My only issue is I think one can go overboard with regulation. — Benj96

Agreed. That often has something to do with insurance. The idea of motorcycle helmets and seat belts in cars sounds a little intrusive, but the requirement is often not because society cares about the individual; rather, it's because someone has to pay for taking care of them when they end up a vegetable, and the insurance companies absolutely hate paying for anything. So, we pass laws to keep the premiums down and Darwin is denied the opportunity to work on the adventurous.

Do you lean towards Democratic Socialism then? — Judaka

I call myself a push-back socialist, which is really just a true capitalist who is fed up with the self-described capitalist who deceive others (including themselves?) about who and what they are. A true capitalist internalizes among parties to a contract all the costs of all their activities. No cost can be externalized onto any who do not willingly accept those cost in an arm's length, negotiated agreement. A true capitalist also pays taxes to government.

If I had my way, the Administrative Procedures Act would be repealed and all parts and pieces of the quasi-judicial system under the APA would be moved over and under the Article III court system. And that system would also see a huge boost in funding, continuing education and independent ethical oversight.

Receipt of corporate status would be conditioned upon certain concessions and the concept of "personhood" of corporations would be limited to the ability to sue and be sued. The ability to pierce the corporate veil would be easier if any of the concessions were violated. Joint, strict and several liability would be on the table for shareholders of a corporation that ran afoul of concessions.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, we would have a true capitalist system overseen by a democratically elected government of, by and for the (non-corporate) people. There would be lots of bonds posted.

“There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.” — Thomas Jefferson — Gladiator of Truth

Sally Hemmings?

I always believed ethics to be the purview of society, and morals to be the purview of the individual.

I always believed ethics are something that could be reduced to writing, and to which one could be held, whereas morals are more subjectively an internal guide.

Example: I can violate ethics if I feel justified in doing so; I cannot violate morals without guilt.

Whatever justice deems necessary to do should be paid for by those who object. And then some. You know, just to teach them a lesson; and so they can say "I told you so" as they fume and mope and whine and weep; "Oh woe is me!" LOL!

Nobody is free in a society; no one ever has been, or will be. Likewise those who try to step outside of society. Likewise those in charge. It doesn't matter. Life charges admission no matter who or where you are. Pay up or get the hell out. Those are your choices, whether you like it or not.

After all the accounting of freedom to and freedom from has been tallied up, we get to see where we are on the scale. But regardless, someone had to suffer your insufferable ass. Any you, them. That's just the balance due. Freedom is a fiction to fight over, to pay for.

Yes. I was specifically pointing out Amity's quotation of the poem "Wisdom and Follies Haikus
by George Bruce". It was making the point, in poetry, and more eloquently than I, about brevity and wisdom and foolishness.

Is this issue the defining point at which one determines whether capitalism should be reformed or replaced? — Judaka

I just read a post on Green New Deal:

"Slavery really got these capitalists messed up. The fact that there's a minimum wage means they'd pay us less if they could. Business owners & corporations really don't want to pay us at all. They wouldn't if they didn't have to." Miss Shawn

And another, in response to the conservative statement "Nobody want to work anymore."

"Nobody ever wanted to work at all. We wanted to be more productive, be creative, be part of a community, be supported, be validated, and have the time and space to truly rest. No one actually wants to trade in hours of their life to 'earn' necessities." Emylyne Museaux.

I don't think we need to replace capitalism, but we do need to correct the intentional mischaracterization of capitalism by self-identified "capitalists", and restate what it actually is. All people who choose to remain in, live in, or avail themselves of the benefits of society must subordinate themselves to it. They must be deemed to be people within the purview of the human resources department, and not above or separate from it. That does not mean they don't get "more" that then rest of us; it just means they have to prove they are entitled to it by doing more for it. This is done through trickle up, not trickle down. Put on the harness and work for it MFrs, just like everyone else. If you are so smart, so strong, or have such a sterling work ethic, we will reward you nesting-doll yachts, and mansions, etc. But you don't get to not contribute unless you leave.

Nailed it. As usual, it's the Democrats election to lose. Never underestimate their ability to lose.

