The biggest open conspiracy is our agreement to look the other way when we see others doing what we do, or want to do, but about which we all know better.

Pretending we "Do it for the children".
Externalizing costs onto the Earth.
Generally just taking the easy way.
The "I deserve this (a break, a treat, whatever)" mantra.
The whole "Up Up With People!" [It happened just this morning I was walking down the street
The milkman and the postman and policeman I did meet.
There in ev'ry window and ev'ry single door
I recognized people I'd never noticed before.
Up! Up with people!
You meet 'em wherever you go
Up! Up with People!
They're the best kind of folks we know.
If more people were for people
All people ev'rywhere
There'd be a lot less people to worry about
And a lot more people who care.]

What's really bad is pretending "I am forgiven. Someone died for my sins. I can burn the less fortunate."

In short, we're a bunch of kids cut loose unsupervised in a mall. The open conspiracy is that that is somehow okay to run wild and consume and destroy.

The fact that they're no longer operational doesn't change that. — Echarmion

I think socialism is alive and well in the United States. The problem is, people get hung up on the idea of "pure." However, socialism, like "capitalism" (cough cough) comes in many different shades and colors.

There is no more socialist institution on the planet than the United States Military. It is one of the primary drivers of production (foreign oil) and the protector of the petro-dollar upon which the world engages in exchange; effectively making us the bank that can print money and allow us to run deficits carte blanche without taxation to cover expenses.

And when people back up to taxation of "capitalists" (cough cough) as the funders of the military, their profits come largely from Big Government protection of shareholders from strict, joint and several liability. Without those skirts to hide behind, investors would not venture out from under the fridge to invest. They are only "risk takers" when it comes to what they are willing to venture, and not to the extent of the damages they inflict or the externalized costs.

We could go on to highways, airwaves, rights of way, and the simple fact that the sovereign is, well, sovereign. "We the people" could do a lot that we don't do because we know how to take care of people. The only chink in that armor is when the so-called "capitalists" (cough cough) use their profits to purchase government to protect them, their profits and their foreign adventures in emerging markets or with our "freedom loving democratic" allies in developing countries. When you lose the distinction between the corporation and the state, you have fascism (socialism for the few, rugged individualism for every one else).

I like Smedley Darlington Butler's "War is a Racket" essay. Nothing much has changed in a hundred years. Side note: How many refuges at our border are from our allied countries in Central and South America, vice those from our socialist "enemies" down there? And regarding all the alleged failures of socialist experiments down there, how much of that failure is due to the failure of socialism vice the monkey wrenches that are thrown in by our alphabet agencies?

Err, what? — Echarmion

True enough. Capitalism (really just pretense) is simply a free market tool used by socialism to achieve some of it's goals.

Self-identified "capitalists" have their lips indelibly stuck on the socialist government's tit, and would not last a nano-second alone in the wild.

Socialist just know how to treat people. Unlike the self-identified capitalist who would ride a horse to death, get off, eat it and take off on foot in search of another meal.

People need to achieve their potential, whatever it is, and whomever they are...black, white, brown, yellow, purple or blue! — synthesis

But think of all the liars who succeed! You never know who you can trust when they've lost credibility. Like you. Did you misquote me, or not? I mean, how can I pretend to trash your silly arguments on the merits when, at any time, you might say I said something I did not say? Isn't that the hall mark of a society that isn't based on merit?

As for boredom. That may be a severe parasympathetic state - too much resting and digesting - no fear or motivation to change your current state and the mind goes crazy without stimulus - see “sensory deprivation experiments”) — Benj96

If life bores you, risk it. Me.

I know that can be taken to an extreme also, but, as yGasset opined, how insipid life must be for a creature, man for example, who finds it necessary to divert himself.

Sense? — tim wood

Yes. Not what I wanted to hear, but :100: sense.

I am glad that you parsed "public education" from the "teacher." I think we have a lot of teachers, but they are somewhat hamstrung when they are also called upon to be parents of many, many kids who aren't their own. It's amazing what they do with what they've got.

