EJ: If there were no police, and no courts, I would still have that right, with or without anybody around to help me protect it.
How could you tell? What’s the difference between a “right” that is meaningless in practice because nobody defends it, and a “right” that has no existence at all? Maybe we all have a genuine right to food and shelter, but it just so happens that it’s not being properly defended.
It seems to me that, a long time ago, food was everywhere. Sure, it took some effort, but you could go out and shoot a deer, and your family would eat for a week. You could gather fruits and vegetables and tubers, and provide for yourself.
One of the prices we pay for our industrialized society is that you can no longer do that. Shouldn’t we make sure that there are other means for people to subsist?
MrV: Shouldn’t we make sure that there are other means for people to subsist?
A good point, particularly considering the fact that (as matt_mcl has pointed out) our society considers it to be economically necessary that some percentage of the people who want to work for their living not be able to.
That’s the idea behind the “NAIRU”, “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”: i.e., that in order to avoid inflation, which is economically painful to everybody, we have to have a certain minimum unemployment rate (formerly thought to be around 6%, but now somewhat lower) so that demand for scarce labor doesn’t cause wages to rise too fast.
It does seem a bit unfair to predicate our whole economic policy on the idea that at least 5% or so of the people who want a job mustn’t be allowed to get one, and then say that there’s no obligation to provide them with any sustenance or support in any other way.
Why is it that every time that it is suggested that perhaps something should be done about poverty, this is immediately assumed to be a call for taking the hard earned fruits of labor away from the rich folks? Is this just rhetoric that we have all been hypnotized by, or is this the only solution to folks having living wages?
I do not think that anyone is seriously advocating that we start stealing from the rich (although I have heard some fairly valid (if radical) arguments for that). Rather, I think that it would just be nice to see the very rich play by the same rules as the poor.
Why is it that we can accept as fair all sorts of rules governing labor, from how many hours a week are acceptable, to working conditions and up to and including acceptable social behavior in a place of business, but the moment that it is suggested that we also have rules that govern a living wage, people cry foul?
SPOOFE wrote:
Taking the position, which Monster did, that any gap between rich and poor is acceptable as long as the gap is maintained legally, is in itself an ethical position. Why, then, is it a non-sequitur to suggest the possibility that certain laws themselves may be unethical, or at least perceived to be by certain sections of the population? Because one’s response to the law is also based upon one’s ethics. Some people believe that all laws, whether ethical or not, should be obeyed. Others believe that unethical laws (read: laws they oppose) should not be obeyed, and should even be openly flouted. Whichever group you agree with, you are taking an ethical positon.
The issue here is not whether i am the “arbiter of ethics,” a title that you ridiculously say i claim for myself. I made no such claim, and stated very clearly in my reply to you that my opinion was just that:
I realize that others, like Monster, might hold contrary opinions, but as i pointed out above, that in itself is an ethical position, not something that stands outside the realm of ethics just because it happens to demonstrate a devotion to legality.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of your post is that you assert:
while also saying
Surely, if the law is the only arbiter we have in ethical issues, then the question of whether the law is ethical is in fact a key aspect of this debate? Especially as the post that i was originally replying to - Monster’s - invoked legality as part of its ethical position.
To tell you the truth, i think it’s perfectly possible to have a whole ethical debate without bringing the issue of the law into it at all, unless you’re specifically addressing the ethics of whether or not the law should be obeyed. Take the examples i gave in my earlier post, abortion and the gun debate (there are thousands of other possible examples, too). Do you think that those who oppose abortion on ethical grounds threw up their hands after Roe v. Wade and said, “Well, the Supreme Court’s done it now, so i guess it must be ethical”? Personally, i support the right to abortion, but i also don’t expect abortion opponents to shift their ethical position just because it is legal.
Similarly with gun control. The fact that it is legal to own a firearm does not mean that people do not oppose this law on ethical grounds. And, conversely, if Congress were to pass a law tomorrow outlawing the ownership of, say, semi-automatic rifles, you would see a variety of responses that might demonstrate people’s ethical position vis-a-vis obeying the law, but might not reflect at all on their ethical position vis-a-vis gun control. What i mean by this is that some people who believe they have a right to carry a gun might flout the law and keep their guns, while others might turn their guns in while continuing to maintain that the law was unethical. Both these groups could hold the same ethical positions on gun control, but different ethical positions on whether an “unjust” law should be obeyed.
