Condemning the British Rioters!

Login or register to post comments Last Post 19195 reads   75 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 75 total)
  • Thu, Aug 18, 2011 - 04:16pm

    #61
    xraymike79

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder0

    goes211 wrote: xraymike79

[quote=goes211]

[quote=xraymike79]

Simply put, our current social decay is a result of every-man-for-himself Neoliberal Capitalism. 

[/quote]

While there is certainly some truth to what he says, you don’t think that the welfare state deserves any blame for our social decay? 

  • What do you think happens when people are taxed at >40% so that the state can take care of those in need?   Do the people that still have means continue to feel a responsibility to look after their fellow man or will they now feel they have already done their part?
  • Will families feel responsible to look after their elderly when they are already paying the state for that privilege?  Seems there is less decay in societies were generations of families feel responsible for each other.
  • Could there be any negative impact from rewarding irresponsible behavior ( single parenthood, no work required for entitlement, rewarding consumption, … ) and punishing prudent behavior ( higher taxes on married and working, punishing savings, … ) ?

Perhaps you only see the part you want to see.

[/quote]

Goes211,

     You have it backwards. These social decay problems are not coming from the bottom, but are cascading down from the top of the economic pyramid scheme.

Who is buying off our politicians and constitute the only true represented voice in government?

Who is allowed to take not just excessive, but criminally negligent, risk in our economy and get bailed out by the lower class?

Who are the ones who pay little or no taxes and hide their income offshore?

Who is profiting off of war and the MIC without putting themselves in harms way?

Who are the ones sacrificing their children to fight in such wars?

Who are the ones who come home from such wars and commit suicide and live on the street with little or no support?

Who are the ones unable to afford healthcare in a for-profit, monopolized system?

Who are the ones paying the exorbitant, debt-for-life tuition fees of higher education with a bleak job market future?

Who are the ones whose jobs have been offshored to China, India and elsewhere?

Who are the ones losing their homes to foreclosure after losing their jobs?

Who are the ones facing the brunt of austerity cuts while the wealth of the nation continues to accumulate at the top of the economic pyramid?

Who are the ones with the insatiable greed and bloodlust for profits, no matter the devastation it causes to society?

Perhaps you are looking at the situation from the wrong end of the pyramid scheme.

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 12:04am

    #62
    gregroberts

    gregroberts

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 06 2008

    Posts: 305

    count placeholder0

    “witches brew equal part no

"witches brew equal part no rules, and equal part free market rules. Go figure."

No violence, voluntary exchanges between people. For some reason whenever I read your posts "twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" comes to mind.

"He makes the mistake of determinism, the habitual and oft fruitless search for single variable explanation to describe complex phenomena. In the case of his “movies”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3UYZcwUEfw

 

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 01:46am

    #63

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder0

    The wrong end of the pyramid scheme?

[quote=xraymike79]

[quote=goes211]

[quote=xraymike79]

Simply put, our current social decay is a result of every-man-for-himself Neoliberal Capitalism. 

[/quote]

While there is certainly some truth to what he says, you don’t think that the welfare state deserves any blame for our social decay? 

  • What do you think happens when people are taxed at >40% so that the state can take care of those in need?   Do the people that still have means continue to feel a responsibility to look after their fellow man or will they now feel they have already done their part?
  • Will families feel responsible to look after their elderly when they are already paying the state for that privilege?  Seems there is less decay in societies were generations of families feel responsible for each other.
  • Could there be any negative impact from rewarding irresponsible behavior ( single parenthood, no work required for entitlement, rewarding consumption, … ) and punishing prudent behavior ( higher taxes on married and working, punishing savings, … ) ?

Perhaps you only see the part you want to see.

[/quote]

Goes211,

     You have it backwards. These social decay problems are not coming from the bottom, but are cascading down from the top of the economic pyramid scheme.

[deleted points]

Perhaps you are looking at the situation from the wrong end of the pyramid scheme.

