One world government

Apr 12, 2012

  1. neepheid Space Pirate

    neepheid
    5,250 posts
    Since Feb 28, 2012
    lol
  2. mad1

    mad1
    913 posts
    Since Dec 23, 2004
    for in the grim dark future there is only war
  3. mad1

    mad1
    913 posts
    Since Dec 23, 2004
    btw i don’t need or want to be babysitted by a bunch of people who think we need babysitting. Even though the very people they propose need to be babysat where made babysitable by their very own doing. i also think its within our means to babysit each other peacefully via the internets
  4. CounterPoint Nitrite Records Executive

    CounterPoint
    1,207 posts
    Since Sep 28, 2009
    Throwing a little the dummy from the pram.
  5. Tube Jerk

    Tube Jerk
    2,376 posts
    Since Dec 17, 2003
    if there was a singular humanitarian goal then possibly. but there isn't.

    even if we did have one, there would still be too many people that would try to fuck it up just to make themselves feel better about their total lack of faith in humanity.
    the colonisation of Kepler 22-b would be one such goal. we can't sustain our race on planet earth for much longer in geological terms, so we, as the parasitic insectoid cunts that we are, need to find a new host to rape the fucking shit out of.
    600-ish light years away you have a slightly larger planetary body than ours capable of sustaining human life *very* comfortably. (once the human physiognomy adjusts to the increase in gravity... altho this may be done en-route with the right centrifugal forces).

    600 light years is really nothing in spacio-temporal terms, and according to dynamic stellar cartography, there will be a point in time approximately 6000 years from now where Kepler 22-b and earth will be in a point of alignment that will considerably narrow the distance between worlds. (obviously, you leave at a calculated point in time before the alignment so that Keppler 22-b meets humanity's expedition as they approach the body at the most optimum trajectory).

    no, there aren't wormholes capable of delivering live human forms to distant worlds. no, there is no faster than light object capable of delivering live human forms across space. all there is, is foresight, research, and development. i guess once the human life expectancy is measured in centuries rather than decades, all this might be easier...
  6. Benj

    Benj
    846 posts
    Since Jul 31, 2004
    Ignoring that disease has been responsible for the highest number of deaths in history, attributing deaths to an abstract concept like 'politics' is odd. You can say that war has killed more people than any other man-made cause but it is not really meaningful to say that politics has killed all those people simply because war is often politically motivated.

    On another level, 'black people' is just an example of how we use language to describe things. The unconscious mind works by making associations, categorising and pattern matching. It saves us from having to process everything we experience as novel every single time we encounter it. This process is deeply rooted in our biology and not amenable to any kind of change by any means you might suggest. It's not a process without its shortcomings but it's one of the most fundamental bases of how we function as animals. It would be utterly bizarre to suggest that people stop using language that describes the world as their brain perceives it, even if those perceptions are subjective and imperfect.

    I've never encountered anyone with such an extreme view of individualism and collectivism before, and your individualism-good collectivism-evil dichotomy is strange to say the least. Personally I see many of society's contemporary problems as arising from an excessive tendency towards individualism. People are drawn to black-and-white characterisations because the brain finds the simplicity and sense of order appealing and reassuring. Unfortunately that has no bearing on whether such characterisations have a basis in truth.

    This is, quite literally, exactly what you have been doing throughout this thread and by the sound of it beyond it as well.

    It seems there was some kind of turning point for you where you questioned a previous, deeply-held belief and values system. The mind does not take kindly to giving up this sort of thing because it is so vital to our ability to make sense of the world and function within it. I think a fear of this experience has driven you to retrench and develop an even tighter grip on your new set of beliefs, because it is so much more important to our brains to be able to perceive the world as adhering to some kind of underlying rules and rationale than it is to have an objective understanding of it in all its messy, erratic, haphazard and at times inexplicable splendour.

    This and a few of your other comments sound like the kind of thing that people who believe in deities say, along the lines of "I'm sure/I believe/I just know". The way you talk about convincing others of your viewpoint is also ever so slightly sinister and reminiscent of religious notions of conversion. You seem to have a religion-like mindset, and such a mindset cannot be reasoned with because it has self-preservation and self-reinforcement built in. It's odd that you boast of being beyond persuasion because it is not the mark of anyone who really wants to think about something critically.