Sure it is, and i disagree with the rest of that post. But his/her assertion regarding the issue of legality can be addressed independently as a logical problem concerning the relationship between ethics and the law, which is what i did.
I never claimed omniscience. Nor did i claim that my opinion, by any [nonexistent, by the way] objective measure, was greater than yours. I’m quite willing to admit the subjectiveness of my opinion.
But i still have to believe my opinion is greater than yours, don’t i? Surely this is the essence of an opinion? If i found your opinion to be better than mine, i would change my opinion to match yours. And you, presumably, must believe your opinion to be the best (or at least the best based on the information that you have) on any particular topic. When we change our opinions on any given topic, we do so based on an increase or change in the information we have, or because someone or something makes us see that information in a new light.
Now, for better or worse, some issues are more amenable to changing information than others. For me, opposition to gross inequality is a fundamental moral issue that is based on certain beliefs about human (not, for me, “God-given” - i’m an atheist) rights as well as certain information about the capacity of the world to sustain a decent standard of living for all. So, when someone says that they believe that a person only “deserves” what they can earn on the labor market, that is a moral judgement that i disagree with fundamentally but that will probably not be amenable to refutation by statistics or information, simply because that person probably also holds their own fundamental moral beliefs about right and wrong. By contrast, when ElJeffe makes an asinine comment like:
i’d like to see some support for this assertion, because every book i’ve read on world hunger and agricultural and distribution patterns indicates that there is in fact enough food on the globe, even now, to feed everyone. To assert that that you believe in a particular system of distribution is a moral or ethical position that is difficult to sway, but to make an assertions like the one quoted above requires at least a modicum of information about the issue.
And finally, SPOOFE wrote:
Really? Ask the person who needs the money whether there are any advantages to him or her receiving it. And, if you want to keep your focus on the societal rather than the individual level, what if giving that person some money means that the same person doesn’t try to rob a store in order to feed himself or herself?
And, actually, your argument here goes back to the issue of legality and ethicality that we were discussing above. You seem to accept taxes as providing the “benefits of an ordered and structured society,” while asserting that taking money from one person and giving it to another “gives NO advantages and returns.” What if, then, Congress passed a law that dramatically increased taxes on the wealthiest 1 or 2 or 10 percent of the population, in order to provide decent incomes to those now in the categories of homeless and working poor? This, presumably, would be done in order to provide the “benefits of an ordered and structured society,” but it would also involve massive wealth transfers from rich to poor. Would you support such a decision as ethical based on your acceptance of the role of taxes, or would you oppose it as simply “taking someone’s money and giving it to someone else”? And, in fact, where do you draw the line between the two. Aren’t there some people who see any taxation as simply robbing one person to give money to another? Some (admittedly not many) libertarians and anarchists, for example, would be happy with no government at all, with even law enforcement and defence being arrogated to individuals or private groups. I don’t recall anyone arguing on this thread that we should simply play Robin Hood, take the money from the rich by force and start handing it out to the poor without any system or reason or government involvement. I’d be interested to know when, in your view, taxation becomes robbery.
You can still go out and shoot a deer. My father-in-law gets probably two-thirds of his meat from game he has personally shot. You can wander through the wilderness and pluck berries to your heart’s content. But you will find very little food just hanging around ready to bite into. The existence of a cow is very different from the existence of a Big Mac. And this is the way it’s always been. You simply cannot get food without performing some degree of work in acquiring and preparing it for consumption.
Rubbish. You wanna live off the land, trek on up to the Canadian wilderness and be my guest.
I’m curious, though - does anyone have a reliable number for how many people in the US are legitimately “starving”?
Jeff
Actually, the contradiction I see in this lies in the assumption that although what I have earned does not belong to me, it does belong to someone else.
If it is not wrong to confiscate the property of the wealthy, why is it wrong to confiscate that of the middle class or the poor? If money does not belong to those who earn it, why does it belong to anyone?
In which case, it belongs to the strongest.
Property rights are human rights, in my view. A society in which I cannot be sure that anything I own will be there when I get home is no society at all. And if Robin Hood came into my yard, I would call the police. None of that riff-raff around here!