[/quote]

XRM,

I already said that there is a certain amount of truth to "our current social decay is a result of every-man-for-himself Neoliberal Capitalism".  Somehow I just don’t think it is as simple as your top/evil – bottom/good, pyramid.

You post a lot here with content from the internet so I can make a few assumptions about you. 

  • You have a reasonable education
  • You live in the western world
  • You own a computer with internet service,
  • You definately have indoor plumbing.
  • You definately have electric service.
  • You probably own a car.
  • You possibly own a home.

That means to me that you are in probably in the top 10% of wealth on this planet.  So from your 90th percentile perch you seem very comfortable looking at those in the very top percentage in the USA ( maybe income greater than $200K – $250K ) and saying that those people are not pulling their fair share and the system should forcibly take whatever is necessary to make the system "fair" or even worse "equal".

Today, the poor in the western world probably live far easier lives than the wealthy did a just century ago.  I will bet there are literally billions of people on this planet today that look at what the poor have in the western world and feel that they have no rights to that nice of lifestyle.  Almost nobody around here ( other than maybe DTM ) is willing to give up their western lifestyle.  We might be willing to make a few sacrifices here and there but in essence at we are all really trying to preseve the lifestyles we already have.

One thing is for certain.  When most people are asked to draw the line at where the system becomes unfair, it us usually above where they are at that point.  If I were a western progressive I would not be so certain that I was below that line.

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 02:41am

    #65
    ao

    ao

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1614

    count placeholder0

    xraymike79 wrote:ao

[quote=xraymike79]

[quote=ao]

[quote=xraymike79]

If you read that study "Beyond Growth or Beyond Capitalism?" by Richard Smith (Institute for Policy Research and Development, London), he explains why steady state capitalism never took hold and never will work. Herman Daly, now 73 years of age, is still waiting for his ideas to reach the mainstream.

[/quote]

I read it but he seems unimaginative and lacking in creativity and the ability to think outside the box.  Also, to me, his arguments seem weak and depend a great deal upon circular reasoning.  In addition, the fact that ideas don’t reach the mainstream doesn’t necessarily negate the validity of the ideas. 

[/quote]

If you could expound on those vague generalizations, then you might have the beginnings of an argument.

[/quote]

I could but I’m not interested in argument and more importantly and particularly in the summertime, I’m more interested in living than posting.;-)  I’ll only say he’s wrong and I know for a fact he’s wrong because I’ve proven it to myself with my businesses and am in touch with others who have done the same.  And in a few years, I’ll be in a position time wise to sit down and put all the proprietary information together for presentation in seminar form which I’ve done with other concepts in the past.  Yes, I’m one of those free enterprise loving capitalists who surprise, suprise, also believes in the merits of a steady state economy and has actually lived it and practiced it rather than just written and talked about it like our friend Richard Smith. 

 

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 02:55am

    #64
    xraymike79

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder0

    The Capitalist System is a Ponzi Scheme

[quote=goes211]

Today, the poor in the western world probably live far easier lives than the wealthy did a just century ago.  I will bet there are literally billions of people on this planet today that look at what the poor have in the western world and feel that they have no rights to that nice of lifestyle.  Almost nobody around here ( other than maybe DTM ) is willing to give up their western lifestyle.  We might be willing to make a few sacrifices here and there but in essence at we are all really trying to preseve the lifestyles we already have.

One thing is for certain.  When most people are asked to draw the line at where the system becomes unfair, it us usually above where they are at that point.  If I were a western progressive I would not be so certain that I was below that line.

[/quote]

Goes211,

     Survival of the human species on this planet depends on whether we can replace the corrupt, exploitive, and destructive system currently wreaking havoc. I believe this requires cooperation and sharing on everyone’s part. Considering that America has 5% of the world population yet consumes 25 % of the Earth’s resources, this is not a system we can, in reality, export to the rest of the world and expect a livable environment for our children. The planetary boundaries are saying No!:

[quote=xraymike79]

Considering that we have already breached three of nine critical boundaries essential for humankind to survive on Earth, developing an economic system that takes such life-and-death scientific information into account is probably in our long-term interests. That’s not something Mr. Market and Goldman Sachs will be able to solve.