On that note, some might say we should pay more and we'd get better. While I agree we should reward teaching, I don't want to pull a bunch of mercenaries into the public education system to teach kids how to be better producers and consumers.

Maybe we should teach kids how to be better parents/teachers so their kids, when they finally arrive at school, are better leaves and flowers.

I'm afraid I've digressed from my original question regarding leadership, and the one that you tried to help me with. But yes, what you said makes sense. And it makes clear what I already knew: I've never been much of a leader or a follower. No matter how much I care for a student, it takes more than caring to lead one who does not want to follow. So leading can be like those mathematical/logical concepts that some of us never get.

Honest question: Has it been determined that depression is not the result of leisure?

I ASSume we can't tell if the Neandertal or the Cro-Magnon ever suffered from depression; but how about hunter-gathers, or fourth-world, or even third world people? And let me qualify this by saying, I'm not talking about the statistical outlier, but, rather, the relative "norm" that we see to day.

It seems to me that when you are literally on the search for food (not money to pay for food, but food), water, clothing and shelter, you might be less depressed. Life may suck, but you aren't depressed as we think of depression today.

And if the natural state of human affairs (200,000 years before the last 10,000) does not have depression as a frequent occurrence, is our current situation due to leisure, or some chemicals in the air or water, or what?

I know people say some things were always with us and we just notice them more now because we have to tools to see or diagnose, but is that true with depression? Has anyone compared "us" with "them"?

Regarding meritocracy, how do we account for heirs? We want to honor the will of the dead, but they are, after all, dead, right? So, if their spawn didn't earn or otherwise rate on the basis of merit, then why not tax the beegesus out of inheritance? Doing so would provide incentives for the living to hire their spawn or otherwise pay them while alive, so they can be taxed like everyone else. I could go on with other angles on this.

The idea of compounding capital has little, if anything, to do with merit. Especially when the genesis of that capital can be tied to theft or immoral acts (slavery, etc.). All that compounded afterwards is the fruit of a poisonous tree. Food for thought.

In short, when the "right" picks the welfare queen as their undeserving parasite on society, the "left" can always pick the silver spoon slug as another undeserving parasite on society. They, after all, benefit from capital that did not pay in to society.

Conversely, for every so-called hard-working bootstrapper picked by the "right" as the paragon of our ethic, the "left" can pick a million harder-working po folk as not getting out what they put in.

I think efforts toward equality are simply trying to level a playing field that has been tilted to favor some and not others. But bringing it back to level requires a little tilt in the opposite direction from level. You can't fuck a man forever and then expect gratitude when you stop. You gots to pay a little. You say it wasn't your fault? Faults got nothing to do with it. It's a strict liability issue.

What if a collective has little power and an individual has a lot of power, might not that individual undermine the interests of the collective? — praxis

You mean like Somalia?

Your logic only applies to a single mind, such as God. — unenlightened

That would be my Drill Instructor (God): "Want in one hand, shit in the other, tell me what you got."

I see taxes as forced labor and theft, the profits of which go to war, imprisonment, and ineffectual bureaucracy, as much as it does to roads and bridges. — NOS4A2

The difference is, the state is, ultimately, under our control. When corporations control the state, we fascism (ala Mussolini). So, the state's train schedule sucks. I agree. But I'd rather that than corporate trains that run on time while hauling you off to work for them.

:100:

As I'm a lawyer of vast experience and unsurpassed ability, — Ciceronianus the White

I wondered why we got along so famously! Now we have it.