Regards,
Shodan
Here are some interesting statistics:
this link to the US Census Bureau is stating that the poverty threshold for a family of four $18,267. This would seem to say that if one makes, say, 20K per year and was a member of a 4-person family that they could be defined as not poor. This (given the price of housing alone) seems dismissible as crap.
Even accepting this absurdly low figure, that equates to a lot of people.
As to the starvation question, this page seems to have some interesting things to say. A quick note that this seems to be a page with an agenda, but they are offering cites for their claims, and so they seem enough on the up and up for me not to be embarrassed to show the link.
For those not tempted to follow the link, here are some figures:
Shodan: *If it is not wrong to confiscate the property of the wealthy, why is it wrong to confiscate that of the middle class or the poor? *
Who says it is? The middle class and the poor get taxed too, you know.
Property rights are human rights, in my view. A society in which I cannot be sure that anything I own will be there when I get home is no society at all.
Um, I don’t think anyone’s actually advocating taxation in the form of random arbitrary removal of personal possessions, any more than anybody’s actually claiming that the existence of a “human right” to food and shelter means you have to make a pot roast for anybody who happens to ask you. Rule of law still applies.
Binarydrone: First of all, $20k for a family of four may be perfectly reasonable, depending on where you live. In San Francisco, you’re screwed. In Poduck, Wyoming, you may be living comfortably. Thus, without some proof that those figures can be “dismissable as crap”, I’m not going to be taking your word for it.
Speaking of crap…
Those figures on “hunger” seem dubious for a number of reasons.
First of all, 1 in 10 people being hungry or “in danger of being hungry” seems a bit high. I won’t say “dismissable as crap”, but I’m skeptical. And unfortunately, all of the links on that page that would seem to shed light on their numbers are mysteriously broken.
Secondly, “in danger of being hungry”? What the hell is that? I could suddenly get an emergency project to work on, and have to skip lunch. Does that mean I’m in danger of being hungry? As far as “lower quality diets”, that’s not terribly specific. My diet blows, and I skip meals, but that doesn’t mean I’m starving. Further, having to rely on “emergency food” doesn’t mean you’re hungry, it means that you’re getting your food from another source. Unless the “emergency food” consists of wax apples and plastic PlaySkool burgers, or something. Seems to me like they need to more rigidly define their terminology.
If I get a chance, I’ll go hunting for some stats that aren’t from a site with a blatant agenda, or at least one where the links work.
Jeff
Ah, that tired old saw. If you happen to not make a lot of money, just move somewhere less expensive. Here is a link to the US Census bureau. You will note that the largest percentage (29.5%) of folks pay more that 35% of their income for rent.
But, let us assume that you are in the 5.2% that pay less that $300 a month for rent you should have plenty left over for everything else, right? Unless, there might be other factors at work here.
So you think (assuming that you can even land a job in “Poduck, Wyoming” that pays 20K a year) that you could do the following for a family of 4?:
[ul]
[li]Feed them.[/li][li]Clothe them.[/li][li]Pay for healthcare.[/li][li]Keep a car legally on the road (after all, these states that have more affordable housing also tend to be more rural and so chances are that you will not be taking the Subway or walking to work in Poduck, Wyoming).[/li][/ul]
So yes, given that the reality is that for working poor to have jobs, they for the most part need to live somewhat near rich people (who are, after all the folks that can afford the goods and services that the labor of the working poor provides), and that living within commuting distances of the places where rich people spend money tends to mean rent higher that $300 a month I will again state that the concept that a 20K income can support a family of 4 is dismissible as crap.
Also, and I guess that this is more of a personal aside, I get the impression that you are attempting to imply that I am trying to get away with something by posting a link to an organization with an obvious agenda. I think that this is a pretty poor implication to make, as I fully disclosed my perception that this was the case in my earlier post (although I must say that I only went as far as to look at where the links were taking me, rather than clicking through all of them as you apparently did).
You may want to take a peek at this USDA report on food security. where (among other interesting things) it states (at this part of the report second page) that 10.5% of all households (** or 11 million US Households**) were food insecure at some times during the year.
I followed these links from the Disputed Page With An Agenda™ so it may me that your browser is mysteriously not linking you to pages that challenge your preconceptions.
In other words, from a site that cleaves to your own preconceptions?
