those who were really slaves. [Reply] [Parent]

		What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 8:08 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	That seems like an extreme view. For one thing, even if you are born with inherited millions or billions of dollars, you still don't have complete autonomy, because of the law. This is pure BS. Money and power ARE above the law. What planet are you on? If what you are saying were true, then everyone from Bush to OJ should have been tossed into the furnace a long time ago. PLEASE. THAT was an ignorant statement. But if you are like most people, you have to work for a living and you have to also follow the law. So no complete autonomy, for anyone. For those living under the law, this is indeed true - the only difficulty I have is that the law is UNJUST. While the basics are sure covered - no killing, stealing, raping - the vast majority or laws and regulations serve ONLY those that know the game - it is meant to keep people down and limits as much autonomy as possible, in the interest of maintaining the wealth in the hands of very few. A very wise man, Lao Tzu said once, "Use uprightness in ruling a State; employ stratagems in waging war; practise non-interference in order to win the Empire. Now this is how I know what I lay down:-- As restrictions and prohibitions are multiplied in the Empire, the people grow poorer and poorer. When the people are subjected to overmuch government, the land is thrown into confusion. When the people are skilled in many cunning arts, strange are the objects of luxury that appear. The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be. Therefore the Sage says: "So long as I do nothing, the people will work out their own reformation. So long as I love calm, the people will right themselves. If only I keep from meddling, the people will grow rich. If only I am free from desire, the people will come naturally back to simplicity." If the government is sluggish and tolerant, the people will be honest and free from guile. If the government is prying and meddling, there will be constant infraction of the law. Is the government corrupt? Then uprightness becomes rare, and goodness becomes strange. Verily, mankind have been under delusion for many a day! This is the underlying reason why ONLY a fool would believe that this system of laws and rules is a system of equality! It is an illusion. There is NO AUTONOMY in the very near future, for that is where we are headed as surely as anything in this world. The "Law" is a tool for control. Lacking culture, family and a root - morality cannot exist, and laws cannot replace it. This is elementary. These are universal rules for everyone on Earth, from the poorest drudge to the most powerful leaders. What is this? Some form of ideology? There are NO universal rules for anyone, other than the mathematical equation called existence. You are spouting religion, obviously. Stupid assertion. Call everyone on Earth a slave or a serf if you wish. But if you call everybody some label, you cheapen the label to the point of meaninglessness, and you defile the memory of those who were really slaves. You have merit in your point here. We want to keep labels as fresh as possible, right? Just because a thousand years ago, people were chattel and lived hard lives, were worked to death, simply means -- nothing. Once we were apes, probably killing each other with a savagery you cannot imagine! Just like chimps? My point being - a definition gets redefined in light of the context - in this case, a modern form of serfdom is simply that - just because you are not beaten (well the cops do beat...), just because you get paid a wage (well, its actually a chit issued by a private bank that is only worth as much as they say it is...), just because you don't sleep on the floor in a shack (well, a lot do sleep under bridges, cheap, cockroach apartments - middle class being gone and all...), and just because we aren't killed for disobedience (well, the cops do this as well on a regular basis as does the State). HELL - I don't even know what you are talking about. LOL! It's just the MODERN (meaning clothed in the illusion?) equivalent of serfdom. Same lords, same hard, un-fulfilling work, same people taking 90% of your labor effort for nothing more than manipulating the system of laws! As for "defiling" those who were slaves before - come on, please. Each man stands on his own measure. Virtually every race has had slavery thrust upon them, and NO ONE IS INNOCENT. Defile? No, its called perspective, above the emotional garbage. Life is harsh, the universe is a bitch, and why do people feel a need to hold aloft words on a banner as though it truly had meaning after all?! I just explained to you how modern day serfdom exists - while not slavery - it is a good term because it is NOT defilement, but rather, a call to action, BEFORE you actually become total slaves! HELLO! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 8:26 AM by hgrayston22	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OJ OJ is in the furnace now, aka jail, for breaking the law. Hence, money and power are not above the law. What's that do to your point? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 8:34 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Nice side step. OJ was simply too blatant about it and too many people were gunning for him. He was stupid. A one time rich guy (athletes usually not too bright for all that money - basically amusement for the masses) that is now broke. Real power brokers and real wealth never have to worry about the law. Occasionally, someone will screw OTHER rich and powerful people and they will usually be addressed - Bernie, e.g. Other than that, the elite rich do as they please. Period. In a country of laws, a good lawyer, buddies with the judicial system judge and all the little societies therein, is assured there complete autonomy so long as the public is kept in the dark about the truth. All you have to do is watch how even the little Hollywood idiots skate by on charges that a poor person would end up in jail for a long time... It's all about the money. ALL. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 8:38 AM by hgrayston22	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	He wasn't broke, he still had millions. Therefore, he still had plenty of money and power. And yet, he is in jail now. If money and power were above the law, then it would make no difference how blatant or stupid the perpetrator was. Therefore, your point is invalid; you have confirmation bias, which is not sound analysis. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 8:43 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Nice try. My point is valid. Why do you pretend that it isn't so here in America? Money and Power give a person free mobility. I threw OJ as an example. He is in jail purely due to his own stupidity. His money and his status in the community were principle reasons for his getting off and obvious crime. His current dilemma stems from a lack of brains. Most rich people are smart. Hence my comment about rich athletes - many are usually broke or in trouble with 5 years of retiring. :-) Tell me that Clinton or Bush will ever see trial? Cheney? The executives of BOA, Halliburton? Many celebs as well. Do your homework and then we can dialogue. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 10:07 AM by godchaser	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	. -I just explained to you how modern day serfdom exists - while not slavery - it is a good term because it is NOT defilement, but rather, a call to action, BEFORE you actually become total slaves! HELLO!- Ok, ok.. i'll play, it sounds like a good time revolution. :) -What, specifically - are you suggesting this course of 'action' is? And don't pull back into the very abstraction you justifiably rail against here. Possibly you recall asking what i would do if i were 'King for a day'? I told you complete financial disclosure would cure all ills. I never heard back from you. I suspect it must be so; that you enjoy the associated guilt derived of advantage you find yourself m? Which is obviously alright, but i wonder if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, and lead this call to action you speak of. Possibly you would model yourself architect in disclosing your family's established fortune/holdings in such a display of societal reform. Serving as catalyst in an implosive, philanthropic endeavor designed to incite an elitist servitude of creative march beyond that of perpetual entropy. I shine poetic, yes? LOL! Truly m.. what is it that you propose, that isn't already at hand, and void needs of concerted effort in its maturation. -Sign me up.. :) Chris Priddy Balto MD Cheers - [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 1:17 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Well writ. The King for a Day - I missed that one... perhaps not me? First, I would disclose nothing - for two reasons. One, it is my personal business. Two, any movement I may make would immediately be countered by those interested in keeping status quo. A low profile, deep networks and a long slow build up to a sudden revelation - this is the Tao. I will outline my scenario, if you will indulge me. Details forthcoming, but let me first reveal the broad brush strokes. Keep in mind, EVERYTHING I state here is achievable with current tech and funds :-) Society, re-engineered from an architectual and engineering perspective: Let's begin with the basics - rural / suburban redesign - we will explore cities later on since industry and commerce of some form must take place with high organization - any technological society requires them... OK: ONE. Begin building from the ground up, small communities. I call them Freeholds (after Farnham's Freehold, by Robert A. Heinlein's book). Each Freehold shall consist of a fixed number of homes arranged in a semi-circle or similar format (there are many reasons for this - some are purely psychological, for good effect - the "neighbor" vs. the "person next door", i.e.; community relationships). Visualize a one square mile plot with 50-100 homes (example) arranged in a loose half circle. Now, each home shall be constructed in a manner most suitable for that environment - all aesthetics shall arise from the environment. We shall intertwine our existence with our natural world instead of cutting it down and pushing