Battlezone Forums

And on the whole freedom thing. Society is the relinquishment of some freedoms for afforded protections. To be a member of a society is to be not entirely free. This is an agreement every human takes up, either that or they become a hermit.

I have a feeling that your ideas of what the situation is in America is entirely incorrect. The fact of the matter is that there are not only far more factors than those given in play, but many of the things said are just downright incorrect. The so called 'poor' in America, the great majority of them, are very well off. It is only in the rare few, the homeless for example, that the situation is in any way near dire, and still they are better off than many in other countries.

Here is a fun little factoid: Nearly all those mean evil rich people that you hear about in America that 'don't pay their fare share' give heavily to charities, invest capital in startups, and all around make life better for others. Nearly all of those self loathing rich people who complain "I don't get taxed enough" don't give anywhere as much, if anything, to charities. The basic thing at work here is that one party feels an obligation as a member of basic human society to give, and the other feels that there should be a strict system that takes from them.

You would think that I as a computer scientist would go for the hard rules as they are easiest represented and followed, but I don't, I find that to trust in the members of humanity that have shown themselves not only to be intelligent but giving is a better tactic than to try to force rules on people that will never have the same positive result.

Here in America we have one chance really. We are not a country like any other, and we continue to be unlike any other. Where other great civilizations have failed in the past we have new ideas and ideals and we have a chance to succeed with something 'new' rather then rehashes of the same old.

I like freedom so long as every individual retains an amount of personal responsibility. If you are responsible for your own actions and more so you feel in some respect responsible for those around you, in regards to your interaction, you are on the right track. Believing that some system needs to come in place to protect people is to believe that society itself cannot exist without artificial structures to keep it cohesive. The truth is that in a civilization ending event, there are survivors, and they again form new civilizations helping each other.

Now, while I believe that the human race is for the most part a large count of ignorant, greedy, out for only themselves twits, I do also believe in the basic construction of our society and civilization. Let's not f*ck it up.

I have a feeling that your ideas of what the situation is in America is entirely incorrect.

I have virtually no direct experience of the US, 1 visit to Seattle. So I tend to assume you operate much like any other western nation and have pretty much the same issues, one of them at the moment being an increasing number of "unemployed" people who actually have almost no way of altering the dependent situation they find themselves in. Personally I hate the idea of being dependent on state handouts, it is a massive failure for a state to have people in that situation. It is an infringement of their freedom and ability to support themselves. The problem we all have is a weakening of the foundations of our societies, the base level economy.It made sense after ww2 to mass produce food, turn farms into huge corporate entities, but the down side is that it no longer provides a living for those at the bottom of the pile as it once used to. Nations become wealthy, no longer efficient to pay your own "peasants" when foreign ones are cheaper still, slowly the economy becomes top heavy and resentment of the "idle" grows as does the tax burden on those who can earn.
We are now in a post-industrial situation, people at the bottom can't grow their own subsistence, can't become an industrial worker and what is left is just not enough to go round when times are hard. Expecting everyone to get qualified and get a good job is just not realistic, it just does not work like that, it is relativistic, the base level of the economy is critical for the stability of the whole economy, even though it seems unprofitable and thus unimportant.
I do not think the rich are "evil" they are just people trying to get the best for themselves like anyone else, it is the structure of the civilisation that is at the root of the problem. Support the base of an economy and you reduce state dependency and taxation for everyone, economic activity increases. Relativity...for every banker paying themselves 20 million (out of their customers cash and investments) there are 40 small farmers who simply cannot earn a living any more. Charity won't help, it actually makes things worse. An economy is an organic mechanism, if essential parts of it get malnourished the whole suffers.

We'll have a big war to thin out the people we don't have a use for. China is going to have the same problem with idle people, as robotics advances make fewer and fewer people employable. All it will take is a series of big demonstrations or riots in both countries, and the finger pointing at the evil foreigners will begin. Nothing like an existential threat from outside to stop a revolution in its tracks....

After that, artificial scarcity will be imposed by whoever is in control of the automated production, because wealth is meaningless to us unless we have somebody poor to compare ourselves too. Once they have everything they could possibly want, the only way for people that seek infinite wealth to get wealthier is to grind everybody else into the muck.

You may think that's insane, that nobody would do that, but here's somebody:

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/201 ... wages?lite

you beat me to the war thing.

history/human nature is constant.

one thing i did not see was a mention of famine, either man-made or drought-made. add that into the mix and everyone goes bonkers (and dies), thinning out the demand.

You may think that's insane, that nobody would do that

No I wouldn't, the Human capacity for self justifying delusions is huge, the more obviously wrong their position is the more aggressively they will defend it. People are very bad at doing guilt.

one thing i did not see was a mention of famine

Well you probably (maybe) have 50 years or so before this becomes a normal state of affairs in most of the southern US. So no excuses for not preparing for it. Oh...ice caps melting seems to be accelerating faster than predicted too, you might need some boats as well.

corn crops and all crops were devastated this year here and all it takes is one bad crop for 2 billion people in 2 countries to be very unhappy. i live 2 miles above sea level, so i'm hoping the ocean levels do rise to wash away all the commie lowlanders.

What's devastating the crops will set your forest on fire.

so i'm hoping the ocean levels do rise to wash away all the commie lowlanders

I expect they can learn how to walk uphill again, faster than the water will rise.

Guilt is the basis of leadership.
Shame is a problem.

Guilt involves wanting to fix something.

Even I don't think humanity is very redeemable but I don't hold this odd illusion that everyone is horrible as soon as **** hits the fan. The fact is that a lot of people are good, even in a disaster. You never hear about that.

well, we're ready for them

Much more important then teaching:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/ ... to-strike/

What a joy it must be to teach such delightful children!

Nielk1 wrote:Guilt is the basis of leadership.
Shame is a problem.

Guilt involves wanting to fix something.

Even I don't think humanity is very redeemable but I don't hold this odd illusion that everyone is horrible as soon as **** hits the fan. The fact is that a lot of people are good, even in a disaster. You never hear about that.

Kind of doubt that. I mean, look at the business world. There are plenty of uses for leadership as a means to satisfy ones desire for security. I don't think you need guilt for that.

What's that smell?:'

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2ea069f2 ... z261IJaeLD

Zero Angel wrote:

Nielk1 wrote:Guilt is the basis of leadership.
Shame is a problem.

Guilt involves wanting to fix something.

Even I don't think humanity is very redeemable but I don't hold this odd illusion that everyone is horrible as soon as **** hits the fan. The fact is that a lot of people are good, even in a disaster. You never hear about that.

Kind of doubt that. I mean, look at the business world. There are plenty of uses for leadership as a means to satisfy ones desire for security. I don't think you need guilt for that.

It says that when you make a mistake, you fix it. If you ignore it, you end up being caught off-guard. If you pay it too much attention without trying to fix it, it ends up hurting you. In either case, guilt is the balance between apathy and shame.