|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 11, 2013 20:12:45 GMT -5
Greetings..
My 'hope' is that someday people, including politicians, will act on behalf of the collective whole, rather than their own special interests.. there is no useful purpose for political parties, groups of people acting in opposition to the interests of others.. cooperation is consistently more productive than conflict, and criticism without a useful alternative solution, is pointless..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 12, 2013 6:01:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. My 'hope' is that someday people, including politicians, will act on behalf of the collective whole, rather than their own special interests.. there is no useful purpose for political parties, groups of people acting in opposition to the interests of others.. cooperation is consistently more productive than conflict, and criticism without a useful alternative solution, is pointless.. Be well.. The big problem is that in our system for an individual agent conflict outperforms cooperation. The prisoner's dilemma is perhaps the standard way to illustrate the issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 14:23:09 GMT -5
So, the NSA is this behemoth government surveillance operation, spying on everything, from friend to foe; and then there are guys like Assange and Snowden, exposing the secrets of the secrets collectors. Collapse the whole shebang down to a personal level, and I think we here do similar type work.
Got secrets?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 24, 2013 5:55:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 24, 2013 8:18:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 24, 2013 8:47:48 GMT -5
Not voting is the wrong solution though. Better to vote for the most leftist party.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 24, 2013 10:21:50 GMT -5
Not voting is the wrong solution though. Better to vote for the most leftist party. I don't know. I'm not sure I trust what the leftist's offer any more than the right. As I see it, whether its right or left, if 'ego' is running the show, then its going to go badly (my use of the word 'ego' there is sloppy but convenient). What I noticed is that Russell was easily (and correctly) able to point out what is wrong, but it wasn't so easy for him to talk about a new way, and I think that's partly because the new way is so fundamentally different, that in a way it can really only be intuited and envisioned rather than methodically pre-planned. Its almost like....the old way has to be cleared before a new way can present itself.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 24, 2013 10:41:27 GMT -5
I don't know. I'm not sure I trust what the leftist's offer any more than the right. As I see it, whether its right or left, if 'ego' is running the show, then its going to go badly (my use of the word 'ego' there is sloppy but convenient). What I noticed is that Russell was easily (and correctly) able to point out what is wrong, but it wasn't so easy for him to talk about a new way, and I think that's partly because the new way is so fundamentally different, that in a way it can really only be intuited and envisioned rather than methodically pre-planned. Its almost like....the old way has to be cleared before a new way can present itself. The big mistake of naive/uninformed leftists and the old trick of the conservatives is to have the leftist defend the impossible position of "changing the system". It's an impossible infinite demand and nobody can say what it's supposed to actually mean, that's why they start to studder. Instead what they need to do is embrace the democratic parlamentiary system and focus on finite and precise issues. Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 11:36:14 GMT -5
I don't know. I'm not sure I trust what the leftist's offer any more than the right. As I see it, whether its right or left, if 'ego' is running the show, then its going to go badly (my use of the word 'ego' there is sloppy but convenient). What I noticed is that Russell was easily (and correctly) able to point out what is wrong, but it wasn't so easy for him to talk about a new way, and I think that's partly because the new way is so fundamentally different, that in a way it can really only be intuited and envisioned rather than methodically pre-planned. Its almost like....the old way has to be cleared before a new way can present itself. The big mistake of naive/uninformed leftists and the old trick of the conservatives is to have the leftist defend the impossible position of "changing the system". It's an impossible infinite demand and nobody can say what it's supposed to actually mean, that's why they start to studder. Instead what they need to do is embrace the democratic parlamentiary system and focus on finite and precise issues. Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm... I agree. In addition, even though the not voting argument about the system being rigged is accurate, it is also the case that real people and the real planet are harmed more or less by different policies that are implemented based on voting. That is, it's possible to work towards overhauling/revolutionizing the system while also spending the few minutes a year to vote. It is far more important to be doing that revolutionary work but in minimal amount of effort in voting can also have a huge impact. What would be a waste of time is putting ones efforts in maintaining the rigged system.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 24, 2013 12:26:14 GMT -5