it away... Each home shall be built with the maximum recycled material, many times half in the ground for perfect insulation. Each home shall be arranged to receive the sun and to best lay into its environs in a harmonic and natural manner, bring the best light in, the best view, etc. Using the terrain to advantage and for appeal - not crowded or ramshackle either. Each home shall provide its own power, it's own system to recycle water and its own agricultural food (not meat, although poultry can work). Here again, some may specialize and trade with neighbors, nut all in all, a simple format where each family is self-sustaining. Let me say this - we already spend stupid money on stupid homes, so financing is NOT an issue! Other foods, such as fish and livestock may managed on a communal level with yearly rotations of responsibility. Simple. TWO. Centralization of shared community interests. There shall be a central power supply for storage of excess and redistribution in times of need or shortage. The same shall apply to food stocks and other absolute necessities. Water shall be managed at a community level (50-100 homes, e.g.) as well. There shall be a central library (visualize this: http://news.cnet.com/2300-1041_3-6186511-1.html?ta g=mncol;txt - or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMIynrliB_g), where education, global interface and communications may take place. Think Star Trek, OK? So, an agrarian community using high level tech for community use. The central library shall be a repository of sorts and shall be the main institute of learning for the community - couple that with links to the world via table pc's on steroids - voila! Each home may have their own connectivity, HOWEVER, this would be, by my definition, counter productive - you WANT people to get together when sharing information instead of hermits in their homes! People are supposed to get outside, work, live, relax. Want access to the world? Go to the TRUE community center (hub), for this! It's just healthier and more intelligent living. Each community shall provide its own police - volunteers only and through rotation - the same for fire and EMT services. Each community shall have their own BASIC medical facility - think Arctic research facility style. Got it? We will of course, have to interface with the cities for higher level functions such as full service hospital's. Keep in mind too that ALL education is free. Think MIT's new open source exercise... Certifications shall be municipal level perhaps... administrative and regulatory items I am still working out. I do believe that in the long run, LESS IS MORE. Less administration and regulation, equals more productivity and creativity. In the correct environment, people will not seek profit and exploitation, but rather peace and harmony with their fellow and their environment - we JUST NEED THE PROPER EXPERIMENT to prove what has been our historical legacy! Tribalism ala carte? There is much more, but this is a very basic introduction to the concept and I welcome comments. Oh - by the way, new medical breakthroughs, will likely eliminate many of the procedural things hospitals do, thereby validating a community level health system that can handle all major and minor incidences! Robotics. A part of this will be the fact (I think), that most people living in a system of such harmonic perfection (:-) will contribute their knowledge, inventions and creative forces for the good of the community, since they themselves will also benefit! If we all did this, we would accelerate far faster than through the current system of money and greed... more to come when I have time. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 2:15 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://www.physorg.com/news176557158.html#firstCmt New scientific discoveries are moving society toward the era of "personalized solar energy," in which the focus of electricity production shifts from huge central generating stations to individuals in their own homes and communities. Autonomy is coming. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 2:52 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	es, Robert Theobald, the futurist/economist, predicted years ago that when energy became subject to individual control, no more need for government. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 2:55 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Energy Molecular manufacturing Communication Food production (with the caveat that a cyborg body would obviate the need for this) Education/access to knowledge This is kind of a rough list, but you can see the gist of it. All of these things provide autonomy, and we're well on our way to several of them being ubiquitous. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 2:58 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	severeal of them being ubiquitous Yeah, and they're all over the place, too. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: What is Slavery? What is Life? posted on 11/05/2009 6:44 PM by godchaser	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	. "King for a Day - I missed that one... perhaps not me?" Yea, it's been a few years back. "First, I would disclose nothing - for two reasons. One, it is my personal business." And there it is mekanikal-man. -The very societal formula you seek to return, has nonetheless found you otherwise, predisposed. So called 'Privacy' is a product of duplicity, all be it moot point given the practicality of asset protection and or necessity of creative, strategic leveraging. Which is clearly the same fruit of the poisoned tree, activity. There's countless argument sustaining privacy rationale/militant-like corp.-integrity, but clearly there's no valid motion for it in a perfect world. -Legaleaz, not with standing. :) Which was more my meaning of drawing its parallel in perscribed efforts addressing the symptoms of societal ills rather than simply participating in its dyed in the wool, preventative evolutionary flow. "Two, any movement I may make would immediately be countered by those interested in keeping status quo. A low profile, deep networks and a long slow build up to a sudden revelation - this is the Tao." True enough. Reactionary response inevitably finds new players in its compounded mire. "..we JUST NEED THE PROPER EXPERIMENT to prove what has been our historical legacy!" Provided such success, which if i see your project right- it looks like it would dial up real good. What are you suggesting the ripple will inspire? "If we all did this, we would accelerate far faster than through the current system of money and greed..." In a perfect world m. -No argument here. Course the nature of choice is dependent opportunity, which you seek to cultivate. Understood. Yet any thoughts of changing the world by measure of anything beyond effortless proposition in just riding the horse we got, and putting it away wet, is by definition, the futility you yourself described above. As it is, i look forward to reading more about what you're planning, and seek to put together. What's the initial raise- given your circles, possibly a larger scale development would facilitate greater spark of financial gain/philanthropic coop? c - - [Reply] [Parent]

		Life is for the Living. posted on 11/06/2009 8:08 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And there it is mekanikal-man. -The very societal formula you seek to return, has nonetheless found you otherwise, predisposed. So called 'Privacy' is a product of duplicity, all be it moot point given the practicality of asset protection and or necessity of creative, strategic leveraging. Which is clearly the same fruit of the poisoned tree, activity. There's countless argument sustaining privacy rationale/militant-like corp.-integrity, but clearly there's no valid motion for it in a perfect world. -Legaleaz, not with standing. :) Which was more my meaning of drawing its parallel in perscribed efforts addressing the symptoms of societal ills rather than simply participating in its dyed in the wool, preventative evolutionary flow. By this I meant that each individual has, even in the communal existence, an inherent need for privacy and solitude. I do not want or need to know the details of my neighbors life. In this specific case, in this specific world, I could not reveal all simply because it is prudent for me not to. That's all. I need to hide nothing in my world - but this one? HA! All here in this realm is guile and deceit. "Two, any movement I may make would immediately be countered by those interested in keeping status quo. A low profile, deep networks and a long slow build up to a sudden revelation - this is the Tao." True enough. Reactionary response inevitably finds new players in its compounded mire. "..we JUST NEED THE PROPER EXPERIMENT to prove what has been our historical legacy!" Provided such success, which if i see your project right- it looks like it would dial up real good. What are you suggesting the ripple will inspire? Change from have and have not - to all together for one :-) I preach species and planet dominance over all others in the universe (for this evolutionary cycle - next cycle we can get nice and peaceful). Mankind (I am such an ass!) shall spread its wings to the stars, and WOE unto those extra-solar species :-) lol! IN truth, the initial change most important would be an end to invasive and destructive living habits - by this I note heavy industry, logging, mass land agriculture, mass cattle operations, mass production of any kind, really. With the right technological approach, everything, except for starships (:-) would be produced locally at a municipal level and we would recycle EVERYTHING. This alone would change the very fabric of society and be, in one stroke, the single most valuable thing we could do to preserve our planet's biosphere. The Earth would heal, the planet would be a more suitable and healthy place to live on. It's not such a bad idea... "If we all did this, we would accelerate far faster than through the current system of money and greed..." In a perfect world m. -No argument here. Course the nature of choice is dependent opportunity, which you seek to cultivate. Understood. Yet any thoughts of changing the world by measure of anything beyond effortless proposition in just riding the horse we got, and putting it away wet, is by definition, the futility you yourself described above. As it is, i look forward