I evoked the 70million+ to show that your generalizations were on the hasty side, not to say that I was right. — NOS4A2

I evoked the guilt by association to show there was no light between those who associate.

But I wager none of this absolves me from any sweeping generalizations. — NOS4A2

It absolves you from being a Republican but it does not absolve you from defending the ultimate one.

Sure it does. Your rhetoric is one of groupthink, in-group/out-group stuff, "othering" and all that piffle. If this is how your "community of man" operates I want no part of it in any case. — NOS4A2

No, it does not. I do not pretend to not use the same tools as those with whom I disagree. The fact that I do so does not close any gaps between me and them. And you, defending the partisan champion user of the tools you seem to abhor, makes you one of them. If you want no part, you should cease defending him. But really, that matters naught. You have been taught here, in the other threads on Individualism and Statism, that no one, on any side, will ever let you have the peace you pretend to seek. You remind me of a deer who would complain of wolves, or the wolf who complains of the fleet deer. Except they don't complain. Suck it up, butter cup. Welcome to life.

So, I am interested in other people's thoughts on the question of what becomes of consciousness at death? — Jack Cummins

We are all All, but while we are alive we are All separately perceiving itself. When we die, we are All, as All, perceiving All as such, and blown away by it. Sometimes it becomes too much beauty, too much joy, so we parse ourselves out again for more individualized perceptions our self. It's like an orgasm followed by a refractory period, a cigarettes' in contemplation, a deep breath, before we die again. Life is down time.

The consciousness is us, then All, then us, then All, etc. But when it is us, it is like the rain drop and when it is All, it is the rain drop in the ocean. While we are alive it may seem humbling, even demeaning to seem to have lost our selves in death, into an ocean of All, but it's not like that at all. It may seem we lose our individuality, our separateness, and maybe we have, but we will love being the machine instead of being a mere cog in it. Besides, we can go back to being a cog. Who decides how, why and when? I don't know.

Trump Jr. — Benkei

Normally I would say that even Trumpsters aren't that stupid. Then I remember. I think they'd rather float Ivanka because she's hot and you know conservatives. They want her to dominate and pee on them, and they probably think the left would rather have a woman.

Yes. — Xtrix

:100: I was pretty sure it wasn't vericundium so I looked it up again and found ad populum is what I meant; tellingly appropriate for this discussion though, was reference to "appeal to the mob." LOL! Spot on.

I think some of the 70m are okay and just got caught up in the pack mentality. We all know how conservatives love a good dog pile. But it's too bad they couldn't find a better rep to help turn over an apple cart that may need tipping. Hell, with the right person maybe we all could have gotten on board. But no, they had to pick Trump. Jeesh. And now all they need is one, just one real leader to stand up on his/her hind legs and call that bitch out. But no, they all seem to be on the Trump train. Sad. What the hell happened to America?

On that point, what are they going to do when Trump goes? Matt Gaetz? Ivanka? Who is the heir apparent? LOL!

I am unfamiliar with Aphantasia and do not know what it would be like to be incapable of creating visual images in my mind. I have physical memory to create the images, including smell, touch, sound, etc. I have heard people discuss whether they dream in color, smell, etc. and, while I dream, I don't know if I dream in color or not. So I can't imagine what it would be like to have no memory of such things. I don't think I could be much help.

The same goes for the formulation of concepts or thoughts without words. I think that I do both. I can tell my hand to move without words (and many similar things) but I also use words, arguing in my head all the time, with words. So again, I don't think I can help.

I am curious, however: How was the writing block removed?

Any assistance would be appreciated. — Kiingarian

Later I am going to take your post, copy and paste into Word, then edit it down to what I think it is you said. I will then try to provide my insight. However, at first glace, it seems to be something beyond my ability to comprehend. I don't know what it would be like to be as you describe. At second glance, I would simply say, in response to what I perceive as the question: just don't stop. Find a direction that suits you and go that way. Keep on trucking.

Yes, I defend Trump. Guilty as charged. So do millions of others. Over 70 million voted for him the last time I checked. — NOS4A2

And that is itself a fallacy: ad vericundium (?). Populum, sorry.