    Just out of curiosity, what's your background/education in?
  7. parsley

    parsley
    6,591 posts
    Since Apr 25, 2004
    Good man for bringing the thread back on track with a sensible contribution
  8. Wu Lala

    Wu Lala
    11,553 posts
    Since Feb 7, 2007
    I agree, I like the sound of pages 9 and 10.
  9. Benj

    Benj
    846 posts
    Since Jul 31, 2004
    I'm not sure that global government is a much worse idea than national government, at least to the extent that national government has proven itself disastrously open to abuse and manipulation and global government would presumably be susceptible to the same.

    Territorial boundaries however are a somewhat arbitrary fact of history and problematic. If the world were just one big country then the US/China/India/the EU couldn't engage in an endless circle of (for example) 'why should we tackle climate change when nobody else will'.

    It's not really government itself that's the problem though, it's humanity's ability to hang onto bad ideas and bad systems of government indefinitely.
  10. neepheid Space Pirate

    neepheid
    5,250 posts
    Since Feb 28, 2012
    it's a horrible idea though, the entire planet being run like the post-office :burn:
  11. parsley

    parsley
    6,591 posts
    Since Apr 25, 2004
    Ach, sure you can keep your sovereignty, we just need to agree to a common charter
  12. KellyAnn

    KellyAnn
    11,586 posts
    Since Jun 1, 2002
    we don't need a world government. we just need to give every citizen of earth a phone with the ocarina app on it. it is so darn heartwarming war would surely fuck itself to the moon.
  13. neepheid Space Pirate

    neepheid
    5,250 posts
    Since Feb 28, 2012
    it's certainly working out in Europe right now :burn:
  14. paigalushus thought criminal

    paigalushus
    6,415 posts
    Since Jul 28, 2005
    :heart:
  15. parsley

    parsley
    6,591 posts
    Since Apr 25, 2004
    Arf. Touché.
  16. paigalushus thought criminal

    paigalushus
    6,415 posts
    Since Jul 28, 2005
    yeah, actually it is working out right...the design is for economic instability
  17. neepheid Space Pirate

    neepheid
    5,250 posts
    Since Feb 28, 2012
    there is a popular theory that this was all calculated to cause a crisis and bounce us into a federal United States of Europe.

    it's not really working out to plan :burn: or maybe :tea:
  18. paigalushus thought criminal

    paigalushus
    6,415 posts
    Since Jul 28, 2005
    the goal, as it's ever been, utter subjugation

    and the best way to do that is through the pocket as well as the nose
  19. Deceptikon

    Deceptikon
    8,316 posts
    Since Sep 22, 2001
    I did ignore disease because it's not something that can really be eliminated in the foreseeable future. We can come up with cures for stuff but life evolves so I don't really see disease as something we'll ever be able to fully eliminate until we're practically unrecognizable as a species compared to who we are today and that's going to take hundreds of years imo.

    To be more concise, politics / religion have a higher body count than anything we have the ability to control and certainly the highest body count of any fictional construct man has ever created. War is a function of politics or religion primarily so, to me, it's just one symptom of a larger problem of one group (government in this case) wanting to dictate to another group (the people under their jurisdiction) how they are allowed to live using the threat of force. So I lump all of that into one pile and attribute all those deaths to religion and politics, which are the systems from which those arise. I say religion and politics because, again, for most of recorded human history the two were closely tied together.

    Now that I think about it, I would be curious to see the figures on whether disease actually has killed more people than the negative aspects of government in all its forms. Granted, disease was around before government ever was so it has had a longer amount of time to work on the people. However, I would think that people die in larger batches over shorter periods of time due to government than they do from disease. Even the Black Plague in every incarnation it ever had over its entire lifespan of 500 years didn't kill as many people (estimated at ~75,000,000) as communism did between 1900 and 1987 (estimated at ~110,000,000). Now add on top of that all the tyrannical governments (and religions) and their wars stretching back through all of human history and I think that may not be such an easy clear-cut case to make. I can't definitely say that government killed more people than disease but I'd definitely not be able to clearly determine that it hasn't either. That might be an interesting thing worth researching.

    The mind is a funny thing. You can program yourself to stop certain behaviors by simply making an effort to not do them anymore and creating new associations that make you not want to display those behaviors anymore. Think of what it takes for a 2 pack a day smoker to stop smoking cigarettes. They have to acknowledge that what they're doing isn't in their best interest, force themselves to stop using sheer willpower and then force themselves to not smoke anymore. Eventually the craving for a cigarette goes away and your brain stops making the association between whatever is your "trigger" and the resulting act. I've battled addiction before myself so I know exactly how this works from personal experience and now I wouldn't even think twice about it and, in fact, I've made new associations that prevent me from ever thinking that way again.