Bah, I think my copy of Acrobat Reader ate itself, or something. I’ll have to reinstall it and try again.
And mhendo, if I posted you some stats from FuckThePoor.com that said only 0.01% of households go hungry, and you couldn’t check the cites for their data, would you accept it?
Jeff
Let’s get back to the issue here.
Are wealthy individuals relying upon consent/trust violation to horde wealth?
I believe the answer is always yes to this question.
For those who don’t believe that everyone has a right to food or a right to the pie (which I agree with BTW!! As I cannot deny the logic that people have starved against their consent - therefor didn’t have a right.)…
Anyways, for those who don’t believe everybody has a right to basic sustainence, do they have a right to not be born as your slave? Your human robot that takes little and gives much - your tree that grows golden apples while it spends life in misery and suicidal depression? That the only reason they continue to generate your wealth is because they don’t have an efficient means of exit provided to them by those who like to talk about rights and freedoms, the creation of systems to allow them to express their rights and freedoms; and that they are entitled to it because they earned it?
Let’s suppose all of those suicidally inclined slaves who produce had a a channel with which to express their freedom without the tension that lew already allows YOU to avoid in your aquisition of wealth (even up the hypocrisy here, so that both sides don’t have tension of consent violation!).
You see, suicidal people risk pain, suffering, mistake (kid in oregon is in the news currently for not dying from a suicide pact - half his brains are gone, and his friend isn’t here anymore, he’s stuck with lifelong slavery to our society for violating the consent of wealthy people, an example to be made out of for all of society to see how bad suicide is for the economy, and the pocketbooks of wealthy slave owners. Do you really think slavery in the south would have been sustainable if a mechanical suicide machine was on every plantation!??? Your wealth doesn’t come from nowhere, it comes from violating consent and not equalizing the tension ratios between slave makers and slaves, to reveal the corruption for what it is in a statistically visible means which actually hits your front door. I don’t even think wealthy individuals would manage to raise children who don’t commit suicide as sson as possible; as their entire logical structure is so corrupt they wouldn’t know how to raise a being who can actually not violate consent and survive.)
Anyways, suicidalers risk pain, suffering, mistake which leads to slavery, experimentation, lockdown, media blitz of shame from wealth horders (how cowardly they are, or they are insane - as if a wealthy person couldn’t articulate themselves better), they recieve ostrisization for bringing up the topic because it decrypts the corruption process, they are arrested for planning to commit murder (of themselves) even in a system which doesn’t offer painless suicide!!!, unlike the ability to painlessly kill millions of people to aquire and horde wealth against their consent.
Wealth horders are nothing but hypocrites. They have no leg to stand on in regards to rationality. They are axiomically irrational beings, who are mentally demented and thriving off the dementia at their own expense and the expense of others.
In an information age, the scales are tilted slightly to mask the suicidal pressure while balancing out the homocidal pressure, and ignoring those who speak rationally through censure. America now has millions of millionarres who aren’t even in on the joke; they’re programmed to actually believe this crap, and even more, they don’t have any pressure to bother listening otherwise. they may listen, but as long as nothing gets done about it. As long as slavery is mandatory.
The problem with wealthy individuals is that they contradict themselves both intelligently and counter-intelligently; and have no pressure to step out of the necessarily delusional reality they have the luxury of basking in. These are people with infrastructure and no logic. Someone may control a patent office; depending on the patent, they wont allow it to be filed; instead the information is stolen and the person who discovered it becomes irrelevant. This is how society has worked since it began. In order to establish yourself with the ‘elite’ you must present something truly groundbreaking (if you don’t have money to just chum around with them) in order to enter the circle and have a chance of effecting change through the communication resources. The more you reveal, the LESS valuable you are. The LESS you reveal; it doesn’t matter, they’re rich anyways, what they don’t know won’t hurt them.
Information abstractors are not respected as human beings, only information corruptors; particularly in a capitalistic system where protection of commodities relys upon not collapsing the resource and encrypting the technology into horrendous corruption and outsourcing so that people can’t compete without playing by the rules of the game; which is: give you a peice of the pie if you want to play.
The point is: If suicide machines had ever been created; technology advance would freeze in it’s tracks. As society learned how to tell the difference between the corrupt and non-corrupt, it would pick up again, only this time electing rational people to manage resource and resource distribution rather than electing mentally retarded people to the task.
