Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: What the heck is the big secret? 107

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42
I'm missing something. Something big. Something everybody else seems to understand instinctively. Something that I don't.

I don't know if this is my Asperger's brain misfiring- or what. But it's preventing me from advancing in my understanding of both Capitalism and Communism. It might be a myth that I'm holding fast to from childhood- a lie like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. But this is much bigger.

In the last 6 years, I've had my faith shaken in the myth- the myth of the self-made man. I have ALWAYS believed in an internal locus of control- that the harder I worked, the more I'd be rewarded for that work. That despite my problems, I was basically human, and deserved humane treatment if I treated others humanely. Ok, so the bad pay and fake stock options of the .bomb startups I worked for was all fake- but that was a part of a bubble, a con game in the stock market and all of the computer programming I did back then was just for show, no real intended products despite what the higher ups were telling me. After two years of unemployment, I started contracting for government- and here my superiors actually seem to care about my health and welfare. But of course, they have nothing to say about my pay- that's all the union and the legislature, not my specific chain of command.

I thought I was begining to figure it out- that I just needed to find the right management structure. But then, this conversation indicates that I still don't get it- that I'm missing something very basic, something that means that there is still a nobility in the United States- that some people are simply *born to be rich* or *born to be poor* and there is *NOTHING* we can do to change that, nothing that can be done to make the system more fair- and that it is even foolish to TRY, as if any attempt to make the poor and the rich equal, to treat them as if both are human beings, is a mistake.

What am I missing? Is expecting to be compensated for hard work just a fairy tale, a lie we tell our children? Is the entire purpose of the conservatives among us to keep the status quo and make sure that people will NEVER be equal? And what role does capitalism really play in this case- just another way to allow the owners to mistreat their employees and customers to make more money?

If so, I have to wonder if the world is truly evil and deserves to continue. If our lies have become so large that the terrorists are right; that the only way left to produce justice is the genocide of the 6 billion evil capitalists so that the 10 million true believers can live without their evil. I don't want to believe that because I, my family, my nation, are among those 6 billion evil capitalists- I am evil.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What the heck is the big secret? More

What the heck is the big secret?

Comments Filter:
  • You are charged to argue with me no more. Instead, you should be worshipping me.

    I'm missing something. Something big. Something everybody else seems to understand instinctively. Something that I don't.

    But it's preventing me from advancing in my understanding of both Capitalism and Communism.

    the myth of the self-made man.

    It's not a myth. You just have to have the balls to wait, patiently, and refuse to take just any offer which comes along. This is what I've been trying to tell you since you started trolling my journal.

    But then, this conversation indicates that I still don't get it- that I'm missing something very basic, something that means that there is still a nobility in the United States- that some people are simply *born to be rich* or *born to be poor* and there is *NOTHING* we can do to change that,

    Here's where you still don't get it. This is why I don't go for just any job. By accepting menial labor, by jumping at every carrot on a stick, you are implicitly acquiescing that you will do whatever it takes--crack mad fo

    • People will never be equal--this is life, not heaven. Respect is earned and not just given. By jumping at any old menial labor you're not earning respect of the wealthy--you're earning their disdain and your perpetual place as a wage-slave.

      In that case, the wealthy simply don't deserve to be wealthy. We'd be better off with the entire species extinct than continuing on in this fashion. Menial labor should not be penalized merely because it is menial. Since it is, that makes humanity a species not worth
      • I've never said that the wealthy deserve to be wealthy. That's been my point when asking for a $20--if they didn't do anything to deserve it (and you're finally beginning to understand that the vast majority of them haven't done anything special for the wealth and, for the most part, their wealth was given to them with no more effort than charity) then why should I feel guilty about asking for it? At least I go through the effort of being homeless 24 hours/day so that I can rightfully look homeless when I
        • I've never said that the wealthy deserve to be wealthy. That's been my point when asking for a $20--if they didn't do anything to deserve it (and you're finally beginning to understand that the vast majority of them haven't done anything special for the wealth and, for the most part, their wealth was given to them with no more effort than charity) then why should I feel guilty about asking for it? At least I go through the effort of being homeless 24 hours/day so that I can rightfully look homeless when I a
          • It isn't a hard and fast rule. It's a rule which is imposed on the lower classes. At some point during your life, as you grew up, you should have realized that we have entire populations of millionaires and billionaires who don't "work" and they still eat.

            Your statement about freedom is just nauseating.

            Your expressed avoidance of your responsibility to right the wrongs of your past "wrong theory of mind" is also nauseating. Why do you think I've been trying to tell you to lay off the personal attacks, th
            • It isn't a hard and fast rule. It's a rule which is imposed on the lower classes.

              Thus proving that we do not have a one class system- at which point there's no purpose in continuing the experiment of Constitutional Government at all.

              At some point during your life, as you grew up, you should have realized that we have entire populations of millionaires and billionaires who don't "work" and they still eat.

              Absolutely- but I've got a word for that: Criminals.

              Your statement about freedom is just nauseat
              • When you finally manage to come to grips with reality then you'll begin to realize just how much work you've done to propagate the lie that you, and most of the US, is living in. You'll also begin to realize that I've been right the whole time.

                At some point you should also admit that, based on this "wrong theory of mind", you've contributing to perpetuating the damning accusations that I am paranoid, or that all I have are conspiracy theories, or that I'm a malcontent, or that I'm just whining. Everything
                • When you finally manage to come to grips with reality then you'll begin to realize just how much work you've done to propagate the lie that you, and most of the US, is living in. You'll also begin to realize that I've been right the whole time.

                  The problem is, if you're right, then there are no opportunities and no hope. There will never be any other system- because once you allow freedom, fraud will take over.

                  At some point you should also admit that, based on this "wrong theory of mind", you've contrib
                  • Don't go off the other deep end. Accept that the world is tainted. There are still some good people left in it but they're not in the places you've been taught that they were. There are real opportunities in the world but it can't be found by scraping your way up the ladder one step at a time. There is a path to become wealthy but it can't be found by chasing after the games which are rigged by those who are already wealthy. There is a path to happiness and it doesn't involve submitting to other people
                    • Don't go off the other deep end. Accept that the world is tainted.

                      If the world is tainted, then the good people don't stand a chance. Evil may be short sighted, but it's powerful enough to destroy good.

                      There are still some good people left in it but they're not in the places you've been taught that they were.

                      If they exist, they won't be in power- they will have long ago had their power and wealth stolen by the fraud.

                      There are real opportunities in the world but it can't be found by scraping your wa
                    • I thought you were Catholic. Where's your faith?
                    • My faith is in God. My faith in man has been utterly destroyed in the last six years or so. My faith in myself has never had any existance at all.
                    • My faith in myself has never had any existance at all.

                      Half your problem right there. If you can't have even the slightest shred of faith in yourself, you'll never have any for others. A little self-belief goes a long way.
  • Are you going to argue with RG, or Apo, or the ACs, on my behalf? Can I count on your support when I express opinions which expose the greater impact of your new revelations?

    What about this post [slashdot.org], modded offtopic (when it discusses a quote from TFA), because it asks questions which shed light on the systems which you've described in this journal entry? Can I count on your support?

    Probably not. Now that you've played a large enough part in making me out to be a troll and a malcontent it would just be too m
    • Are you going to argue with RG, or Apo, or the ACs, on my behalf? Can I count on your support when I express opinions which expose the greater impact of your new revelations?

      Let's just say that at this point in time, my opinions are still in flux. As in, I can't see any reason to argue for a Constitutional Government if there is no hope for it producing equality; nor can I see any reason to support a free market if every free market just degenerates into fraud; nor can I see any reason to hold out to bec
      • If the government had stuck to the Constitution [slashdot.org], with the 9th and 10th Amendments intact, things wouldn't have degenerated into fraud and exploitation. Free markets do not degenerate into fraud and exploitation until government regulation is applied to them. Government is power of taxes and force and is the vessel of abuse.

        It shouldn't be my problem how you go about fixing your mess. I've been your target for a month or two. Do you expect me to come up with the solution after you've been beating on me,
        • If the government had stuck to the Constitution, with the 9th and 10th Amendments intact, things wouldn't have degenerated into fraud and exploitation.

          I don't believe that for a second. The Constitution fails to do the one thing that would fix the problem: Preventing the accumulation of wealth.

          Free markets do not degenerate into fraud and exploitation until government regulation is applied to them.

          Incorrect- as soon as one group of people accumulate enough wealth, they will buy politicians and creat
          • The accumulation of wealth was specifically prevented by limiting the powers of the federal government. If they didn't have the authority to do it then there would be no reason to collect the tax money to do it. By breaching the 9th and 10th Amendments, and taking on responsibilities which they had no authority or power to address, they created excuses to accumulate wealth. Without those excuses the people would have resisted. The concept of fear mongering and FUD shouldn't be that alien to you.

            The main
            • The accumulation of wealth was specifically prevented by limiting the powers of the federal government. If they didn't have the authority to do it then there would be no reason to collect the tax money to do it.

              Doesn't matter, because any rich person could just find politicians that would ignore the authority limit, pay to put them into office, and then they have the de facto authority.