    You're focusing on the language which occurs at the level of the individual. I actually don't have a problem with people themselves making a distinction between people who belong to one group or another. We will never be able to prevent that even though I still think even at the individual level it's irrelevant and unhelpful. At least that individual has to suffer the consequences of their own ignorance and it only effects their personal interactions with people they encounter.

    When it comes to government however, there absolutely cannot exist laws or programs which benefit one group but not another without it creating a legal imbalance. Whether that's black people or labor unions or women, the effect will always be the same and it will only further divide society and create tension between the various groups. For example, Affirmative Action was a program aimed at a group called "minorities" that gave those individuals who were seen by the government as belonging to that group special legal consideration that not every individual was capable of receiving. Now employers HAVE to hire x amount of black people or women or find themselves possibly exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. Well what happens if I go to work at a company that is 95% black people and they don't hire me because I'm a 30 year old white male? Do I have the same level of legal protection as someone who is black that doesn't get hired because of the fact that they're black? No, I don't. That is an example of how when government breaks people into groups and holds them to different standards that it creates a friction and even though it means well it ends up institutionalizing the very thing it intended to avoid in the first place.

    There are many people who advocate for individuality in an even more voracious manner than I do. The guy who made the video I posted above, for example, devotes his entire life to it on a level that I never could.

    In America, we don't have a government that values the individuals above collectives anymore because the most powerful collectives (corporations) have gamed the system over the last 100 or more years in a way that benefits their collective above all other collectives. Personally, I think that a lot of societal problems come from the government separating people into groups and treating the different groups differently. A couple examples of this would be the drug war or the death penalty or police brutality. Not only are black people incarcerated for drug related offenses at a much higher rate than whites, they are executed at a far higher rate than white people even when the evidence proves that they're innocent, and they're far more likely to be the victims of police brutality. That creates an apparent atmosphere of institutionalized racial hatred over a long period of time. Then these groups come together and their willingness to accept being treated unfairly slowly slips away and bad things start to happen before eventually all hell breaks loose and you get things like the Civil War or the American Revolution or the recent uprisings and riots that have been occurring all around the world over the last couple decades. Whether those reactions are justified outlets for that frustration is another discussion altogether.

    I have studied enough of the material to know the finer points of the argument and nobody had been able to explain why I'm wrong yet. I'm always open to other people's viewpoints but it is so rare these days to find someone who has researched their own ideas beyond seeking validation. It almost always ends with the same dogma that I used to believe until I figured out what I know now. I'm sure at some point my views will be revised even further because every person is a work-in-progress. That just hasn't happened yet and I don't really know how much further I'm interested in going because my views now are already such a drastic departure from the norm that even if everyone thought that I was right they'd still take generations to take effect.

    Sure but some commonly held beliefs are easily proven wrong by simple logic as long as you're capable of questioning your preconceived notions and admitting you're wrong if you are. Some people are just so emotionally attached to their viewpoint that they absolutely cannot bring themselves to question why they believe these demonstrably false things as if they're the truth. Sadly, most of the people in today's world hear something repeated ad infinitum on TV or they read something in a blog and then if it identifies with their narrative then they incorporate it into their paradigm. They don't bother asking simple questions like "Why is a Republican a Republican? Why are they so vehement about what appears to be an entirely flawed ideology? Is there something about this I might be missing?" It's like they're afraid that in finding that answer they may become what they have programmed themselves to hate. So instead they resort to petty attacks and empty dialog that achieves nothing just so they can continue living in their comfy interpretation of reality. The media and education play a huge role in exacerbating this problem as well in my opinion. Again, a conversation for another time.

    I know myself pretty well and one thing I know is that it's not rooted in fear. It's rooted in genuine curiosity about why things are happening the way they are happening and a desire to sharpen my understanding of the systems that drive the world in hopes that I might one day make a contribution that helps change things for the better. So I feel that this entire thing is really an exercise in self-improvement probably more than anything and that is a basic instinctual drive that all humans share in some way. Also, I have a child and that's forced me to really rethink my previously self-destructive bordering on nihilistic tendencies in order to be a proper role model. At first that just meant altering my behavior but once that process of questioning myself began it was like an avalanche and before I knew it I had become addicted to the feeling of vaporizing my "sacred cows" and I ended up a different person who suddenly realized that many of the problems of the world made a lot more sense. If another paradigm comes along that I can tell is an improvement, I'd still be just as willing to question all these beliefs. That hasn't happened yet though.