That is why shame on suicide exists. It is propganda distributed to keep people from understanding where the corruption lies and how to detect it, how to find these people and how to decrypt it.
Even during the bible’s construction, the idea was avoided bacuse it disproves God, who incidentally is molded on the principle of a plutocrats means of communicating with others about their corruption. the vagueness, the “It’s evil for you to know” and stuff. It was only when the lack of including it was creating suicides (people killing themselves to meet dead relatives in hell); that the economy was taking a hit, and the ethical corruption was being exposed. It is noted that the editors added one line about the sin of suicide to attempt to be able to diffuse this with rhetoric; to confuse the slaves if they should ask.
Every society which runs an upper class that has more than they know what to do with while many are starving; need to put propoganda on suicide. Why? Suicdal tension is what they are abusing to ensure slavery. Are they better than anyone else?
Nope, they just violate trust; a very simple thing to do. Are they working hard? Nope, they already have the technology to keep the suffering from reaching their doorstep encoded itno the law.
They aren’t required to do a fraction of what a suicider is supposed to do to achieve their results. In fact the two are diametrically opposed in that one is defined as work and the other is defined as laziness.
The whole issue requires a lot of words to communicate, as there are a lot of variables to address and most don’t understand any of it; this is a general address along this topic though.
Want to be wealthy; make murder painless to you and make it so painless suicide isn’t an option. All that’s required from there is mental retardation to violate consent and you have yourself the recipe for success in line with the OP.
-Justhink
For those who didn’t bother reading the longer post:
This is precisely how to accumulate vast pockets of wealth in a human society.
Write law to bypass access to intelligence or reproduction (if you can make it cheaper). One means to do this is to create something which relies on outsourcing specialization to reproduce.
Make your product non-transparent!! If someone can make it transparent, censor their patent and make it top secret in the military industrial complex.
Make the act of murdering millions so encrypted that it cannot reach your front doorstep, make sure that people cannot detect logical corruption in a personality by not teaching them how it is onserved before they end up being a wealth horder.
Make suicide shameful, a mental illness, insanity, illegal and definately NOT painless. It is very important that murdering millions ISN’T painless, and that suicide IS painful; that is how to create slave labor in such a means that consent can be virtualized. (i.e. this means you can always point to them and call them lazy for not doing all your hard work and not even having the courage to commit suicide. The key here is that it’s not hard to violate trust, there are only a few people who will do it as most people are logical enough to realize that such an action contradicts their purpose for being).
That’s it. A three step process to build a society which allows for wealth hording, and how to maintain that society.
As an individual, you are simply required to corrupt logic and contradict yourself. When you think "That’s wrong, that contradicts itself; do it if you want to be wealthy, do it everytime and as much as you can, start lying, just lie and lie and then tone it down to the point where people don’t notice the lies… build that perfect fine-line of counter-intelligence. It doesn’t require work; it’s totally counter-intuitive. You may actually have to kill someone with your bare hands to achieve wealth, it’s preferable if you contract it out though. The further out you can encrypt the contract hit out, the more wealthy you will become. That’s the ‘secret’ right there. If someone speaks truth, laugh at them.
If someone talks about God, agree with them, but wager a bit of difference of opinion. Memorize sports rules and statistics, as this is the most broad system of corruption in use to day (the most common language).
The patterns are basic, learn them do them if you want to be wealthy.
Oh, and make sure to call people who do work lazy, stupid and pathetic; but that you have a sort of quasi-care for their suffering that they create for themselves (make sure that their suffering is never attributed to you).
There are so many more patterns and I’m afraid people will misunderstand these and fail. It’s really so much easier than it appears. “That’s all you have to do?” That’s what you’ll be telling yourself. Just make sure to complain every once in a while as a martyr sort of thing to not make it look so obvious.
-Justhink
The primary thing that needs to be understood here is that people are using technolgy built by rational people to avoid the pain and suffering they inflict. From having it not return to their own doorstep. This is what technology does, it allows one human being to do something that would take millions before the technology came about. Only rational people who follow laws of nature develop this technology. This is what allows corruption to exist, as only irrational people will use it in a means which provides the least benefit to the most people; rather than the laws used by the rational person to abstract the technology.