But instead associating me with them you associate me with the one or two fascists you can think of. — NOS4A2

Not true: I associate you with Republicans, not one or two fascists or racists. As pointed out, Republicans (especially including any of those 70 million) had their chance to divorce but made their bed. They are now Trumpsters. Sorry, that's on them. If they want to turn their backs on him, denounce him, endeavor to return to the community of man, they can. You can too. But you'll have to leave the Republican Party to do it.

You engage in the same species of thinking put to use by the very fascists and racists you pretend to oppose. — NOS4A2

Oh, I don't pretend to oppose them. I do oppose them. My father opposed them. His father opposed them, and his father too, clean back to tossing a monarch out of my country. The greatest generation opposed them. Hell, back in the day, the Republicans opposed them. The fact I use the same species of thinking does not make me like them, any more than both sides of the Civil War, or WWII or any war used guns does not make them the same species of of shooters.

So while I may be guilty by some tenuous association, you’re guilty of using the same fallacies, the same hatred, and the same behavior. — NOS4A2

Again, using the same hatred and the same behavior does not allow you to paint me as you or them, nor do I paint myself as such. It's the thinking which is palpably different. My thinking is right, and your thinking is wrong. The simple fact that we both think does not make us alike. There is no fallacy when you are what you are. You defend Trump who is the Republican Party. I'd beseech you to leave, to come home, but I know how you feel about the community of man. You want the best of both worlds. Understandable, but so is ostracization or, less than that, remonstration.

The question of potential silence and brevity is certainly worth thinking about. It also leads me to think that it may be that this thread will be extremely brief, because it may be that wisdom is extremely difficult to pinpoint, or even talk about. — Jack Cummins

Cross-thread points: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/548771

This leads me to think: would I redesign a Nazi board game? — BigThoughtDropper

How about Lt. Aldo Raines did it in the basement with a Bowie Knife?

Is that the one where the guy reverts to an ape-like baseline and eats animals in the zoo? If so, I didn't like it. I was hoping for more of an astral projection thing, traveling around the world and spying and whatnot. I don't remember drugs, just a sensory deprivation chamber.

Just shooting from the hip without any real thought, but it seems to me you'd be doing an honor to effectively remake the game. I once saw a piece of art defaced and torn down. It was a good thing, and a real improvement.

The dilemma of whether one should look past the artist and only appreciate the art is an entirely personal decision. Many a POS writer, producer, director, painter, politician, etc. has created masterpieces. The owners of those masterpieces get to decide who gets to consider the piece. If the owner is the public then, at the very least, context should be provided.

1. If it's yours, do with it as you will;
2. If it belongs to another, you can boycott or not;
3. If it belongs to the public, there is a two-fold consideration:
a. Is it displayed for the art? If so, place the artist or the subject in context;
b. Is it displayed for what the art represents? Tear it down.

If a statue of Jefferson Davis, Hitler, Osama, et al, is displayed because the work itself is genius, then juxtapose the genius of the artist with the POS subject matter. If the subject matter is innocuous but a work of genius executed by an artist who was a POS, then juxtapose the genius with the artist. But if the statue is displayed in honor of the POS, tear it down.

But it's your game; do whatever you want. If you play with others, you could tell them, or not. Your call. But painting a Hammer and Sickle or a Star of David on Hitler in pink panties is perfectly fine.

It's a common fallacy and you have every right to operate in that manner. But I suspect rather than respect that opinion. — NOS4A2

I don't want my opinion respected by anyone who fails to affirmatively divorce him- or herself from Trump. Any who continue to rise to his defense will have painted themselves (not Trump or the racists, fascists' that support him). Do you see the difference between that and the fallacy of guilt by association? You earn your own guilt by associating with him, if only by demonstrating a lack of judgement.

What do you think about his holding the bible in front of that church on the day in question? Never mind. It's irrelevant.