Recently, the State of Idaho prohibited the teaching of CRT (and Socialism and Marxism for good measure) in its public schools, thereby continuing the American tradition of regulating what is taught and learned by our youth. — Ciceronianus the White

The north county is indeed deep in the heart of barbarian white supremacy. So it may be a good thing, then, that the U of I lies so far north of the center of power, and it's bitch, BSU. An isolated outpost has some benefit to freedom of thought. Though, presenting a danger of the insurgency of truth, these "Vandals" can face the prospect of a withering on the vine should no troops with their gold be sent out as reinforcement, or for pillaging. Better the loot go to BSU, where the elite can keep an eye on them, and gather in the stadiums to watch their well fed gladiators with a thumb on the scale.

all of us probably live in fear that our children will learn things we don't know or at least don't approve of; a haunting fear indeed.
I think the practical problem with CRT and other such theories purporting to define or describe immensely complicated societies and their history (the theoretical problem with them is their absolutism) are the zealots who preach them and interpret them, and the zealots who oppose them. — Ciceronianus the White

:100: A fear there might be something short of zeal for our way of thinking.

I will share this with someone I love. Someone who I dearly want to see the wisdom in it. Someone who does not want to be lead, or at least lead by me. Thank you.

"It's kind of fucked up that we got news this week that Arkansas executed an innocent man and it barely registered." The Rude Pundit

Not sure if that is true, or if enough time has elapsed for Arkansas to ruminate on it, but it could be I was wrong.

you're a little bit more charitable and generous in your reading the OP — tim wood

I'm just that kind of guy. :grin:

I will take your lesson on = vs => under advisement. Thanks.

The state often granted single corporations monopoly on entire industries, which often led to colonialism. — NOS4A2

That is for sure the most egregious example.

But even without monopoly, the state, in it's wisdom, thought to entice capital, locked up in cowardly fear of loss, out into the markets for the benefit of everyone. That can be a good thing.

The only problem is, when "capital" starts getting uppity, believing that it grew on it's own hard or smart work, without any help, and as a "risk taker" who then whines like a little bitch when government seeks to tax as small portion of the profits to offset the corporation's externalized costs, or to otherwise build roads and bridges that benefit the corporation and everyone. The corporation says "government is not the solution, it is the problem." That's like saying it's time to kill your mom and dad and eat them, while your brother and sister starve.

I will be watching this thread for wisdom. So far, I'm not disappointed.

What I also like to see addressed, maybe in another thread, is how to lead one who does not want to be lead? If there is an answer to that, then, once we lead someone to curiosity, a great leap will have been made.

It's not what you or I think, but what the argument says. — tim wood

Okay, my bust. I thought his argument said:

peripheral premise + premise + premise = conclusion.

Queue up the illogical compartmentalization of "left" with communism. LOL! The right is so predictable, because they want slavery based on race and class and dictatorship. They are all fascists.

But when corporations seek favor from state power my defense ends. — NOS4A2

You probably already know this, but the corporation is a state favor to investors. The corporation is a creature of Big Government and does not exist in nature. Big Government specifically holds investors harmless so they don't have to take personal responsibility of their own actions.

We can ignore, for now, the question of how investors (or anyone else for that matter) came into possession of "their" capital in the first place. Chase it back and you will find theft. You will find someone who was left alone to put their hands on someone else's private affairs.

it may be inferred that he wants can and want to be sufficient for his conclusion. If so then that ought to be a premise. — tim wood

I thought 2 and 3 were exactly those premises?

A considerable expansion of the topic. — tim wood

I didn't think so at all. I thought jorndoe had laid out the "for the sake of argument" premise which you refused to accept. I was merely commenting on that.

If you don't want to accept his premise, then by all means, try chasing it back with him until you find something you can agree on. I'm sure you will arrive, eventually, at a gentlemen's agreement that A does not = -A. After all, who wants to assume the burden of proving that? But I'm also sure you won't have to chase back that far. You can always stop somewhere along the way at what the eastern man thinks he knows and start from there.

A little more substantially, imo, for logic to apply to life, it must always pass the reality test. — tim wood

Sounds good. I was just taking his premises as given in support of a conclusion. As you know, I am a big fan of not doing that. Anything you don't agree with should be chased backwards until agreement is found. But sometimes there's that old "gentlemen's agreement" and "for the sake of argument" thing we sometimes like to play with. Especially when a proponent (jorndoe?) does not want to carry their burden of proof on a premise.