              By breaching the 9th and 10th Amendments, and taking on responsibilities which they had no authority or power to addres
              • If you know that the rich will eventually buy the government then the obvious solution is to limit the government so that it won't matter. That is the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

                If the rich want to oppress the poor they must do so by force. If the rich must personally hire policemen then they must convince each one of those policemen, and their families, that they are working in their best interests. If the rich buy a gargantuan government which exerts force through the police then the rich ne
                • If you know that the rich will eventually buy the government then the obvious solution is to limit the government so that it won't matter. That is the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

                  Which mean nothing because eventually a corrupt group of well purchased politicians will ignore them.

                  If the rich want to oppress the poor they must do so by force.

                  Which they've done quite effectively.

                  If the rich must personally hire policemen then they must convince each one of those policemen, and their families,
                  • It's not about individual profit. An individual by himself cannot enslave a whole nation. A wealthy individual who contributes back to the society around him cannot, by themselves, exploit the entire community.

                    The major defining factor in today's system of iniquities is concentration of power and the monopolization of the system of legal tender.

                    I don't know how to escape the vicious cycle of abusive politicians funded by greedy financiers any more readily than I know how to escape the cycle of homeless an
                    • It's not about individual profit. An individual by himself cannot enslave a whole nation. A wealthy individual who contributes back to the society around him cannot, by themselves, exploit the entire community.

                      Ah, I see, you're still stuck in THAT illusion. Wealthy people don't contribute back to society. They are CONSUMERS. They use their wealth to exploit the rest of society. "Never touch capital", said Carnegie- never actually risk your wealth, only use your profits to buy political influence.

                      The
                    • Wealthy people who don't contribute back to society are eventually left to rot in their own estates. The only way they create a perpetuated state of usefulness is when they hold others in debt. It is the debt which allows for the exploitation and not the initial profit. The concentration of individual wealth does not lead directly to debt. Debt is created and manipulated in ways which are concommitant.

                      Profit is a good thing. It motivates people--if it's portioned out correctly. Today we live in a syst
                    • Wealthy people who don't contribute back to society are eventually left to rot in their own estates. The only way they create a perpetuated state of usefulness is when they hold others in debt. It is the debt which allows for the exploitation and not the initial profit. The concentration of individual wealth does not lead directly to debt. Debt is created and manipulated in ways which are concommitant.

                      Debt IS profit. There's no difference between the two. The initial profit is just the capital that is u
                    • There is a difference between the two. All debt is used to create profit but not all profit is used to create debt.

                      When you realize the difference you'll understand just how utterly and completely wrong people are when they accuse me of being a communist, or of having a problem with profit. There is no problem with profit. There is only a problem when profit is used to induce debt.

                      Investors do not create debt. Predatory investors--those who artificially inflate the repayment terms of the investment--do.
                    • There is a difference between the two. All debt is used to create profit but not all profit is used to create debt.

                      If you don't want that profit stolen from you by inflation, you're going to use ALL of your profit to create more debt. Because the profit is in money, you're already in debt, because money is a form of debt.

                      When you realize the difference you'll understand just how utterly and completely wrong people are when they accuse me of being a communist, or of having a problem with profit. There i
                    • P.S.: Despite this disagreement, there's a story in "The Mysterious Future" that I can support you on: The removal of the right for retailers to set their own minimum prices, being debated in the Supreme Court *right now*.

                    • because I can find no time in the last 10,000 years when it was NOT used to induce debt.

                      Maybe it's just coincidence that the term "usury" is present in the Old Testament, or that Jesus Christ threw the money changers and the money lenders out of the temple, or that the nature of sin is the exploitation of others. You can argue it's just coincidence. Personally I was trying to point out the striking similarities when you began your campaign of name-calling.

                      Profit cannot be used to exploit--a "fair price" is always negotiated. Debt is the tool of exploitation. People feel guilt over debt.

                    • Maybe it's just coincidence that the term "usury" is present in the Old Testament, or that Jesus Christ threw the money changers and the money lenders out of the temple, or that the nature of sin is the exploitation of others. You can argue it's just coincidence. Personally I was trying to point out the striking similarities when you began your campaign of name-calling.

                      It's been with us far longer than the Old Testament has been around- the earliest flood stories were about a man running away to escape hi
                    • You can't possibly be autistic, or have Asperger's, or whatever else. For something which you claim to have just realized you certainly have thought it through quite thoroughly.

                      That said it's still not about profit. Maybe you're a communist who hates profit. I'm not. I'm not out to take anyone's hard-earned profit away from them unjustly. What I'm sick and tired of is the communists who create a public debt so they may profit by doing nothing.

                      I won't feel guilty about living by doing nothing until it's
                    • You can't possibly be autistic, or have Asperger's, or whatever else. For something which you claim to have just realized you certainly have thought it through quite thoroughly.