[/quote]

I have emailed the source of the following article and was given explicit permission to post it. Perhaps it will elicit some intelligent discussion and understanding of our plight which has been whitewashed over by corporate ‘green’ propaganda.

 

Chris Cassella [email protected]
date:Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:46 PM
subject Re: The case for re-naming the human race
 

Hi Mike,

Feel free to post this article on your discussion forum.  Please provide a link, so I can also follow.

Cheers,

Chris Cassella
Managing Director | ScienceAlert Pty Ltd

 

 Are we sapient if we cannot organize our society as efficiently, peacefully, and equitably as possible? 

 

It is time the human race had a new name.  The old one, Homo sapiens – wise or thinking man – has been around since 1758 and is no longer a fitting description for the creature we have become.

When the Swedish father of taxonomy Carl Linnaeus first bestowed iti , humanity no doubt seemed wise when compared with what scientists of the day knew about both humans and other animals. We have since learned our behaviour is not as wise as we like to imagine – while some animals are quite intelligent. In short it is a name which is both inaccurate and which promotes a dangerous self-delusion.

In a letter to the scientific journal Nature (476, p282, 18 August 2011) I have proposed there should be a worldwide discussion about the formal reclassification of humanity, involving both scientists and the public. The new name should reflect more truthfully the attributes and characteristics of the modern 21st century human – which are markedly different from those of 18th century ‘man’. Consider, for example, the following.

Humans are presently engaged in the greatest act of extermination of other species by a single species, probably since life on Earth began. We are destroying an estimated 30,000 species a year – a scale comparable to the great geological catastrophes of the pastii

We currently contaminate the atmosphere with 30 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent a yeariii.  This risks an episode of accelerated planetary warming reaching 4-5 degrees by the end of this century and 8 degree by the middle of next century – a level at which food production would be severely disrupted, posing a serious risk to all members of an enlarged human populationiv.

We have manufactured around 83,000 synthetic chemicals, many of them toxic, and some of which we inhale, ingest in food or water or absorb through the skin every day of our lives. A 2005 US study found newborn babies in that country are typically contaminated by around 200 industrial chemicals, including pesticides, dioxins and flame retardantsvi . An EU study (2010) found compelling evidence that even harmless chemicals can recombine with one another to form poisonsvii.   These chemicals are now found all over the planet, even at the poles and in the deep oceans and new ones, of unknown hazard, are being produced all the time. Yet we wonder at the rise in cancers and ‘mystery’ illnesses.

Every year we release around 121 million tonnes of nitrogen, 10 million tonnes of phosphorus and 10 billion tonnes of CO2 (which causes acidification) into our rivers, lakes and oceans – many times more that the Earth recirculates naturally.  This is causing the collapse of marine and aquatic ecosystems, disrupting ocean food chains and replacing them with ‘dead zones’ that no longer support life. The number of these found has risen to over 400 in recent yearsviii.  

We are presently losing about one per cent of the world’s farming and grazing land every year to a combination of erosion, degradation, urban sprawl, mining, pollution and sea level rise.  The situation has deteriorated in the last 30 years, confronting us with the challenge of doubling food production by 2060 off a fraction of remaining land. At the same time we waste a third of the world’s foodx.

Current freshwater demand from agriculture, cities and energy use is on track to double by mid century, while resources in most countries – especially of groundwater – are drying up or becoming so polluted they are unusablexi.  

Humanity passed peak fish in 2004xii, peak oil in 2006xiii and is likely to encounter growing scarcities of other primary resources, including mineral nutrients, in coming decades. Yet our demand for all resources – including minerals, energy and water – will more than double, especially in Asia. If all the world were to live like contemporary Australians or Americans, it would require four planet Earths to satisfy their wants, says the Global Footprint Networkxiv.