    I'm sure it appears that way but it's just because individuality is something I'm passionate about. Different people are passionate about different things in life. Some are passionate about the bible. Some are passionate about science. If you want to live life not being passionate about anything because you're afraid about how you're going to come off to other people then that's your prerogative, of course. I just don't feel that particular course really leads to happiness for me. That's only going to come from knowing myself and what I believe while remaining open-minded regarding the possible opinions of other people but being able to discern what is nonsense and what isn't.

    For the record, I do have spiritual beliefs and faith in life beyond death. Not THE God but an "intelligent" force that literally is composed of everything everywhere at every point in time ever. That is another entirely different discussion though that I won't get into now.

    I never "boasted I was beyond persuasion." I just meant it was unlikely or at the very least difficult for someone who doesn't have a strong argument that I hadn't already thoroughly considered to be able to persuade me that I'm wrong. I've spent a LOT of time thinking about this and wresting with both sides of the argument but every time it always logically comes back to the same conclusion for me. With regards to modern liberalism, I've taken that about as far as it can logically be taken and by analyzing history and current events I've found that large segments of it are based on a completely distorted view that doesn't really hold up to reality at the most basic levels in much the same way that social conservatism ignores some basic tenets of science in order to justify imposing its religious views on society.

    If you have a better system or solution to the problems we face, I'd be more than happy to hear it and consider it as long as you can express it coherently. That was how I came to this perspective in the first place. Someone challenged me to research the claims for myself and I thought he was a lunatic that would be easy to disprove with simple facts the next time I saw him so I started digging in all kinds of places and what I found fundamentally changed my world-view forever.

    My formal education and work background is in Information and Electronics Technology. However, I was never really a great classroom student and was always better at seeking out knowledge on my own and teaching myself about the things I cared about. Over the last couple years I've really been spending a great deal of free time absorbing history, politics, and alternative schools of economic thought because that's what's more interesting than anything to me now.
  20. Ike Karton

    Ike Karton
    387 posts
    Since Apr 4, 2012
    sick
  21. mad1

    mad1
    913 posts
    Since Dec 23, 2004
    why thank you sir
  22. mad1

    mad1
    913 posts
    Since Dec 23, 2004
    i think we be ok :twothumbs: hickup
  23. Wu Lala

    Wu Lala
    11,553 posts
    Since Feb 7, 2007
    :laughing::laughing:

    but dont you think a lot of that base animal tendency is brought on by fear and uncertainty? I dont think were naturally tribal in the sense we are meaning here, I think we naturally shift towards those base animal drives over our rational brains when we are under stress. I think the european nations prey and play on fear and tribalism to get what they want from their people, I dont think its something so rooted in the people that they cant get along.


    you have some decent points in the thread, Im sort of with you on a lot of this but that statement is laughable. Icke and Jones together manage to spread about as much fear per year as the government and the mainstream media do in a week, theyre such small fish they barely come into it compared to bullshit about climate, bullshit about terrorism, bullshit about viruses, the list is endless. The whole system is based on fear, they dont trust us or credit us with their real motives so they try and herd people by preying on their darkest thoughts, compulsive liars, they dont know when to stop. Even when they have honest intentions their first act is to lie about it, to try and play a game with the public. Thats what slows progress, thats where the fear comes from, alex jones isnt out there spraying cs gas in students faces, who are protesting because they cant get a straight answer from their employies, the government. They forget their place, and if they dont wise up itll boy cries wolf time when it comes to making peace, no one believes what they say any more and pissing people off till they riot then gasing them is no way to build a better future.


    Im glad to see youve done a 180 and you now believe in the new world order and a push for centralised power since we last spoke. Youre getting there bit by bit. This banker of yours, so smart and sure of the future he didnt see the financial crisis coming hey? Or did he?
  24. radjew

    radjew
    8,097 posts
    Since Jul 7, 2001
    The media stokes fear .. governments stoke irrational fear (WMD, etc.).. divide and conquer. The question is how are you going to circumnavigate the population around these colossal forces en-masse without coming across as a conspiracy loon? Someone is earning as shed load of cash out of the current situation and as they have the offical month-pieces well and truely paid off that is the way it will stay. The internet will be a shadow of its former self in 5 years regarding alternative media outlets as governments hate unpredictable perturbations to their agendas which the internet provides.
  25. Benj