                      Apparently you have yet to read the DSM IV page on Asperger's and autism. Idiot Savancy and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder are two of the top 20 most common symptoms. That's part of the reason why I'm into "fairness" in economics- I see the way autistics are treated as being an inefficient waste of talent.

                      That said it's still no
                    • Profit is dignifying. There is nothing wrong with it. The artificial creation of debt, to be used as a guilt trip over others, is prideful. Learn the difference.

                      There are legitimate debts. The debt which I owe to the Church is legitimate--and I make my effort to repay it every day that I participate. The debt which I owe to society is legitimate--but I won't feel any guilt over it until I am given an opportunity which allows me to repay it. I can't do that at minimum wage and trying would only be sett
                    • Profit is dignifying.

                      Going back to what I wrote in the grandparent- I don't see profit as being the dignifying part. I see the work itself as being the dignifying part. That's why I see the system as being unfair- because it's incredibly inefficient at using human talent, at putting people to work in things they love to do. Eventually, EVERYTHING else will be automated, it's too simple not to be- that proverbial burger flipper will be out of a job not because of a $10 million minimum salary, but becaus
                    • If you don't see the difference between profit and debt then it's no wonder you can't see the difference between humility and pride.
                    • If you don't see the difference between profit and debt then it's no wonder you can't see the difference between humility and pride.

                      Didn't you mean "dignity and pride"? Humility and pride is easy- humility is the wish to give, pride is the wish to take. But profit and debt are both take- they're both about ownership.
                    • If you haven't figured out that humility and dignity are the same then it's no wonder that you're unable to see the difference between profit and debt.
                    • If you haven't figured out that humility and dignity are the same

                      Humility and dignity are not the same. Humility is indeed giving up dignity for the greater community; a humble man is no longer an individual, but rather a part of a community. The humble man does not need profit, or even ownership- he is a part of the community and the community is a part of him. Only the man with dignity needs private ownership of the earlier form, and only the Prideful man needs private ownership of the exclusionary f
                    • Humility and dignity are the same. Profit and debt are different.
                    • Humility and dignity are the same.

                      Explain how, please. You're stating this as a statement of faith, and I don't see it.
                    • It has already been explained [slashdot.org].
                    • No, that's the difference between DIGNITY and PRIDE. The question requiring explaination is your assertation (not homeless's) that HUMILITY and DIGNITY are the same, where I see them as being completely different.

                      I am begining to understand that DIGNITY and PRIDE are not the same thing- but what is the connection to HUMILITY?
                    • Pride without humility is pride. Pride with humility is dignity. Dignity without humility is pride. Dignity with humility is dignity. Humility with dignity is humility. Humility without dignity is pride.
                    • Humility without dignity is pride.

                      Can you explain this last one? Humility to me is subverting your will to the will of a greater power (God, community, etc). It seems to me dignity and pride both require a sense of self, a sense of will. Humility requires abandonment of self, abandonment of will. If you have dignity OR pride, you can't be truly humble, because you are exercising free will. If you are truly humble, you're not exercising free will- so this at least eliminates pride from the considerati
                    • There's a difference between humility and debasement.
                    • There's a difference between humility and debasement.

                      Agreed. Humility is internal locus of control- choosing to give up your rights as an individual in return for the greater good of the community or higher power. Debasement is external locus of control- the higher power or community using threats of violence or fraud to eliminate your rights as an individual. I'm very much for the first- and very much against the second.

                      Before you ask- internet trolls have no real control over your life, and thus, un
                    • As I said, humility is dignity.

                      I'm not about this locus thing. Peddle your whackjob pagan crackpot philosophy on someone else--and take Tom Darling with you.
                    • Locus of control is about your own motivation- do you just "go with the flow" and expect other people to do everything for you, or do you motivate yourself and do things for yourself? Do you WAIT for somebody to drop a "true opportunity" in your lap and trust that advertising your resume is enough, or do you go out and CREATE a true opportunity for yourself, from scratch, with nothing?

                      Part of my bad theory of mind (now that I know this is a sock puppet account for sure and you really are homeless) was tha
                    • Locus is a load of hooey. It's extraneous, irrelevant, a talking point for people who can't stand to stop talking.

                      Then why do you exhibit a textbook example of an external locus of control? Why does the theory fit your reality so well, if it's a load of hooey?
  • But then, this conversation indicates that I still don't get it- that I'm missing something very basic, something that means that there is still a nobility in the United States- that some people are simply *born to be rich* or *born to be poor* and there is *NOTHING* we can do to change that, nothing that can be done to make the system more fair- and that it is even foolish to TRY, as if any attempt to make the poor and the rich equal, to treat them as if both are human beings, is a mistake.