I don't know. I'm not sure I trust what the leftist's offer any more than the right. As I see it, whether its right or left, if 'ego' is running the show, then its going to go badly (my use of the word 'ego' there is sloppy but convenient). What I noticed is that Russell was easily (and correctly) able to point out what is wrong, but it wasn't so easy for him to talk about a new way, and I think that's partly because the new way is so fundamentally different, that in a way it can really only be intuited and envisioned rather than methodically pre-planned. Its almost like....the old way has to be cleared before a new way can present itself. The big mistake of naive/uninformed leftists and the old trick of the conservatives is to have the leftist defend the impossible position of "changing the system". It's an impossible infinite demand and nobody can say what it's supposed to actually mean, that's why they start to studder. Instead what they need to do is embrace the democratic parlamentiary system and focus on finite and precise issues. Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm... I see what you are saying, but I have doubts as to whether it could work like that, I see the whole system as too corrupt for change to come about that way. I do believe that there is a global elite, but that's not to say that there are no good people working within, in fact I'm confident there are. But what I see as more likely currently is more revolutionary in its nature, something along the lines of the main players just being removed. See, I think it is highly likely that 'free energy' is available. If the main players were removed, all the 'secrets' came out, and free energy became available, it would change everything.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 24, 2013 12:38:56 GMT -5
The big mistake of naive/uninformed leftists and the old trick of the conservatives is to have the leftist defend the impossible position of "changing the system". It's an impossible infinite demand and nobody can say what it's supposed to actually mean, that's why they start to studder. Instead what they need to do is embrace the democratic parlamentiary system and focus on finite and precise issues. Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm... I see what you are saying, but I have doubts as to whether it could work like that, I see the whole system as too corrupt for change to come about that way. I do believe that there is a global elite, but that's not to say that there are no good people working within, in fact I'm confident there are. But what I see as more likely currently is more revolutionary in its nature, something along the lines of the main players just being removed. See, I think it is highly likely that 'free energy' is available. If the main players were removed, all the 'secrets' came out, and free energy became available, it would change everything. Yep. Otherwise, what good reason is there for the gov and utility co's to create the behemoths that are our utility co's like PG&E -- so that even if / when a case like the one in Hinckley, California comes down the pike, they can even survive a gargantuan case such as that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 24, 2013 12:55:56 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, but I have doubts as to whether it could work like that, I see the whole system as too corrupt for change to come about that way. I do believe that there is a global elite, but that's not to say that there are no good people working within, in fact I'm confident there are. But what I see as more likely currently is more revolutionary in its nature, something along the lines of the main players just being removed. See, I think it is highly likely that 'free energy' is available. If the main players were removed, all the 'secrets' came out, and free energy became available, it would change everything. Yep. Otherwise, what good reason is there for the gov and utility co's to create the behemoths that are our utility co's like PG&E -- so that even if / when a case like the one in Hinckley, California comes down the pike, they can even survive a gargantuan case such as that. Erin Brockovich, right? I saw that movie when it came out without any idea what it was about or whether it was any good, and LOVED it. Song at the end was a great choice....''Everyday is a winding road''.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 24, 2013 12:59:20 GMT -5
Yep. Otherwise, what good reason is there for the gov and utility co's to create the behemoths that are our utility co's like PG&E -- so that even if / when a case like the one in Hinckley, California comes down the pike, they can even survive a gargantuan case such as that. Erin Brockovich, right? I saw that movie when it came out without any idea what it was about or whether it was any good, and LOVED it. Song at the end was a great choice....''Everyday is a winding road''. Yeah, heck of a movie -- I watched it yesterday. I love the background music - amazing story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 13:03:00 GMT -5
The big mistake of naive/uninformed leftists and the old trick of the conservatives is to have the leftist defend the impossible position of "changing the system". It's an impossible infinite demand and nobody can say what it's supposed to actually mean, that's why they start to studder. Instead what they need to do is embrace the democratic parlamentiary system and focus on finite and precise issues. Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm... I see what you are saying, but I have doubts as to whether it could work like that, I see the whole system as too corrupt for change to come about that way. I do believe that there is a global elite, but that's not to say that there are no good people working within, in fact I'm confident there are. But what I see as more likely currently is more revolutionary in its nature, something along the lines of the main players just being removed. See, I think it is highly likely that 'free energy' is available. If the main players were removed, all the 'secrets' came out, and free energy became available, it would change everything. free energy? sounds like the perpetual motion machine to me. Or are you talking fusion or something?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 24, 2013 13:07:20 GMT -5
...and then there's the theory about fossil fuels not really being fossil fuels....is self-creating within the earth -- limitless supply -- made sense to me.
|
|