Humans invest $1.6 trillion a year in new weaponsxv – but only $50 billion a year in better ways to produce food. Despite progress in arms reduction, the world still has around 20,000 nuclear warheads and at least 19 countries now have access to them or to the technology to make themxvi.

Finally, we are in the process of destroying a great many things which are real – soil, water, energy, resources, other species, our health – for the sake of something that exists chiefly in our imagination: money.  To trade something real for something imaginary hardly appears wise.

Finally, as growing number of eminent scientists are now saying, these things carry the risk of catastrophic changes to the Earth’s systems, deleterious not only to our own future but that of all life.

When these issues are considered, it is difficult to justify a single epithet of ‘wise’, let alone two of them. Our official sub-species name is Homo sapiens sapiens (‘wise wise man’), which now looks not only like conceit – but insecurity. Such a name sends a misleading signal about the capacity – let alone the will – of humanity, as a whole, to manage the consequences of its own actions. It invites us to overestimate our abilities and underestimate the difficulties we are creating.

This is not to deny or belittle any of the great, creative, artistic or scientific achievements of humans today or over the centuries, which are indeed wonderfulxvii.  Rather it is to recognise that our present behaviours combined with our numbers now have the capacity to nullify or even eliminate all other human accomplishments.

The human population is currently on track to reach 10 billion or more by the end of the century xviiiand this is a primary concern. An even greater one is our ungovernable appetite – for food, for material resources, for energy, for water, for land – and our lack of wisdom when it comes to managing and reusing these resourcesxix.

A creature unable to master its own demands cannot be said to merit the descriptor ‘wise’. A creature which takes little account of the growing risks it runs through its behaviour can hardly be rated thoughtful. The provisions of the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature provide for the re-naming of species in cases where scientific understanding of the species changes, or where it is necessary to correct an earlier error. I argue that both those situations now apply.

However this is not merely an issue for science: it concerns every one of us. There needs to be worldwide public discussion about an appropriate name for our species, in the light of our present behaviour and attributes.

Further down the track I would not rule out an eventual return to the name Homo sapiens, provided we can demonstrate that we have earned it – and it is not mere flatulence, conceit or self-delusion.

Two years ago another Swedish scientist, Johan Rockstrom and his international colleagues (including Australians Will Steffen and Terry Hughes) identified 10 planetary ‘boundaries’ which we ought not to transgress because of the damage it will cause to our world and our chances of surviving in itxx.  They found we had already crossed three. These boundaries can be used as a report card on the human race: our success in remaining within them will be a direct measure of our wisdom – and of our determination to survive both as a species and a civilisation.

The wisdom to understand our real impact on the Earth and all life is the one we most need at this point in our history, in order to limit it.

Now is the time humans get to earn – or lose – the title sapiens.

 http://sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20111808-22515-2.html

Julian Cribb is a science writer.  He lives in Canberra, Australia.

 

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 03:31am

    #66

    SagerXX

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 813

    count placeholder0

    Hi XRM

[quote=xraymike79]

[quote=goes211]

[quote=xraymike79]

Simply put, our current social decay is a result of every-man-for-himself Neoliberal Capitalism. 

[/quote]

While there is certainly some truth to what he says, you don’t think that the welfare state deserves any blame for our social decay? 

  • What do you think happens when people are taxed at >40% so that the state can take care of those in need?   Do the people that still have means continue to feel a responsibility to look after their fellow man or will they now feel they have already done their part?
  • Will families feel responsible to look after their elderly when they are already paying the state for that privilege?  Seems there is less decay in societies were generations of families feel responsible for each other.
  • Could there be any negative impact from rewarding irresponsible behavior ( single parenthood, no work required for entitlement, rewarding consumption, … ) and punishing prudent behavior ( higher taxes on married and working, punishing savings, … ) ?