Guilt by association. Classic. — NOS4A2

Yep, classically good. If you are going to hang with a POS then you can expect to get painted with the same brush, and deserve it. Now, if you can demonstrate that your efforts were directed at reforming said POS, then you get a pass. But when that POS has taken your good name, he should be your enemy. No? If not, then you too are a POS and can go down with him.

At least Liz Cheney has balls and integrity. She's damn sure not in bed with the left, but she does lose the right to distinction if she continues to fly the Republican flag. So there goes dignity. Anyone who stays under that party is, irredeemably, a Trumpster. Trump effectively killed the Republican Party and made it his own, because they lack leaders. For that, I thank him.

Have you read the report? — NOS4A2

No. But then again, I didn't read the NYT or the NPR story either. I base my opinion of the dishonorable coward and liar solely upon that which emanates from his own cock holster, or what I have seen him do. Now, I'm sure Q would say all I've heard/seen that does not show him in a good light is simply deep fake, designed to harm dear leader, but I'm not there yet.

One thing I have pulled out of all this is the "look around" lesson. If you look around and find yourself on the same side as Nazis, fascists, racists, anti-intellectuals, etc. then you might want to rethink your position. Let's say you're just an old school Republican and fiscal and social conservative. You should really consider divorcing yourself from those who like the same guy you like, and the guy himself. You will legitimately be painted with the same brush.

They were dispersed to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence. — NOS4A2

So says the PP only.

The often-violent protesters were cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence. — NOS4A2

So says the PP only.

Too bad the PP were not in charge of protecting the Capital. They sound like some real Boy Scout go-getters.

Not only that, but even if they had sought to interview "Attorney" General William Barr, that would mean exactly zero. Hell, even if he was under oath and a threat of perjury, it would mean exactly zero.

What can you do about it? — Judaka

I don't know. What do the Republicans do when they are in charge?

I read something the other day that pointed out how the Rs have the best of both worlds because everything the Ds want requires 60% in the Senate, but the two things that Rs want (tax decreases and one other thing they like, but I forgot what it is; DOD?) only requires 51%. So they basically get whatever their two big wants when they are in charge, or they just mark time on the rest. Whereas the Ds don't get shit.

Another point I've made before: Not all Rs like Trump and not all Rs are afraid of losing their seat by losing their base. However, those that would otherwise be willing to stand up to Trump and their own base are understandably not willing to buck threats of personal violence against themselves or their family. And they won't tell LE for the same reason. Ds don't play that way, threatening their own (Manchin?).

I think Ds should not be afraid of killing the filibuster because Mitch says it may come back to haunt them. If they kill it and ram through everything they want they will never lose power. If they don't kill it and get nothing done, they will lose power in the mid-terms and never recover. It's gotten that far. It's now or never.

:100: :up:

Brevity is seductive because it suggests wisdom, regardless of whether there is wisdom behind the brief statement. — Noble Dust

Agreed, that is why I said: "I was going to add something about silence, and brevity, too. But I think those come close upon the heels of a probative question."

I thought it's the left that does that. — fishfry

Cherry-picking anecdote and redefining won't make the general case. While a fat-cat in a gated community can be Pidgeon-holed as a Democrat if he is one, a Democrat (he/she) can't be Pidgeon-holed as left or liberal. Regardless, if you understand the anarchist, reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, radical, anarchist continuum, you probably wouldn't disagree. Like most people, I get caught up in applying these notions to people instead of ideas (as they really are), but you get the point.

The disastrous Iraq war was bipartisan. Bush would have been stopped in his tracks if Hillary hadn't given an impassioned thirty minute speech on the Senate floor supporting the invasion of Iraq. — fishfry

There's not doubt it was bi-partisan, but I think you fail to understand just how effective it is for the right to say "You don't support the troops" and "You question a POTUS in time of war" and "If you aren't with us you are against us" and "United we Stand" and etc. That is the right's doing. Hillary went along but that proves my point, above. She's a Goldman Sachs Democrat (i.e. she's not left or liberal). The left zealously opposed the war but it was the right that carried the day. It was bi-partisan, but not both left and right. It was right, and that includes Dem-right. And it includes most of the press.