4. Doesn't happen. Hmm. — tim wood

So you are attacking 3 to arrive at your 4?

The fictional character that is synthesis doesn’t require credibility to function. :roll: — praxis

:100: Like so many institutions and individuals today. :worry:

Might I suggest... — synthesis

Yes, after you re-establish credibility.

And to tell you the truth, I don't even remember what we were talking about. — synthesis

How convenient. See how that works? You step on your dick, and rather than take personal responsibility for your own actions, you just want to forget and move on.

If you don't trust me, that's fine, but my take on lying is that it is a useless tactic. — synthesis

You said I said something and even put me in quotes. I searched for it, could not find it, and begged you to show me where I said it. Why should I trust you? It's apparently not a useless tactic if you suck me back into the merits and then pull that shit again. It's par for the course with those who have squandered their credibility.

If that's not good enough for you, whatever. Find somebody else to chat with. — synthesis

I wasn't chatting with you. I responded to Praxis. You started chatting with me, and I called you out on your "apparently" disingenuous BS. So, if you don't like getting called out on your BS, and don't want to crawl out of the toilet and meet your burden of proof, re-establishing any credibility you might have, then you find somebody else to chat with.

But I would not recommend seeing this as a social activity, because we are each literally alone. — NOS4A2

That may very well be what happens to a man who is voluntarily isolated from the pub table: He starts to view this as a social activity. Regardless, he is drawn back into communication with others and a reliance upon them for honing and exposure. Real world would be better, but aren't we eschewing that?

Life is one shit after the next.. — synthesis

I know that as well, or better than you. But we are not talking about one shit storm after the next. We are talking about the current, ongoing shit storm. The burden of proof is upon the shit to crawl out of the toilet and prove it is not shit. So, did you say I said something I did not say, or not? Are you a liar? Still waiting before engaging on the merits. See, it's not over, and you can't put it in the past just because it's convenient for you.

"The 'you lost, get over it' crowd from 2016 is now obsessivly checking ballots for imaginary bamboo particles because they lost and can't get over it." Jeff Tiedrich

Correct. There is also a huge distinction between the past, and ongoing shit. Once the shit is over, we can think about moving on. Until then, we need to flush the toilet.

I just don’t think any person should be sacrificed for an idea, whether it’s the “greater good”, the nation, the party, humanity itself. — NOS4A2

I'm not going to dispute that. I will, however, remind that the idea of service is often justified by the individual as a recognition there is something greater than the self. I know most guys will say that when it comes down to it, they are fighting for the guy next to them, and not God, Country, Flag and all that. But the reasons they join in the first place, and find meaning in continued service outside of combat, are these ideals, or feelings of being part of something bigger. Something they believe in. A guy like you, for instance, may think he's joining up and fighting for the ideals of individualism that are expressed in our organic documents. But those documents were inclined toward a more perfect union, and "we, the people." If we were to undermine that motivation, I wonder if cooperation would suffer.

In short, as I've said before, you need people to be left alone. Counter-intuitive, but true nonetheless.

As a side note, having some sympathy for your position, as I've expressed before, I wonder why we engage. I don't know about you, but because of my circumstances, I have been blessed with an absolute metric shit-ton of opportunity to be left alone. Yet I come in here, as do you, and engage. What is it about me that seeks contact, seeks to hone, seeks to express? Why don't I just step away from the computer, the T.V., go read, go hunt, go hike, go fish, go practice the guitar, go write (not this stuff on web, but memoirs, books, poetry and whatnot), spend time immersed in the lives of family, loved ones and the few friends I have? Why do you and I feel it is important to spend our time here, engaging with community?

The more I read what I just wrote, the more I'm inclined to practice what you preach.

much harder to make a reality unless you really pull out the stops. — Xtrix

True. I just don't know what pulling out all the stops would look like if you don't have the Senate in the bag. But it's too late to play nice. All bipartisanship has to be with the people and not the pols.