Those who abstract technology CANNOT do that job following the law “The ends justify the means.” That law corrupts the logic too much to find these resources and resource abstractions. Logical people literally are only as good as their ability to code that law out of their observation and behavioral process. The more consent, the quicker and more you will abstract technology; that’s the way LOGIC works - violation of consent is denying natural law, natural law does not allow self-recursive beings to learn anything when consent is being violated - as consent is the PRIMARY abstraction which allows self-recursion in the first place.
To allow for wealth concentration:
You MUST get ahold of any technology which allows you to do the work of millions of people. A nuclear missle silo occupied by one person who knows the code can take an island of a million concentrated people. One idea, can violate the consent of a million unknowing people. These ideas are ONLY created by rational people, rational people cannot violate consent.
This is the misfortune of being a human being operating yourself manually.
YOU don’t have to operate yourself manually! You don’t have to be logical or a human being; you can be a parrot!
First you need technology, this is the most difficult part; most people are born into it, so aquiring it requires more work if you are born dirt poor. The children of wealthy parents have the opportunity to memorize the logical corruption of their parents and learn the parroting skills naturally as their brain develops.
If you are a rational being and want to be wealthy, you must sacrifice your rationality, that’s the only way to do it. People who have inhereted logical corruption don’t realize the lines of consent violation and how contradication works against their own meaning to live. As a rational being, you’ll be required to act against your common sense and sometimes even tension before you become a parrot. You’ve been working your whole life, so actually acting like a wealthy person will seem… so easy that ‘the weight cannot possibly build any muscle’ “It doesn’t weigh anything, this cannot work… these are all contradictions.” For rational people this will always be the case! It takes a while to forget about your actual muscles, you’re trying to build delusional ones. The point is to lift a weight which weighs nothing and convince others that it is heavy and that this is why you are ‘strong’. It doesn’t even matter if you are strong, just say you are. Your first task is to convince yourself and others that something comes from nothing. It is vitally important that YOU believe this, as it will render more wealth. Start going to church and copy what others say, sing the hymns, don’t be elitist about your faith until you are actually wealthy; because once you are wealthy it only matters that you show up to church to maintain the counter-intelligence layer. Once you are wealthy, aloofness cannot work against you as the interest in the bank takes care of that; you’re set for life now, you can be aloof. Unfortunately, you’ll believe the counter-intelligence so most likely you’ll engage in activity which spreads it to some degree. When someone mentions poor people or suicide you’ll start shaming them - you’ll cease to be rational; but again, that is the sacrifice as was mentioned earlier.
So number one: Use technology developed by rational beings to protect yourself from the effects of the pain you will NEED to cause in order to accumulate wealth against what we all know to be the consent and energy of others. “If they fall for it, that’s their problem.” (that’s your new line). Even if you have no money, these patterns will attract wealthy individuals and females towards you regardless. There are billions of ways to call someone a loser, besides simply saying it. Use variety!! But always say the same exact thing, UNLESS you see someone like youreself who is also counter-intelligent; call them a good person, a smart person etc… Obviously, as an intelligent person you don’t call anybody a loser - so all of this stuff will not seem like work to you at first, it will seem silly and self-negating. That’s the point! By negating yourself through others (and redeeming yourself with a counter-intelligent perspective of an overveiw which validates the contradiction rendered by you – ack!! that second part is more advanced. The autonomous system will do it for you, don’t worry about it. Just do the part where you negate yourself by projecting it on others and it will fall into place.
Your protection is absolute; because rational people do not violate consent, you know that because you are rational. They are all just like you. The people who possess better abilities to control do not use those abilities, as it contradicts the process necessary to attain them. Your biggest challenge censures itself, you have NOTHING to worry about here. You’re assuming that everybody knows what you know; they DON’T. They don’t operate like that, they don’t want to know; they are not rational, rationality decrypts them and violates their consent.
Using behavioral contradiction (this includes speech - make sure to critisize others and gossip as much as possibe, be specific about names and ALWAYS use double standards; ALWAYS. Talk about a circle of trust for example, someone’s in or they are out - but gossip as much as you can. Contradict yourself and ALWAYS use a double standard. Make sure you use words with no definition or invert definitions when describing ANYTHING. Never open your mouth if you can prove something axiomically, figure out how to corrupt it - this is a must. The indentured system will do a lot of this work for you once you switch it to auto).