I think we are in agreement on most of what you said, especially with the parties, but my post, to which you object, was no exoneration of the Democrats. It was an excoriation of the right and Republicans. The Republicans forewent their opportunity to separate themselves from the right, from racists, from Trump, from fascists, when they threw Lynn Cheney under the bus. Sure, Romney is a milk-toast Republican, but Cheney is a hard corps conservative, socially and fiscally. Republicans are now Trumpists. Dems, on the other hand, are still a room full of cats.

But forget Rs and Ds: My point was the left needs to lead progress, which it always does, and the right needs to resist, which it always does.

Brevity is seductive. — Noble Dust

It is, but I think if one spends time in serious consideration about exactly how a question should be formulated, and presented, it ends up being brief.

I think journalists, especially, should spend more time so that when a question is asked, it is harder for a skilled politician to dodge, and even if he/she does, it is more apparent to the listener what was being asked and what was not being answered. Brevity can aid in this effort. I'd love to see the most intelligent people in an institution sitting around and strategizing this, getting beyond the "gotcha" BS and looking for enlightenment.

But beyond that, I recall the Socratic dialogues and the questioning, often with sincere curiosity. They were often pointed and brief, and enlightening. I see a measure wisdom in that.

No amount of argumentation or evidence will sway either side -- and so why not just admit it? — Xtrix

I think many have admitted it. But the tepid, and the nervous, and the fearful, and the cowardly, seek the company of others. These are conservatives, and Republicans; they are the people who like to self-identify as the opposite of what they are. And they spend vast resources in an effort to convince everyone they are not these things.

But money talks and BS walks. So, those who see the writing on the wall need to risk, need to invest, need to innovate, and lure labor and government subsidy and youth and vigor and courage away from the past and into the future. These are the liberals.

The old will come, kicking and screaming, until one day they will lay claim to, and take credit for all that is new and good and which was brought to them by liberals. And when they do, they will still be conservatives, and tepid, and nervous, and cowardly, and in search of the company of others.

Exxon, et al, will start their investments in the "new" once liberals prove that new is possible and profitable. But liberals can't wait for them. Liberals are the true risk-taking, rugged individualists of courage and innovation. The must proceed boldly into the future, two steps forward (liberal) one step back (conservative). And on and on and on.

When the conservative whines "What about all the health insurance industry employees and petroleum hydrocarbon industry employees?" they need to be shown the same level of concern they show for everyone else: "Well, there are, of course, going to be winners and losers. We'll provide retraining programs. And there is also unemployment until you can get you feet on the ground." LOL! Buggy whips! The wave of the future!

The only frustrating aspect of my analysis is that we all know the cowards won't lose. Their employees might lose. But they never lose.

The left refuses to kick the opposition when they are down. The right has no such qualms. "Bipartisanship for me, but not for thee." To that extent, the left gets what it deserves. Warren and AOC has bigger balls than most; but they get nowhere because of those vast resources that are spent convincing Trump Puppets that the right is the opposite of what it is. It's part of the plan.

Measure wisdom by the questions it asks. — unenlightened

Bingo. I was going to say wisdom is measured by the probative nature of questions asked. I was going to add something about silence, and brevity, too. But I think those come close upon the heels of a probative question.

Answers are a chimera.

I am currently struggling with what it is I should care about.

I have created for myself a situation that is about as close to what it is I think you would like to have, as is possible in the world today. A couple of thoughts come to mind: In my cat-bird seat, many would have me be concerned about the affairs of man, simply because I am a man, and because I am supposed to have empathy for my fellow man. I am partially persuaded by their thinking, not simply for the logic of it, but, believe it or not, I actually do have empathy. So, should I limit my concern for my fellow Americans, who have it relatively good, like me, and in which case I would probably limit my actions to voting? Or should I go over seas, take up arms and engage the POS-statists who really do impose themselves upon my fellow man? Or should I simply encourage my state to do the heavy lifting for me when it comes to POS-statists overseas?

Do you, NOS, really feel imposed-upon by your state? And, just for the sake of argument, would you be satisfied with a state that could impose upon you but which does not do so? Or do you not want a state to even have the capability/power to impose upon you if it felt like it? Those are two vastly different situations, and vastly different "asks."