    Benj
    846 posts
    Since Jul 31, 2004
    But politics is an inevitable phenomenon, it's just the word we use to describe people organising themselves one way or another so as to have some kind of order in large groups. And if I've understood correctly it's this kind of grouping that you object to, but it's such an instinctive and deep-rooted tendency that it makes no sense to oppose it, neither does it help to say that people are killed as a result of it. It doesn't define the problem in a way that can be solved, and that's the whole point of defining a problem: being able to solve it. You can't propose an alternative way of living that denies our fundamental nature, because trying to implement it would be like trying to influence a herd of animals to act a certain way. It's not like an addiction that we can be weaned on or off; we are not infinitely malleable and some aspects of our psychology and biology are hard-wired and impervious to change. Our tendency to affiliate and create groups is an example of this.

    The problem with government (and with our systems in general) as I see it is that they don't acknowledge our nature fully enough. To my mind your ideas on individualism would fall even fouler of this same principle.

    I disagree. Language reflects the way we perceive the world. Of course as I think I said before our perceptions are flawed and subjective (and part of the problem is that we think they aren't), but it's meaningless to say that the language we use to describe those perceptions is somehow wrong. How can it be wrong to attempt to accurately communicate how we see the world? The problem lies not with the language but the perceptions we describe using it.

    The fact that one of the ways we perceive the world is as in-groups and out-groups certainly has its problems, but to me the extremes of individualism that you talk about are equivalent to viewing literally everybody and everything else as the out-group. The equivalent extreme of collectivism would be to view every human being, and possibly every living thing, as part of our in-group. Not that I see either extreme as realistic, but if I was forced to choose one of them, extreme collectivism would make a lot more sense to me. As I said before I see many problems arising from a current tendency towards individualism, and I see no reason why tending to the extreme would make for a better solution than tending to the extreme of collectivism. And again neither position would be tenable because we simply aren't wired that way.

    The Affirmative Action program doesn't seem like an ideal solution to me. But such a program doesn't create a friction - it may well exacerbate the friction it's supposed to address, but the fact is there's already a friction there. The friction the AA program attempted to address was discrimination, deliberate or not, on the part of employers. If there wasn't such an overwhelming trend of minorities having unfair employment prospects because of discrimination, no government would have seen fit to try and implement a program to deal with it. The problem arises from social phenomena, a lack of education and awareness and once again ultimately from the flawed but necessary processes of the mind in handling information. This doesn't make it the fault of government or 'collectivism'.

    The US is generally considered to be one of the most rampantly individualistic societies on Earth. Which isn't necessarily the doing of the government, but it seems unlikely that things would be that way if collectivism was in any serious way on the government's agenda.

    This from my perspective is the fault of yet another ill-conceived man-made system. You can trace most of the world's biggest contemporary problems back to profit-maximising corporations including the way in which, particularly in your country, it has rendered the political system worse than useless. Yet the corporation is not an inevitability; it's just that at some point we decided to allow people to create groups endowed with 'corporate personhood' whose executives were legally mandated to pursue the singular goal of making as much profit as possible. Damage to the environment? Doesn't matter if we make more profit from it. Breaking the law? Making products that kill people? Doesn't matter as long as after paying the fines we're still financially better off. If we could abolish this model and replace it with one that didn't have such warped incentives the world would be an infinitely better place. Again this is not collectivism. Certainly the system allows vested collective interests to operate, but the problem is the result of incentives, peculiar historical fact and path dependency.

    The brain is remarkably adept at ignoring objective facts that interfere with its world view, so don't be under any illusion that your lack of susceptibility to alternative viewpoints necessarily has anything to do with having discovered an objective truth.

    Again, it sounds like for you the purpose of learning more is simply to reinforce what you already believe.

    This is exactly where people come unstuck, in fact you practically said as much in your next paragraph. Yet the most impressive feat of the brain is its ability to be aware of such things while acting as if it is not.

    Passion is the enemy of reason. The Zen master Seng-ts'an once said "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between for and against is the mind's worst disease". I think he was pretty much on the money, and you seem pretty heavily emotionally involved in your beliefs to me.

    But it does make the point that you're willing to believe in something that has not been arrived at through a ruthlessly rational appraisal of reliable, objective, scientifically-discovered evidence. My view, based on the evidence, is that we're just the result of a colossal stroke of cosmic luck. We've evolved to have notions of spirituality and our ideas about a greater narrative simply exist to provide us with a reassuring explanation and a purpose so that it all makes sense and we can function from day to day without being constantly dogged by the question of whether there's any ultimate point to anything.