Perhaps you only see the part you want to see.

[/quote]

Goes211,

     You have it backwards. These social decay problems are not coming from the bottom, but are cascading down from the top of the economic pyramid scheme.

Who is buying off our politicians and constitute the only true represented voice in government?

Who is allowed to take not just excessive, but criminally negligent, risk in our economy and get bailed out by the lower class?

Who are the ones who pay little or no taxes and hide their income offshore?

Who is profiting off of war and the MIC without putting themselves in harms way?

Who are the ones sacrificing their children to fight in such wars?

Who are the ones who come home from such wars and commit suicide and live on the street with little or no support?

Who are the ones unable to afford healthcare in a for-profit, monopolized system?

Who are the ones paying the exorbitant, debt-for-life tuition fees of higher education with a bleak job market future?

Who are the ones whose jobs have been offshored to China, India and elsewhere?

Who are the ones losing their homes to foreclosure after losing their jobs?

Who are the ones facing the brunt of austerity cuts while the wealth of the nation continues to accumulate at the top of the economic pyramid?

Who are the ones with the insatiable greed and bloodlust for profits, no matter the devastation it causes to society?

Perhaps you are looking at the situation from the wrong end of the pyramid scheme.

[/quote]

 

XRM:  Again, as I posted on a different thread, my hat is off to your perseverance and dedication.  

While you are IMO a sterling example of a concerned individual (vis-a-vis our global predicaments various), again IMO you present more as a pedant than a person that arrives bearing practical ideas about solutions.  It would help me better understand you if you could summarize your ideology and Plan For the Future in 500 words, give or take.  As a fellow who is currently consumed with What To Do, such an offering would be — to me — far more useful than another article about how corrupt/hopeless/wrong/unjust Things Be.  Forgive me in advance if I can’t cull this info out of the Timeline thread, it’s rather vast.

You laid down the name Herman Daly earlier in the thread, but I’m less interested in your influences than I am in what precisely you’re doing to bring about a better world.  To steal a quote from another CMer who cited it (evidently a Chinese proverb):  "Those of you who say that nothing can be done, need to move from the path of those who are doing it."  

Light a candle / curse the dark.  You know?

All the best, and Viva — Sager

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 04:13am

    #67

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder0

    gregroberts wrote: “witches

[quote=gregroberts]

"witches brew equal part no rules, and equal part free market rules. Go figure."

No violence, voluntary exchanges between people. For some reason whenever I read your posts "twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" comes to mind.

"He makes the mistake of determinism, the habitual and oft fruitless search for single variable explanation to describe complex phenomena. In the case of his “movies”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3UYZcwUEfw

 

[/quote]

Have to admit, GR, I’m a little puzzled by this one. Leaving aside your libertarian quip, I’m hopeful you were taken to understand that I suggest that Molyneux himself is the determinist, due to his (attempting) to blame the rioters actions on:

1.)    The government (of course!)

2.)    Fatherless families (improper morals!)

3.)    Racial identities (those people!)

But the video you post is Molyneux………debating determinism? Has someone lost the plot here? And what was this guy on when he made that video?

Sorry- I object to his assertions. I call his position determinist, as he attempts to simplify and reduce complex sociological issues to easily identified quantities that history has shown us, over and over, lead to violence and discrimination and bigotry and countless other transgressions – precisely the opposite of the “freedom from force” ideology that is (falsely) advocated by Molyneux and his ilk.

It is a tool of the false dialectic of extremes, that argues that the choice is between no government and bad government, and that if government is not perfect it is inherently evil.  Because they are driven to extremes, those who argue this cannot see the great middle ground, of an imperfect government that nevertheless is capable of maintaining justice and order within the context of freedom.   Failure is only certain at the extremes, of authoritarianism and anarchy, when by two different paths one turns society over to the wolves.