When I hear the champions of the oppressed appeal, or demand, that I care about their specific area of concern, I hear some pretty compelling cases. Yet I also hear the Earth crying out from under the weight of the whole human race, and I feel that to champion her is, ultimately, in the best interest of the human race. So the idea of helping people seems inimical to helping people, unless that help is directed at the Earth upon which others (non-humans and humans) depend.

How much of the individualist's fear of the state is simply a fear that more justice for someone else means less justice for them; as if it were a pie? How much of their fear of the state is a fear that if the state works for others, it will be working against them/the individual? I'm reminded of a meme that shows your typical Trump supporter all armed up to the teeth and saying "I will not live in fear!" Below that is a list of 30 people/groups/things that his ilk seem to be afraid of (sharing power with). Is he not me, in the cat-bird seat, unwilling to let those 30 types of people/groups/things have the same civil liberties that he has? If their individual liberty boat rises, will his lower? And if so, who's fault will that have been? Personally, I understand where he is coming from. But he's personally offensive to me and seems like a POS. I'm no fan of the other side either, but I can understand their point even more.

So, why should I give a shit about any of them or any of their concerns? If I find them all offensive, why can't I turn my back on them, stand on their bones and sacrifices, and live my life in peace?

I'm inclined to toss my moral support to the oppressed, and let the POS learn empathy through experience. He's going to be a minority soon. If he insists on being a POS, well, the results will be interesting. If justice is a pie, "they" will be coming after me, too. Maybe I'll deserve what I get for having failed to take up their cause. Either way, I see a new generation on the way; it's going to be their planet, and if we don't like what they've become, we certainly won't be able to say that we knew how to raise them. That will be on us. Men like us don't blame others.

I guess I'll just sit up here, resting on my laurels, but I won't look down upon them in derision or fear. And if I share, I will reduce my footprint and share with the Earth. Maybe people can thank me later. Or they can piss on my grave. LOL!

White Privilege: it's real.

Are there moral philosophies which, in your opinion, provide an adequate method to determine the borders of the community? — Echarmion

The border of a community is found at that point where the community is no longer availed.

I have no idea what that says.

Here is my opinion: Ronald Reagan, and his acolytes, was/are wrong. Government (the state) is not the problem, it is the solution. And government, as proposed in the organic documents of the U.S., is the best solution.

The problem is this: Those who don't want to see that solution fully realized, because it would be inimical to their financial interests, have successfully created a state that serves their interests at the expense of the people at large. They have done this in various ways that I could delve into if you wish, but for right now, in consideration of your feelings about the state, I will stick to the sewing of distrust of the state, and of those who look to the state for alleviation of woes.

This is important, because the distrust (not just of the state, but of those who look to the state), is such that those who look to the state for simple protection of their civil liberties, feel they have been pushed beyond merely looking to the state for alleviation of those woes, ala the organic documents (and something that is dear to your heart, individualism), but further into a camp that itself would justify the distrust that people like you have of them.

That was a little wordy and hard to follow, so let me try again: The wedge has been driven so deep that those who would simply have the state defend their individual liberties have been divided, right and left, to points where the right defends those who drive the wedge, while the left would use the state (if they could) to not only neuter those who drive the wedge, protecting their individualism, but to also and further provide reparations for the damage done by the wedge-drivers. In other words, the left was not the boogey man the right thought it was until the right created in the left what the right so feared.

The right, and the wedge-drivers created the Sanders and the AOCs and the socialists and commies of the world by failure to protect the individual liberties of all. By failing to listen to enlightened capitalists like Warren.

The state is the best solution if the wedge-driver is neutered. If there had been power to the people, then those on the left would not seek to use the state in derogation of civil liberties or individual liberty of the right.

But alas, the longer you keep a man down, the worse you will suffer if he ever gets back up again. Ask the King of France. I'm sure he said "Hey, fellas, let's let bygones be bygones. It's all cool now. I get it."

Sorry MFr, too late, LOP!