    I wish. Personally I think we're all fucked because our illusions about a greater place in the universe and the stupid complacency that this engenders precludes any serious thinking about our long-term survival. Thanks to climate change humans are gonna thoroughly fuck shit up in the next few decades.

    Interesting. Most of all I am glad you didn't say mainstream economics.
  26. hadees Banned

    hadees
    3,840 posts
    Since Nov 22, 2002
    LOL,:poop:What a load of shite.:thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown
  27. Benj

    Benj
    846 posts
    Since Jul 31, 2004
  28. Wu Lala

    Wu Lala
    11,553 posts
    Since Feb 7, 2007
    fair call man, I agree, if we are talking practical terms there is a deadlock of sorts as you describe. I was just coming at it more from the angle that there is some hope, if you could unite people with sense behind something real they could believe in then it could potentially transcend tribal urges, knee jerk reactions and trigger an opposite sort of force. Im not saying in real terms I can see how we get there, but I think if theres a chance for it then its slipping away fast with the current way of working. I think its a dangerous thing to foster stupidity and negative mental illness in order to bend the masses into shape, then deal with the repercussions in rising drug abuse, violent crime, loss of national productivity, cost in law enforcement, civil unrest etc with an increasingly iron fist.

    It does look dark but theres still a chance the powers that be can turn it around and really want to. The single most stupid thing Ive heard Alex Jones say, I think it was a show with dug stanhope, "anything the elites are for Im against". It sort of sums him up, tunnel vision, when it comes to police brutality etc Im with him, but I do think centralised power is the only way we are going to be able to move forward and take control of ourselves and our environment for the better of every living being. I think the worst thing we could do is form little paranoid local christian armed militias and just pretend some of these global issues dont exist like jones would want. Not that Im suggesting thats where you or anyone else in here is coming from, Im just syaing that if they can work out a central power base they could potentially turn around a lot of these negative things very quickly.

    Or we could find ourselves living in nazi germany mk2. Tbh I get the feeling that either way, were not going to have much say in it.
  29. paigalushus thought criminal

    paigalushus
    6,415 posts
    Since Jul 28, 2005
    negative capability...though Keats was referring more to the artist that a way of life. I guess tuberculosis can have a way of making one Zen

    Emotion seems like a better term than passion; emotion seems like something controlled by whim and circumstance, passion is something abiding in the soul...at least in my connotation of the words.

    But I've never bought into desire being the source of all suffering either.
  30. Deceptikon

    Deceptikon
    8,316 posts
    Since Sep 22, 2001
    I don't believe that it is. I think we're lead to believe that it is because we have been taught to have an emotional connection to validation from authority but people survived long before there was politics. Therefore, I don't view politics as inevitable in the way I view disease as inevitable.

    Also, politics most of the time in this day and age aren't people freely associating to an end without relying on the use of force. If it were, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem comes in when you have one set of rules for poor people that's different from the set of rules rich people have to live by. So it's not that people are organizing themselves into groups as much as they are made part of a group by virtue of some particular association that is made for them that they may not want to be associated with. For example, not all black people rallied behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because some of them recognized that it essentially trampled the rights of property owners to operate their private property in any manner they saw fit. Yet somehow it's still generally accepted that it was put into place to help black people. Well, "Negros for Goldwater" (that was the name of a group at the time that supported Barry Goldwater Sr for President against Lyndon Johnson) might have something to say about that.

    It helps because the first step on the road to solving a problem is understanding where it comes from and seeing it for what it is. The fact is that politics in all its forms and the systems which arise from it have tended to be extremely brutal and can be directly linked to the murder of hundreds of millions of people throughout history. Nobody can deny that and the fact that anyone would even try is positively baffling to me.

    "Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") as a term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[1]"

    I didn't outline the solution because you don't even seem to understand the problem from where I stand. The first step to bringing about a solution is making sure everyone is on the same page regarding what the problem is, which you and I are obviously not. So I made my effort in order to get you to understand the problem from my perspective, which you obviously refuse to do and that's your right.

    Ideally, the solution is in stripping back laws that benefit certain groups of society and not others before eradicating the presence of governance from the lives of the individual. However, we don't live in an ideal society so we need some level of governance and I think, in the United States, starting with adhering strictly to the Constitution would be step one. Keeping government to its smallest possible incarnation is the most important thing we can do.