Anyways, Using behavioral contradiction will gather people to you as slaves. This is a good thing if you want to horde wealth. This is the whole ‘give if you want to recieve ideal of wealth’. Just don’t give anything useable!!, this will be taken from you the instant you do… the object is always worth more than the person or process which brought it into being; that is the number one rule of the wealthy mindset. Only people who cannot give something useful recieve your attention of consent; this is important.
To really understand how this works in the first place is to understand all sorts of history about consciousness; however, know this:
YOU CANNOT AMASS WEALTH IN UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION IN A SOCIETY WHICH CREATES PAINLESS SUICIDE, BUT CREATES METHODS OF PAINLESS MURDER REFLECTION.
The first part is about making sure the pain and suffering cannot find you… this is called encryption; lying being deceptive and non-transparent, being contradictory and not sentient.
The second part DOES NOT WORK AT ALL if the double standard is eliminated.
The double standard is using the technology of rationality to encrypt murder and suffering so the pain doesn’t come back to you; WHILE making sure that the same exact use of rationality makes the taking of ones OWN life not a luxury of that same technology and rationality. This is what it’s ALL about. That’s the foundation. Painless suicide machines instantly decrypt all corruptive systems of behavior. Since society doesn’t have them, YOU are already given the foundation, YOU don’t have to create it, it’s already there. All of it is already there, just walk right into logical corruption and you’ll be swept up into society faster than you’ll realize; of course ‘you’ will findamentally change, but that’s not relevant to wealth aquisition. You did say that wealth aquisition was your goal didn’t you?
Non-Transparency and double standards.
That’s ALL it takes. The work is in not doing any work. You must actually move your mind benieth your conscious ability like your breathing is… nature will do the work for you. Nature doesn’t give a rats ass about consent, it only cares about efficiency of survival; not purpose of survival. You are a self-recursive, you use existential variables to abstract truths from nature which can be used by anybody regardless of who they are, without bias.
Nature is not fundamentally recursed upon itself in areas where we haven’t yet translated rationality. This means that if you surrender your mind, nature will find all of the corruptions for you.
You may not become a billionairre, but I guarantee you, if you apply these principles right now, and manage to ‘go under’, you will achieve lots of friends; a wonderful sex-life and considerable commodity to sustain yourself with. Just give up, it’s right there waiting for you. Your wealth is determined by your contradiction frequency and encryption levels, violating trust. That’s IT. It’s not complicated, you just have to surrender yourself.
Apologies if this seems spammish, I wanted to communicate the process in more detail here, as many might not be able to memorize how patterns from other posts of mine relate to this specific topic. A few translations of redundancy should help the idea come accross.
America will not always be on top; it will not always BE. The society is counter-intelligent, the constitution contradicts itself and natural law, and even moreso, people worship it to aquire wealth. I can tell you that your window of opportunity to succeed in currency and commodity in any society with a written code of law that currently exists is absolutely assured if you go under. That is going to last for at least my lifetime; as people are still being born into this system before the data integrates. If you want to take this vacation, you can do it now and you will not be punished for it, you will not be caught and you will be dead before any changes are made. It is encrypted beyond this life-cycle. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain; people like myself will continue to do the work, and as you well know, we don’t create things which punish people, so even if we succeed you still make out. If you want to be wealthy, go for it, just watch out for those in the same game. If you break the rules by not contradicting yourself enough, your assets will be seized, otherwise you’ll recieve immunity.
-Justhink
So what is your solution? A solution, mind you, that does not add so much as $0.01 more to my already outrageous taxes!
The quotes I provided seemed to be proposing a general principle that nothing belongs to anyone, and that there were “contradictions” found in the principle that I owned what I earn. This is what I was arguing against.
The OP and some others are arguing pretty much exactly that.
I think the argument in those cases is tending towards the idea that nobody has the right to own anything, and that the state is far better qualified to allocate your money than you are.
The OP proposed such an attitude towards all income over $5M. The principle seems to be getting extended to all other income as well.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s also plenty of land just lying around that nobody created with his hard work (and on which your crops are growing), too…So, obviously people have a basic right to land. Right?