If people like you would quit excusing the wedge-drivers by your antagonism toward that which our founding fathers set up to protect all, then we the people could take back the state and use it as the solution for the woes brought on by wedge-drivers. But alas, it may be too late. If the people ever get the state back, they may be looking for a little pay-back and then you'll be pissed, saying "See, I told you so. These evil statists are cutting heads off!"

On this notion of "power to the people" it's also interesting to note how the wedge-drivers have the state infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear power. Those on the right, in support of the wedge-drivers, maintain that power. But those on the left forfeit that fundamental civil liberty from the Bill of Rights, further cementing the power of the wedge-drivers. Everyone should be well educated (the pen) and well armed (the sword) but today, the right has given up their pen to men like Donald Trump and the left has given their arms to men like MLK. And the wedge-drivers tighten their grip on the state, using it to do their dirty work.

I blame the state for my woes simply because they are the perpetrator of them. — NOS4A2

I know. By analogy only (for it's not simply a U.S. thing) the civilian population in a war zone often blames the soldier simply because he is the perpetrator. It's completely understandable for the simpleton on the ground to lash out at what he, in his naivety, sees in front of him.

It's like the individual BLM member who hates cops. The more reasonable, objective member will see the systemic (system) racism behind it. Peel the onion more, and you find private prison systems and others who benefit from the way our system is set up. Follow the money. The state you hate is funded by someone. You just stop at the state and blame it. Part of the plan. It's working so long as you blame the state.

Can we ever rest on our laurels? If that is not in our nature then we shall continue apace, for good or for ill. But if we could ever find it in ourselves to simply enjoy the fruits of previous efforts, then I think a precipitous, but planned, reduction in population could bring us to the state that many think would be desirable. We'd have a IR ethic with all that was brought to us by DR, without the downsides. Private property would not exist, and abundance would check violence and greed.

By "planned" I mean the ability to maintain proficiency in the maintenance of the gains we've made without all the people who tax those gains, or who can't avail themselves of those gains due to the nature of DR.

I would imagine that pretty much everyone from 200 years ago, if thrust into an American middle class situation today, would say "Whoa! Pump the breaks! What are you people whining about? You can get your teeth drilled and not feel any pain? You can flip a switch? You can store food and have ice? Anti-biotics? WTF? You throw enough food away every day to feed the whole freaking world?"

The logical response to that is: we didn't get all that shit by resting on our laurels. Yeah, that is true. But is there ever a time where that "progress" becomes regress without the benefits of planning for it?

Here's a twist on the ant and the grasshopper that you've probably heard before:

"An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “only a little while. The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.” The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15 – 20 years.”

“But what then?” Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!”

“Millions – then what?”

The American said, 'Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.'”

Unknown.

The thread title brings another thought: The belief that belief in god is necessary for being good is itself not good.

Again, you fail to grasp the concept of proxy. Whatever. I just see the genius and the effectiveness of their intent and implementation in you: blaming the state for your woes. LOL! Black ants, red ants, who's shaking the jar? If there were an independent state working for the people, it would want the opposite.

And no, I'm not talking about mom and pop s corps. I'm talking about the big c corps that spend all that money on politics. They aren't doing that because it doesn't work. They are buying a product and a service and they are getting what they pay for as the new owners of that which they bought.

It's very simple: If the vaccine is indeed so safe and effective (that accepting it should be a no-brainer), then why isn't it mandatory by law? — baker

No, it's not simple. You are simple if you think that a no-brainer requires law enforcement. If it were a no-brainer, there would be no need for law enforcement. Besides, if a law is all it took, then we would have no crime. Doh! I don't know if you live in the U.S. or not, but a great number of people are armed to the teeth and you can't make them do shit if they don't want to. Many law enforcement officers won't enforce if they don't feel like it, and even if you tried "cutting off" access to goods and services, people will set up and support their own side. Finally, the federal government lacks the authority to tell states what they have to do (see Florida, where they are instituting a $5k fine to anyone who requires proof of vaccination). What are you going to do? Send in the Marines? Yeah, it's very simple. LOL!