to reading more about what you're planning, and seek to put together. What's the initial raise- given your circles, possibly a larger scale development would facilitate greater spark of financial gain/philanthropic coop? The movement is already in the works. Test homes are being built, certain medical technology is tried and true, and various entities are slowly but surely circling into this singular idea. The things is - I cannot and will not do any of it here in the US due to resistance from many areas - even our medical technology is so threatening that certain interests have promised a swift shot between the eyes if we bring it here to the west... quite sad really. Could actually give everyone real health and vitality - curing cancers, diabetes and other degenerative disorders. Oh well - we have facilities overseas for those less inclined to kill off their own people... Asia, Malaysia, the South Pacific Rim, really, will lead in this new approach. It is already being done, quietly and in such a manner as to suddenly coalesce into fruition - one day nothing seen, the next - news time ;-). We will likely launch a full scale "village" (Freehold) within 5-7 years. Once people see this and can feel, walk and grasp the physical reality of this dream, I KNOW there will be a DEMAND for change. People will want this lifestyle. Next we will conceptualize and build a city along similar lines. For administration and high level industry... Anyway - this is my dream. What do YOU think? How would you propose or add on to this concept of freeholds and community / municipal style living, industry and governance? "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world." - Buddha [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Life is for the Living. posted on 11/07/2009 9:12 AM by godchaser	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	. I think its exciting. And damned impressive, if for no other reason than you all have stepped up and called your shot. Give me some time to give it a think, and i'll be back around. Likely i'll have some questions that may contribute something? Thanks for the heads up, that's great stuff. c - [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Life is for the Living. posted on 11/07/2009 11:06 AM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Catch-22 They (are not you) with some power can do whatever that you (are not them) with some power can not stop them from doing. You with some power can do whatever that they with some power can not catch you from doing. so, here I am doing what I want until i am stopped, doing what I do until i am caught. Native Kentuckian a fortunate son of a Wells I've almost always been healthy, hardly have had time to be starved, being forever hungry, I've been beat, but never beaten, I'm defiant as hell, yet angelic as well, a proud fortunate son of a Wells. This is not a boast but an indictable statement of fact, that's full of regret, remorse and shame and a yell for help for all those that are not always healthy because they are starving unnecessarily, made hungry with any defiance beaten out, the unfortunate sons and daughters of us all. Your first writing (draft) didn't include the second stanza, which came after seeing the movie, "The Girl in the Cafe". A most excellent film. confession needs more than catharsis less interested in punishment than doing right by being good or getting good......hard work and education may be punishment enough with good side effects. [Reply] [Parent]

		the Collective Good posted on 11/07/2009 8:30 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>ALL education is free. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the collective to PAY students to learn? After all a well-educated (indoctiniated) student is more valuable to the collective, no? James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: the Collective Good posted on 11/09/2009 9:06 AM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No - it is not the collectives responsibility to "pay" for anything - that's the WHOLE point! LOL! It is a privilege and an honor to learn - therefore, it is inherent in each apprentice / student / disciple to learn and develop themselves to their greatest extent, and in return, contribute their power and energy back into the "collective" - thereby improving not only their own lives a hundred fold, but the lives of all beings. It's really simple, if one properly places the correct cultural value on each action - this case education - it is something to be valued and cherished and pursued to perfection. Pay? This is at once a lead back into the old ways. Pay it forward, lol! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: the Collective Good posted on 11/09/2009 11:51 AM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>No - it is not the collectives responsibility to "pay" for anything - that's the WHOLE point! LOL! I'm just being facetious on this. I wanted to see how many people out there would object. I guess there are more collectivists out there than one might think. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: the Collective Good posted on 11/09/2009 12:15 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	:-0 [Reply] [Parent]