    I would have to
    • Part of this is that I'm no longer talking personal for the most part- my government job guarantees my ability to pay my mortgage and pay off my credit from the unemployment period- within 2 years I'll be where you are today. Government offers a level of loyalty that private industry simply cannot and does not; now that I'm past my trial service it would take an act of the state legislature to lay me off, and my rate of pay is guaranteed by the union and includes two raises a year for the next 5 years.

      My

      • This tells me that "All men are created equal", is a lie, a fraud.

        No, you're just misinterpreting the statement to mean people's outcomes are equal. All men are created equal.. what they do with that, and how they end up, is not. Just as the words the founding fathers chose to use in the Declaration of Independence were, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," not the guarantee of happiness for all. They knew that you can never, ever make everyone happy. They wanted to setup a system that left peo

        • No, you're just misinterpreting the statement to mean people's outcomes are equal.

          Incorrect. Minimum wage is about STARTING value, not ENDING value.

          All men are created equal.. what they do with that, and how they end up, is not.

          Correct. One man will take that minimum wage salary, be internally motivated, get raises, and eventually create a small business that employes other people. Another person will take that minimum wage, never try, and waste it all on beer and cigarettes. It's not our fault if
  • What about this post [slashdot.org], where you deride me as "refusing help", when after this journal entry you can't possibly still think you were offering any help--you were only expressing opinions which support the very system which you decry in this journal entry.

    How long ago was it that I tried encouraging you to begin making amends for your campaign of calumny based upon "wrong theory of mind"? You argued with me about it at that time, as well. Now here I am, with a dozen or more of your associates glaring on me,
    • What about this post, where you deride me as "refusing help", when after this journal entry you can't possibly still think you were offering any help--you were only expressing opinions which support the very system which you decry in this journal entry.

      Get this- I'm still comming to terms with it. I realize I'm still very much confused. Having said that- it seems to me that you're still supporting the system. You want to be rich- but you're stuck in a class that dictates that you will NEVER earn more t
      • I don't see how I'm stuck anywhere. At any time a real opportunity could arrive. Certainly a good portion of those who are wealthy do not want any competition--but there are a few good people in the world.

        As to your question of how or why multiple classes still exist, contemplate the following two thoughts: pyramid scheme and abuse of federal authority.
        • I don't see how I'm stuck anywhere. At any time a real opportunity could arrive.

          If there is no equality, there are no real opportunities, they're just another myth to keep you enslaved.

          Certainly a good portion of those who are wealthy do not want any competition--but there are a few good people in the world.

          I no longer believe that. The only Good is God- manmade economics can NEVER be good.

          As to your question of how or why multiple classes still exist, contemplate the following two thoughts: pyrami
          • The point is that, if we didn't have a system of collusion between politicians and bankers, the accumulation of wealth would never have reached this outrageous level. There's a reason why the Bill of Rights was proposed to specifically address the limitations of the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government.

            What changed in the definition of "interstate commerce" between 1857 and modern day? In 1857 the SCOTUS realized that "interstate commerce" was not enough power to regulate the slave industr
            • The point is that, if we didn't have a system of collusion between politicians and bankers, the accumulation of wealth would never have reached this outrageous level.

              The bankers didn't gain power until they had investors- and investors couldn't be investors if they were spending 100% of their income on survival. Allowing individuals to accumulate wealth created investors, investors created bankers, bankers bought the politicians. ANY sufficiently free market would evolve the same way, it's a flaw in the
              • Fear created bankers.

                What they really needed to do was to allow for the Federal Government to declare bankruptcy. Read "the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States of America". Take a few minutes and conduct a mental exercise: what would happen, within two generations, if any group of five individuals could borrow money on the credit of the state of Oregon?

                Free markets do not degrade to this state because, in a truly free market, you can't create a pyramid scheme supported by the governm
                • Fear created bankers.

                  Yes, but that fear was well founded- without bankers, wealth accumulation is very hard, and it's even harder to keep that wealth. But who said we needed wealth accumulation to begin with?

                  What they really needed to do was to allow for the Federal Government to declare bankruptcy. Read "the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States of America". Take a few minutes and conduct a mental exercise: what would happen, within two generations, if any group of five individuals
                  • Personal wealth may create banks but personal wealth does not directly lead to creating a debt for everyone else. If I grow one thousand tomatoes on my land I am still not preventing my neighbor from growing a thousand on his land. There is nothing wrong with me growing one thousand tomatoes on my land _unless_ I ask each one of my customers to defame my neighbor, preventing his customers, and leading to his debt.

                    Profit is not the evil factor--it's difficult to artificially inflate profit. Debt, which is
                    • Personal wealth may create banks but personal wealth does not directly lead to creating a debt for everyone else.