    How can any bureaucrat behind a desk ever define who you are? They see you as a random collection of tidbits of information or a number. They don't know and shouldn't be allowed to know all your deepest inner thoughts and feelings. Those are really what make you unique from another person. They can pretend they understand "human nature" but I think Mises was so on the mark when he said essentially that human action is never a clear case of cause and effect. There are simply too many variables that can influence the way a person acts that will never be able to be properly understood in any meaningful way by any government anywhere at any time because of the very nature of bureaucracy itself.

    When I say I think it's unhelpful and irrelevant that doesn't necessarily mean we should take steps to force people to stop seeing things their way. That's just not how I see the world because I think we should judge an individual by the content of their character and their actions and decide whether or not that is the type of individual that we want to be associated with. To say that guy is a black person says what really? Only that he has darker skin than me but what does that really say about the person underneath the skin? Nothing at all. It just becomes another way to stereotype an individual in your own mind and I think stereotypes (while hilarious in a comedic context) are totally useless. It's an easy way to rationalize what may be a negative association for the sake of not having to look any deeper. It's the lowest common denominator of thought. I think we're capable of so much more than that if we allow ourselves to be.

    There's some truth to that but I don't really see it as a negative thing. To me it's an empowering facet of life as a human. It's what allows us to communicate and freely associate with each other and it's what powers everything in the world at its most basic level. The notion that we're all just a bunch of 1's making our own little way in the world to our own ends is sort of liberating to me, personally.

    Let's look at some historic examples of extreme collectivism on a societal level:

    The Soviet Union
    Communist China
    Nazi Germany
    Fascist Italy
    The Japanese Empire
    North Korea

    Would you want to live in any of those locations during their respective periods if you had a choice? I think not.

    The notion that you seem to adhere to that we live in a individualistic society neatly ignores the evidence that I've provided to you to the effect that we do not. Just because you get to buy things and identify your individuality by surrounding yourself with crap that was marketed to you doesn't mean that you live in an individualistic society. It means you live in a society wherein just enough of your individualistic instincts are satisfied to keep you somewhat comfortable while, behind the scenes, collectives are secretly running the show and molding society in a way that benefits their collective to your detriment.

    You're refocusing on the individual whereas I'm talking the ruling body. The ruling body is wired however we design it to be wired in a free society because it's an entirely fictional construct.

    I also don't buy this "we aren't wired that way" rhetoric. As I said before, we can use willpower to wire ourselves any way we see fit. You see it in people with 2 pack a day cigarette habits that just quit.

    Do you realize you're making my point for me here? What you're saying at it's most basic level is that one group of people called "employers" wouldn't hire another group of people called "minorities" as much as they would hire the group of people called "white people" and that that caused friction in society. How is that not collectivism causing friction? Don't you think that if an employer looked at each individual regardless of the group they belonged to and evaluated them based solely on their experience and ability to do the job that more minorities would be hired because there are plenty of minorities who are skilled laborers in one trade or another? If not and we had true legal equality then the minorities would be able to just start their own business and cater to all types which would expose them to a customer base.

    The failure of education and awareness can be directly traced to collectivism but that is a very protracted discussion that would be better summed up by having you watch "The Ultimate History Lesson w/ John Taylor Gatto." The failures of government are also failures of collectivism because the government is itself a collective that obeys different rules than the people it governs. That is the entire flaw in the system that fucks all of this up to begin with. The notion that one group deserves preferential treatment to another is totally negative and creates a massive drag on the system that leads to the types of problems we have today.

    You obviously don't know much about the US and its history. We only had a government that valued the primacy of the individual for the first ~50 years after the Revolutionary War and it was one of the most prosperous times in human history. Then collectivism began slowly leaking in through the cracks over the next ~150 years until about 1913 when we suddenly had a drastic change and entirely embraced collectivism within government.

    Again, you make my point for me. What your saying, at its most basic form, is that one group "government" gave special privileges to another group "corporations" that kept those same privileges from individuals by virtue of the average individual not having a role in government unless they are part of a collective. So what collective did individuals then form in order to fight back? Labor unions. Eventually labor unions became institutionalized and that was what lead us to where we are today where we have one group of people called "labor unions" constantly battling against another group called "corporations." But then what happens to the individual that doesn't want to be part of a labor union and doesn't want to work for a corporation? They start their own business. I don't know if you've noticed the decline of entrepreneurial activity in the United States over the last couple decades but it is practically directly attributable to one group "corporations" having special privileges from another group "government" that aren't being given to the individual entrepreneur. Pretty simple cause and effect when you get down to it.