:100: Correct. That was all part of the "etc." I referred to. Occupy Wall St. kind of withered on the vine, Hillary never turned over her Goldman Sachs stuff. They are/were running interference for the Plutocracy. Not to mention trade deals for emerging markets.

Surely it's not such an exclusive either/or thing? — jorndoe

:100: :up:

I don't think that's fair, actually. The "Left" (if they can be called that) fell right in line with Obama. At first it was borderline cultish, and it dissipated. — Xtrix

That's the thing: It dissipated; over Gitmo, Black Sites, etc. And that's what the left usually does: They turn on their own once in power. Because, of course, "they" could always do it better. As to the initial love, you have to remember he came in on the heels of Jr. who just broke the world.

Biden is still in the honeymoon that Obama and most POTUSs get.

:100:

Not much else to say, but that never stopped me. Notwithstanding what the right says about the left being sheeple, the simple fact is, they are cats. You can't herd cats. The right, however, loves a strong leader who tells them what they want to hear, and they will fall in goosestep behind him (or, her, if she's hot).

When practicing law, I used to sit in on meetings of various environmental groups. Jeesh! I came away thinking, no one hates the left more than the left. Or, if that was politics, I want none of it.

But yes, the Plutocracy creates division in the lower classes and there you have it.

As a side note, I saw so many working class people who refused to avail themselves of any government services (that they had paid for with their tax dollars) because they "didn't want to be no welfare queen!" They end up physically broke down in a hovel somewhere and dying early. Oh well.

As it concerns NOS4A2, what I am saying is that it is just nihilistic to continue to have a go at him. We learn nothing from it and it is just distracting. Had he done something like threaten Black Lives Matter protesters with an AR-15, I wouldn't defend him. What I am saying is that people have had kind of an extensive go at him here when all he has done is derail this thread. The threads on the presidency go on forever and often get derailed, anyways. — thewonder

I agree with Wayfarer's last post.

On my thoughts, if you want to run interference for one who's opinions have found solace in the company of the man who's name heads this thread, and the people he aligns with, then I'd just as soon toss you in with them. After all, they are quick to toss anyone left of center onto a slippery slope to Pol Pot. So F them. If they wanted to step back from the edge and be reasonable, they'd file for divorce from Trump, the Republican Party, and all the fascists racists clap trap that comes with it. For they would have irreconcilable differences. But they don't. And you come to their aid and comfort. Hmmm.

whether slavery could have been outlawed following the end of the American Revolution, — thewonder

I never mentioned the American Revolution.

what seems extraordinarily unlikely, to me, is that there were concrete plans for reparations being made — thewonder

I never said there were.

You have made a highly speculative historical argument concerning the peace process at the end of the Civil War in order to slander an ethos that didn't really begin to take hold until the First World War and didn't become popularized until the Vietnam War. — thewonder

No, I did not.

It's out of keeping with any historical reality. — thewonder

Correct. That was the whole point. Doh!

If we are to look at history in chronological order, your synopsis of events contains some evident anachronisms. — thewonder

You say too much. Regardless, there was talk about giving plantations to slaves, but it ended up with 40 stupid acres and a mule. Why?

I also take issue with your use of the term "pacifism". Are you saying the abolitionists, John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, et al were pacifists? You should get that term out of any discussion of the actual history of the civil war (it was a war), which you are pretending to hold me to in my patently hypothetical lesson to those who would tire, invoke white privilege, or otherwise not destroy the enemy's will to fight.

The only thing that most Pacifists are in danger of is being ineffective. — thewonder

That's why I stipped to your use of the term; ill-chosen as it was. All your history lesson on pacifism is irrelevant to a discussion on whether a life-line should be thrown to one who is in bed with, and has failed to reject alt.right nationalist racist people who have absconded with whatever credibility might have existed in conservative economic or social positions.

Surely Pacifism is why racism persists in America to this very day. — thewonder

I didn't use the word "Pacifism" but if that's what you want to call it, then yeah, it is. Change my mind.