                      There's more than just two steps here:

                      1. Personal wealth- needs protecting.
                      2. Protecting personal wealth- requires banks.
                      3. Banks require police, and therefore government.
                      4. Government requires operating expenses, and therefore taxes.
                      5. Taxes are unpopular, and get lowered.
                      6. Revenue out falls below revenue in- and becomes debt for everybody else.

                      You're right that it isn't direct- there
                    • The start is not in personal wealth. Personal wealth, by itself, never created debt for other people. At the same time personal wealth does not require banks. A monopoly on standardized currency requires banks. Before the monopoly of standardized currency people put their wealth into their homes, their land, their families, and the true incarnation of diversified investing. We cannot worry about the primitive tribe. They are gone. We need to focus on here and now. We still have courts and they are s
                    • The start is not in personal wealth. Personal wealth, by itself, never created debt for other people. At the same time personal wealth does not require banks.

                      You're right that personal wealth- by itself- can't create debt. But it can be stolen. Preventing it from being stolen requires banks. Banks require a rate of return on investment. Debt is that rate of return.

                      A monopoly on standardized currency requires banks.

                      Yes it does- but the banks existed before the monopoly.

                      Before the monopoly of stan
                    • Banks don't prevent anything from being stolen. Quite to the contrary banks ensure that only certain priveleged people can steal and that, when those certain priveleged people do steal, all traces of the theft are carefully hidden.

                      All investing is not creating debt. You're still too focused on some vaporous tribal natives who, I hope you realize, are just not here anymore. Quit being so focused on imagined debt to dead people. There's a more important consideration: a system of false debt being levied
                    • Banks don't prevent anything from being stolen. Quite to the contrary banks ensure that only certain priveleged people can steal and that, when those certain priveleged people do steal, all traces of the theft are carefully hidden.

                      Not from the point of view of the priviledged people. From their point of view- banks provide a neccessary service in keeping inflation from eating away at capital, on one hand, and keeps a burglar from wiping you entirely out on the other. From the point of view of the wealth
                    • There certainly was a concept of debt in those primative societies. What was lacking was an inexhaustible sense of personal greed. They had a concept of personal profit. What was lacking was a drive to exploit everyone else to achieve it.

                      There's a clear, yet delicate, conceptual difference that you're still not getting. It's the same as the difference between dignity and pride. Personal profit is dignifying. Using profit to bait and exploit a neighbor (eg. "You could have this if you only did that") i
                    • There's a clear, yet delicate, conceptual difference that you're still not getting. It's the same as the difference between dignity and pride. Personal profit is dignifying. Using profit to bait and exploit a neighbor (eg. "You could have this if you only did that") is pride. Giving charity is dignifying. Demanding the repayment of a debt (eg. "I gave you this and now you should give me that") for charity is pride.

                      How does stewardship and the parable of the talents play into this? I see personal profit a
                    • Personal profit is not exclusive. My profit does not prevent you from creating your own profit--unless I use it specifically in that manner or unless we're working inside of a system which has an artificially created shortage (a debt). I think you're misinterpreting your heritage. You would be more correct if you asserted "I took care of this so that it can be shared" which is, happily, quite well in line with both Catholic teaching and the modern concept of ownership.
                    • Personal profit is not exclusive. My profit does not prevent you from creating your own profit--unless I use it specifically in that manner or unless we're working inside of a system which has an artificially created shortage (a debt).

                      That is something I struggle with. It seems you can't have a market at all without artificially creating shortages- or at least, I can't point to one. The money shortage is completely artificial, the food shortage is artificial, the housing shortage is artificial. Most ce

                    • It seems you can't have a market at all without artificially creating shortages
                      That's wrong.

                      beaches in California- which can be privately owned and then shut off from access
                      A more select circle of sharing. Communism implies that everyone has equal right to everything at any time. Private ownership, which your ancestors certainly did know of, recognizes current possession and factors in a ratio of common need.
                    • That's wrong.

                      Ok, show me a market that exists without an artificial shortage. PROVE me wrong, don't just claim that I am wrong as a statement of faith.

                      A more select circle of sharing. Communism implies that everyone has equal right to everything at any time. Private ownership, which your ancestors certainly did know of, recognizes current possession and factors in a ratio of common need.

                      But I'm not talking about either of those. The modern version of Private ownership is indeed exclusive- and doesn'
                    • Trade existed long before banks.

                      People who own things tend to share them and they retain the right to choose those with whom they share. Communists are those folks who create an artificial debt so that they can guilt trip their way into the circle of people being shared with.
                    • Trade existed long before banks.

                      And long before money. But trade isn't neccessarily based in ownership, but merely posession. Ownership is more exclusive than mere possession.