 I can think of a few libertarians that could greatly benefit from reading and understanding that quote.

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 04:17am

    #68
    xraymike79

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder0

    SagerXX wrote:XRM:  Again,

[quote=SagerXX]

XRM:  Again, as I posted on a different thread, my hat is off to your perseverance and dedication.  

While you are IMO a sterling example of a concerned individual (vis-a-vis our global predicaments various), again IMO you present more as a pedant than a person that arrives bearing practical ideas about solutions.  It would help me better understand you if you could summarize your ideology and Plan For the Future in 500 words, give or take.  As a fellow who is currently consumed with What To Do, such an offering would be — to me — far more useful than another article about how corrupt/hopeless/wrong/unjust Things Be.  Forgive me in advance if I can’t cull this info out of the Timeline thread, it’s rather vast.

You laid down the name Herman Daly earlier in the thread, but I’m less interested in your influences than I am in what precisely you’re doing to bring about a better world.  To steal a quote from another CMer who cited it (evidently a Chinese proverb):  "Those of you who say that nothing can be done, need to move from the path of those who are doing it."  

Light a candle / curse the dark.  You know?

All the best, and Viva — Sager

[/quote]

To answer your question about what I am doing to make a better world:

Firstly, I am and have been educating myself about how our political economy works which has partially been documented in the "collapse thread". None of that information/thought is really presented in the MSM, as you know. So to understand the problems, a person must first be aware of the manipulative powers at play. If it’s pedantic, then it’s serving a purpose of raising my awareness. This has been the case for others on this site as well as evidenced by personal messages I have received. Three years ago I had no idea of how corrupt the system was. Perhaps that was not the case for you.

Secondly, I am looking for like-minded people in my community who are aware of the situation and working with them. There activities include re-localizing the economy and conserving resources, seeking political avenues for change (however futile it may appear), and changing my consumer habits to support the aformentioned actions.

Thirdly, I am speaking to others in my community who are unaware of what I have learned over the past three years. Sadly, their numbers are endless. Spreading awareness toward a tipping point of consciousness is really the best thing a single citizen can do. Unfortunately, we are all slaves to the current system in one way or another; there is no refuting that.

As far as a plan for the future, I would direct you to more educated people than I who have thought long and hard about real solutions that could be carried out if we as a species are sapient. One such person is George Mobus. I emailed DK some of his writings, and I’ll post them here as well:

Here is the link:
http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/6877
with other writings:
http://faculty.washington.edu/gmobus/Bac…
 

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 04:22am

    #69

    SagerXX

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 813

    count placeholder0

    Allright

That’s a start.  Will check Mr. Mobus’ stuff out.  Thanks. 

  • Fri, Aug 19, 2011 - 04:57am

    #70
    xraymike79

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder0

    darbikrash wrote:…  I

[quote=darbikrash]

 I call his position determinist, as he attempts to simplify and reduce complex sociological issues to easily identified quantities that history has shown us, over and over, lead to violence and discrimination and bigotry and countless other transgressions – precisely the opposite of the “freedom from force” ideology that is (falsely) advocated by Molyneux and his ilk.

It is a tool of the false dialectic of extremes, that argues that the choice is between no government and bad government, and that if government is not perfect it is inherently evil.  Because they are driven to extremes, those who argue this cannot see the great middle ground, of an imperfect government that nevertheless is capable of maintaining justice and order within the context of freedom.   Failure is only certain at the extremes, of authoritarianism and anarchy, when by two different paths one turns society over to the wolves.

 I can think of a few libertarians that could greatly benefit from reading and understanding that quote.

[/quote]

Amen to that. This black-and-white, for-us-or-against-us mentality is what will really do us in because the actions that need to be taken have to be carried out on a collective basis with a strong government role, something derided as Socialist by the demagogues. Individual action, no matter how admirable and correct, will be taken down by the masses who are continuing on with business as usual.

Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 75 total)

Login or Register to post comments