The Rise of the Bottom Fifth

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And college is near free? I must be doing something wrong because im going about $10k in the hole a year.

Yep, you are.

Oh please educate me almighty fiscal genius.

How do i avoid paying insane amounts of money for college?

I cant change my race too easily, im male, i didnt pop out any kids to play the system...

So whats next? Stand on a streetcorner with a tin cup?

And LOL @ 100k yr tech job with no formal education... I guess if you spent years teaching yourself how to be a CCIE AND had access to all of the equipment, you could pull it off. ( a CCIE cert )

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't see where I want to conform to anything as you describe. My problem with individuals is not a problem with the individual but with what individuals identify with is a false ego. Because of self hate people identify with popular sources that receive popular support and praise. I become a Catholic because it is the one true religion, or an American because we are the greatest of people, or a Yankee fan because they have the best team and a thousand other things. I identify myself as normal and sane, a good person and not that which I was made to feel that I am. I warn of the fanaticism these identifications create, the desperate clinging and defensiveness they engender because of a fear of loss of face, a fear that has already happened and is repressed from memory.

My objection is to the false ego we all think we are, that which we assume is our real identity. Yes we are different, but the differences pale in comparison to how we are all alike, perfect in our individual but true real selves. Each person is a facet of a perfect gem. It strikes me that it is the ego that is the enemy of the individual and the collective.

Since I see the greatest threat to humanity as its infatuation and support and stimulation of the ego I have focused my attention there trying to point out that danger. It is collections of egos, I think, that threaten individuals. I think that egoless people have compassion for everything and that is their collective. They aren't fanatics who believe in forcing some theoretical common good, but lovers who love others they meet.

In communities of false egos the individual tries to screw the group.

In communities of false egos groups of individuals will coalesce to screw individuals.

In a community of real people, were there ever to appear such a thing, the distinction between the individual and the group, I should think, might be meaningless.

I keep getting the impression in this thread, Moonie, that your ego keeps you from reading and understanding your own posts.
For example, you claim you don't understand how you're pushing fear and outrage, and then make comments like "The beauty of freedom is that it leads to mass extinction."
You claim that happiness lies in being in peace with oneself (and I wholeheartedly agree with that), but then claim that your own happiness is prevented due to the unhappiness of others.
You claim that the distinction between the individual and the group should be meaningless, but ignore my arguments as to the inherent destructiveness of the group over the individual, and the fact that an individual can NEVER find happiness if it is dictated to him by the group (as opposed to being allowed to find it on his own, which is in fact the only possible path to happiness).

I'm going to refer you now to the principles of one of the greatest liberals that ever lived, John Stuart Mill:
- "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
In other words, your personal fear and opinion, Moonie, that freedom leads to mass extinction is not only irrational, it's irrelevant. Your fear for self-protection is no justification to pre-emptively harm others.
- Next, he also said, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
Your theories on collectivism, Moonie, revolve around not just the silencing, but the destruction, of that one individual with the contrary opinion.

The illogic and disconnects throughout this thread are astounding. If our parents were better off 30 years ago than we are today, then why do we have fast internet-connected computers and they had typewriters? Why do we have safe, reliable Camrys to drive and they had Pintos? I could go on and on and on here. Here's a tip: nostaligia and doomsaying are neither liberal nor progressive traits. Those are conservative and regressive traits.
I would greatly appreciate it if some of the people in this thread would quit deluding themselves. You cannot bring peace and happiness to humankind through the brute force of the collective. You cannot claim to be working towards a progressively better society while at the time lamenting nostaglically about a past that was in truth no where near as good as your rose-colored vision would have you belive. These things are logically obvious.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
general welfare post in response to craig<snip>

you'll never get through his head that the US federal government is a limited government of specifically granted powers, rather than the authoritarian dream state that he wishes it were.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic: I keep getting the impression in this thread, Moonie, that your ego keeps you from reading and understanding your own posts.

M: I certainly see that happen with others. No special reason it can't happen to me.

V: For example, you claim you don't understand how you're pushing fear and outrage, and then make comments like "The beauty of freedom is that it leads to mass extinction."

M: The Chinese believe that rhino horn will make them potent so all the rhino on earth are disappearing. But who am I to tell the Chinese they believe in a fiction and that such great rare beasts should not be driven to extinction. I myself am untouched but it makes me sad. There will come a day if things go as they have when children will not ever be able to see a rhino. We keep plowing under our farm land, we pollute our water, we do so many thing that damage because we are free to and the bill doesn't yet come due. There are thousands of examples where we do not use discretion. Freedom requires responsibility and the ego is irresponsible.

V: You claim that happiness lies in being in peace with oneself (and I wholeheartedly agree with that), but then claim that your own happiness is prevented due to the unhappiness of others.

M: Of course. You can be happy yourself but not ultimately happy if somebody you are aware of and can reach is suffering needlessly. One is not obliged to help any one. It is just natural. You laugh when a child laughs and you feel something oh so impossible to speak of when they die.

V: You claim that the distinction between the individual and the group should be meaningless, but ignore my arguments as to the inherent destructiveness of the group over the individual,

M: But I think you ignore the fact that my point is that a sick group is a group that is sick because it is composed of sick individuals..... You can't help a mob, only individuals.

V: and the fact that an individual can NEVER find happiness if it is dictated to him by the group (as opposed to being allowed to find it on his own, which is in fact the only possible path to happiness).