                      People who own things tend to share them

                      Maybe at one time, in an older generation. Not for the last 15 years or so. In fact, the system is so tainted by exclusive ownership that we have to make special laws to put stuff in the public domain for the common good- the default has become exclusive ownership.

                      and they retain the
                    • Communists create artificial debt out of a sense of entitlement. Private ownership comes from a sense of dignity.
                    • Communists create artificial debt out of a sense of entitlement.

                      Some communists do. But the Apostles didn't in Acts Chapter 4, which is an example of humility. Humility is about COMMUNITY, not a sense of entitlement.

                      Private ownership comes from a sense of dignity.

                      Agreed. But where does EXCLUSIVE private ownership come from? The "It is mine and you can't have it" attitude that so many people seem to have?
                    • Exclusive private ownership is a myth. You are not entitled to be in every group of people who are shared with.
                    • Exclusive private ownership is a myth. You are not entitled to be in every group of people who are shared with.

                      This statement appears to be an oxymoron when taken in totality:
                      1. If Exclusive private ownership is a myth, that means that the owner does NOT have the right to choose who to share with- he doesn't have the right to exclude people.
                      2. If I'm not entitled to be in every group of people who are to be shared with, that is the very definition of exclusive private ownership- the owner has the right
                    • Private ownership is not a myth.
                    • Private ownership is not a myth.

                      This is not an adequate answer. Please choose #1 or #2:
                      1. Private ownership is exclusionary in that the owner retains the right to exclude certain people from using his property.
                      2. Private ownership is not exclusionary in that the owner must share with any member of the community when there is a community need.
                    • Private ownership is as exclusive as the recognized owner wants it to be. That's why the music companies are full of sh*t. If they really wanted to enforce their exclusive rights they wouldn't distribute it so widely and in a format which is so easy to reproduce.
                    • Thank you for admiting that private ownership is indeed exclusive- and thus Exclusive Private Ownership is not a myth.

                      Now do you care to answer my challenge further up the thread, and show me a money based market that exists without artificial scarcity? Or for that matter, any sort of trade that exists without artificial scarcity? Debt is not the only artificial scarcity that exists- Trade Secrets are also a form of artificial scarcity, as is hoarding of goods. We live in a world of abundance- but we ac
                    • Exclusive private ownership is a myth. Owners tend to share.

                      That has significantly NOT been my experience. Owners only share enough to gain more power over the non-ownership class, or to assuage their own guilt for being owners. Nobody shares merely to be a part of the community- and due to that, their sharing is EXCLUSIVE- they choose who to share with and leave some people behind, like you agreed above.

                      You are not entitled to be in every circle of sharing.

                      Thus making the private ownership EXCLUSIV
                    • Has it occurred to you that your attitude might be part of the reason why people don't share with you?

                      Yes it has. Though it doesn't explain why society at large fails to share with other people. I often invite one woman at my church over for dinner, for instance. She is attempting to live on a disability income of $74/month, and due to her age can't even get a menial labor job. It's unconscionable that we allow such a thing in our society.

                      I know why people don't share with me: I'm homeless, unemploy

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ces ( 119879 )

        Get this- I'm still comming to terms with it. I realize I'm still very much confused. Having said that- it seems to me that you're still supporting the system. You want to be rich- but you're stuck in a class that dictates that you will NEVER earn more than six figures no matter how good of a job you'll do, and the upper classes will do whatever it takes to try to limit you to five figures. There's no equality, so there's no chance at all that they'll ever offer you a "real opportunity". You'd be better off getting a gun and shooting a few of them, at least then you'll have three squares and a roof over your head. Otherwise there ain't no guarantees and there are no opportunities at all- working hard will mean NOTHING. Giving loyalty means NOTHING. Being smart just makes you a TARGET.

        Sorry, gotta call bullshit on this one.

        Getting to 6 figures is simply a matter of having the right experience/skills and being aggressive enough somewhere they are in high demand. OTOH the stress that comes with many 6 figure jobs is more than many want.

        To take it to the next level usually a certain amount of luck and knowing the right people is involved but it does happen. This town is full of people who made a shitpile of money at Microsoft, Amazon, or some other tech company before they were 40. Maybe n

        • Getting to 6 figures is simply a matter of having the right experience/skills and being aggressive enough somewhere they are in high demand. OTOH the stress that comes with many 6 figure jobs is more than many want.

          True, that's why I said MORE than 6 figures in the original. 5 figure jobs you just need a college degree for. 6 figure jobs are available to those who are agressive and brown nosing at the same time. More than 6 figures- and you have to be born into that class.

          To take it to the next level

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ces ( 119879 )

            True, that's why I said MORE than 6 figures in the original. 5 figure jobs you just need a college degree for. 6 figure jobs are available to those who are agressive and brown nosing at the same time. More than 6 figures- and you have to be born into that class.

            No need to brown nose. Just be good at what you do and have a skill that is in high demand.

            You'll find they're all of a certain class, however- born into families that expected them to go to Ivy League schools, where they met those right faces. A few of them dropped out of those Ivy League schools and still hit it big. But all were "rich dad" families to begin with.

            Not necessarily. Plenty went to something other than an Ivy-League or top tech (MIT, Caltech, etc.) school. Some didn't even go to college. Many also weren't in "rich dad" families. (though I will concede that everyone I know or know of who has achieved financial security for the rest of their life did come from a family that valued education).

            The keyword there is "the right people". I don't know any of them. They don't know me. They wouldn't give me two seconds for a presentation, let alone five minutes.

            You can meet them; on the job, through friends, via clubs you are a memb

            • Not necessarily. Plenty went to something other than an Ivy-League or top tech (MIT, Caltech, etc.) school. Some didn't even go to college. Many also weren't in "rich dad" families. (though I will concede that everyone I know or know of who has achieved financial security for the rest of their life did come from a family that valued education).

              AND had the money to pay for that education in my case; I know of NO financially secure individuals whose parents were not also financially secure. Remember, back

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ces ( 119879 )

                AND had the money to pay for that education in my case; I know of NO financially secure individuals whose parents were not also financially secure. Remember, back in the day, a computer used to cost more than a used car! The one I started programming on listed for $1375 when it first came out- and it only had 16k of RAM and no direct support for storage of any form.

                Not necessarily. As I said some people I know of didn't even go to college. In another case I know of her parents both worked for the local public library and they lived in a tiny crappy house, but she did go to a very good school (and proceeded to get very lucky by hiring on at Amazon when it was still less than 50 employees).

                I never seem to- they never seem to be in the circles I'm in. Then again...there might be something to that.

                It really depends. Small companies are better for meeting "the right people". For clubs you need to be involved in something like bicycling where people from all walks of life show

  • Stop with the brain misfiring stuff -- you've got a good brain, and a good heart. That conversation under your other JE doesn't indicate that you don't get something, just that you simply disagree. The other person was saying this is the way things are, the market has decided, so accept it. But that's not a reason to do so. I'm vehemently for capitalism, but not capitalism run amok. I thought requiring businesses to pay their lowest wage earner no less than 1/100 of their highest wage earner is a good idea.
    • (BTW, I haven't and won't read any threads between you and a certain poster that you're wrangling with, so apologies if this post is in any way redundant.)

      First of all, it's not redundant, and I'm VERY glad you avoided that conversation, specifically because of your second paragraph. But first things first:

      Stop with the brain misfiring stuff -- you've got a good brain, and a good heart. That conversation under your other JE doesn't indicate that you don't get something, just that you simply disagree. T
      • You seem to be agonizing over economic inequality, and maybe the reality that you are in denial of is that life never promised to be fair. The guidance to children of work hard and you'll do well is still wise (considering the alternative!), even if for some it doesn't work out the greatest. There is no heaven on earth nor making earth into heaven, we pissed away our chance to live the good life in the garden, and now we have to suffer, and make the best of it, until we can reside with Him again. We're not
        • You seem to be agonizing over economic inequality, and maybe the reality that you are in denial of is that life never promised to be fair.

          That's not quite correct- the whole idea of a Constitutional Democracy was supposed to create a government where life WAS fair; where the rule of law governed everybody equally. That was the entire promise of a Constitutional Democracy. Didn't last very long though.

          The guidance to children of work hard and you'll do well is still wise (considering the alternative!),
          • ...where the rule of law governed everybody equally.

            Now we're straying from what we were talking about, economic inequality. Legal equality is a whole other topic.

            The Kalapuya built a good life on under 30 hours of work a week- hunting and gathering they never went hungry. We've forgotten how to do that.

            Either that or we'd be so bored out of our freakin' skulls that we'd sooner shoot ourselves than live like that. (But then the gun wouldn't have been invented, so we'd have to stab ourselves repeatedly with
            • Now we're straying from what we were talking about, economic inequality. Legal equality is a whole other topic.

              Actually, I think you may have just hit accidentally on the original topic- I see economics as a branch of the law. Or rather, more of a parasitical relationship- the law is created by politicians, who monkey the regulations, to create profit for the rich, who pay for the campaigns of the politicians. Loop until destruction. This may be creating a blind spot for me.

              Either that or we'd be so
  • In the last 6 years, I've had my faith shaken in the myth- the myth of the self-made man. I have ALWAYS believed in an internal locus of control- that the harder I worked, the more I'd be rewarded for that work.

    It's true, but not to the extent that everyone says. Regardless of how hard you work, companies don't want to pay more than the market average for someone with your skills and level of experience. Working harder may get you that raise and that promotion. But then, it may not. There are plenty

Slashdot Top Deals

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Close