    That's a misrepresentation of my opinion. I never said I had discovered an objective truth. This is just the course of action that I think will likely lead to the most amount of prosperity in the future and something I personally feel would be worth working toward. I'd be more than happy to consider another if it's sound and I've said that a million times it seems.

    If that's how you want to interpret it that's fine but I know myself better than you do so that doesn't really hold a whole lot of water with me, unfortunately. Your experience of me is 2 (now 3) messages on an internet message board whereas mine is 29 years of living in meat space in this body and learning all the life lessons and experiencing all the experiences that have lead me to where I am today. Much of that time was spent (especially lately) examining myself and my motivations in very deep detail so I can safely say that you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to my motivations for doing things beyond what I tell you they are.

    Well, I've left it open. Show me what you think I'm missing and if I'm wrong I'll recant. Unfortunately you're not presenting much beyond vague misunderstandings at how the brain works when scientists are still struggling to understand it and typical collectivist rhetoric. Say something substantive that I haven't already considered and I'll happily consider it with the same level of zeal that I dove into my current world-view.

    Humans are not just walking arbiters of reason. We have emotions so deeply ingrained into who we are that they are impossible to avoid. It's a good thing to understand why you have the emotions you have and use them to a positive end. I also don't ascribe to his notion that the struggle for or against something is a negative at all. Wasn't the Shaolin temple created because farmers were struggling against the Mongolian invaders and had to train to become strong and learn how to use basic farm implements as weapons? If what he said was true, why not just let them take over and continue trying to live their lives while not being for or against the invasion? Because while it's a nice ideal, the world isn't a utopia and at some point you have to take a stand against those things you believe are wrong. When you're staring at a Mongolian invader that is playing with the body parts of what used to be your infant son you're suddenly going to realize that that is not the reality of the world we live in and you are going to be very against him doing that and very for sticking a sword in his face. I think a better way to put it is "it's unhealthy to allow your actions to be driven only by emotions." In my case, I can tell you with 100% confidence that there is just as much reason to my perspective as there is emotion and that I will reasonably consider any new viewpoint that I haven't already considered and discarded as useless.

    I don't deny the fact that I'm emotionally invested but that doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to listen and consider other viewpoints. If I was I would have never come to this conclusion in the first place and I would have waved the liberal flag voraciously until death. I see the blatant failure and obvious downsides of collectivist ideology and I advocate for individualism but that doesn't mean if there's some form of collectivist ideology that I hadn't studied yet that makes more sense to me that I wouldn't be willing to consider it. I just don't know of any that I'm aware of that haven't caused mass suffering at some point in history whereas societies where individuals were left to be themselves have largely thrived by comparison despite still unfortunately having massive restrictions.

    Actually, if you look at history objectively you can pretty clearly see the failures of collectivism over a very very long period of time whereas when individualism has truly been the driving ideology behind society there has been an affluence of technological advancement and a large increase in wealth for everyone involved.

    Based on what evidence? Even Richard Dawkins himself hasn't made that leap as he's readily admitted that he doesn't know why we're here but that evolutionary processes are what got us to where we are today, not some mythical godhead in a book written by men. We have literally no idea whether we were put here for a reason or we just evolved and we're an inevitable life form with no form or function.

    So you have no solution and are really making no point. You're arguing just to hear your own voice really as far as I can tell. Sorry but I don't see why I should bother continuing to have this conversation with you after this post is over. You're entitled to your apathetic opinion but I don't find any real value in trying to understand it as I used to be apathetic like you were and shed that skin and found it to be one of the most positive things that could have ever happened to me.

    I'm not going to get into a climate change debate here but I'm not sure I entirely buy an issue that is so highly politicized. I'm sure the climate is changing but nobody seems to be able to quantify what percentage of it is human by any degree that I would consider properly scientific. If it's based on science then there is a clear answer and, as far as I know, there is no clear conclusion that says that we are exacerbating the already naturally occurring process of climate change by x percent and here is evidence. I reserve judgement until the day when they can produce that figure and the evidence to back it up. I'm not writing it off as impossible but I'm not entirely buying into it either.

    Definitely not a Keynesian. I like free-market economics as espoused by Hayek, Rothbard and Mises though I'm still learning about a lot of the intricacies of their respective views.