M: Couldn't agree more.

V: I'm going to refer you now to the principles of one of the greatest liberals that ever lived, John Stuart Mill:
- "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

M: Mill gives out his advise and I give out mine. I don't disagree with any thing he says here.

V: In other words, your personal fear and opinion, Moonie, that freedom leads to mass extinction is not only irrational, it's irrelevant. Your fear for self-protection is no justification to pre-emptively harm others.

M: There is no self protection any more than anybody can hear what I say. You can't make unconscious people awaken. You can only lay out information.

V: - Next, he also said, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
Your theories on collectivism, Moonie, revolve around not just the silencing, but the destruction, of that one individual with the contrary opinion.

M: I agree with Mill on this and, perhaps because of ego, do not see how I am doing this.

V: The illogic and disconnects throughout this thread are astounding. If our parents were better off 30 years ago than we are today, then why do we have fast internet-connected computers and they had typewriters? Why do we have safe, reliable Camrys to drive and they had Pintos? I could go on and on and on here. Here's a tip: nostaligia and doomsaying are neither liberal nor progressive traits. Those are conservative and regressive traits.
I would greatly appreciate it if some of the people in this thread would quit deluding themselves. You cannot bring peace and happiness to humankind through the brute force of the collective. You cannot claim to be working towards a progressively better society while at the time lamenting nostaglically about a past that was in truth no where near as good as your rose-colored vision would have you believe. These things are logically obvious.

M: I agree with this also. I think there are signs of human progress but they do not necessarily in all cases have much, in my opinion, to do with material success. I think humanity is becoming more and more liberal and that much of what we see are growing pains.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
general welfare post in response to craig<snip>

you'll never get through his head that the US federal government is a limited government of specifically granted powers, rather than the authoritarian dream state that he wishes it were.

Liberals are strange like that.
Give the government more police powers and they jump up and down and scream ?police state? ?big brother? and ?shredding the constitution.?
But they are fine and dandy with giving the government more power when it comes to spending money.

As our fourth Chief Justice John Marshall said so long ago "the power to tax involves the power to destroy"

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
general welfare post in response to craig<snip>

you'll never get through his head that the US federal government is a limited government of specifically granted powers, rather than the authoritarian dream state that he wishes it were.

you'll never get it through your head that you are a deluded ideologue who lies about my position.

For you to say that those who are opposed to Bush are the ones who like an authoritarian state is just perverse.

But lying about my position allows you to play in the discussion, doesn't it, since you can't argue against my actual position.

ProfJohn:

Liberals are strange like that.
Give the government more police powers and they jump up and down and scream ?police state? ?big brother? and ?shredding the constitution.?
But they are fine and dandy with giving the government more power when it comes to spending money.

As our fourth Chief Justice John Marshall said so long ago "the power to tax involves the power to destroy"

ProfJohn, you are wont to put up a post with a few founding fathers' quotes which are very off-target to the issue under discussion, and think you proved something.

Your quotes had nothing to do with the extreme concentration of wealth I was discussing, and they instead agreed with my position in favor of the middle inequality of wealth.

I'm disappointed you did not challenge his misrepresentation of my position, but oh well, my expectations are gradually decreasing.

You don't seem to actually consider what you post, really, you act like someone trying for debate points.

Ooooh!! Oooh!! You found a quote from Marshall saying the power to tax is the power to destroy! So you got an anti-tax comment that proves your whole position is correct!!

Well, not at all. Are you going to stand behind that quote as if it means that *all taxation is wrong*, since it has an unqualified comment that taxation = destroying?

Of course not - it's merely a cautionary note about the power of *misusing* the power of taxation, about excess and the need for the responsible use of taxation.

But you can't argue that actual point it's making so you just toss it up and pretend you argued something sensible.

I agree with his quote AND I'm a 'liberal'. You simply fail to note the point I was making about the extreme concentration of wealth, and argue against a straw man.

Because you fail to recognize the weak basis of your own position rests on an oversimplified error, and so you have to try to argue against a position other than mine.

To misrepresent my position, as if my position is "the more we tax and spend, the better!" when that's a far cry from my position.

So an arguent with you, since you won't honestly deal with the issue and my position, is nothing but you posting off-target founding father quotes and such and my correcting.

How fun.

John, here's a reading assignment for you, a short one, a column by Bill Gate, Sr.:
Link

To see how disingenuous your quotes are, consider how you quote Benjamin Franklin against my position, by quoting him saying something actually in favor of my 'middle' ineuqality of wealth - but let's look at a quote from him that's actually on the topic of the excess inequality of wealth, in which he's to the left of my position:

...no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state.
- Benjamin Franklin

Oh, darn, it's not as much fun when the quotes are ones you disagree with.

Or let's look at Jefferson, discussing his concerns about the excess concentration of wealth with hereditary ownership:

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Taxing higher amounts of wealth in "geometrical progression". Think about it!

The very idea that an excess concentration of wealth means "that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right" exposes him on the side of the liberals.

But there you are quoting these guys - who in their era had far, far, less concentration of wealth to deal with yet still had concerns - as if they agree with you, when it's the opposite.

Of course, the right often misrepresents things that disagree with them; Adam Smith, the author of the 'bible' of capitalism, "The Wealth of Nations", a book which was not the defense of unrestrained capitalism that they pretend it was (usually without having read it); he said something to the right wing of today:

"The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments."