Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is It A Good Thing, To Check One's Bad Self?

Ego Society Politics Human behaviour Spirituality

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#18 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:58 PM

What causes violence?

Try pride, envy, greed, lust, mental instability, drug abuse and alcoholism .


  • CraigD likes this

#19 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 05:14 PM

First, a gun is nothing but a tool for accelerating a projectile.  If I have a cow that is down with a painful and incurable condition, do I allow it to linger for days in pain until it eventually dies on it';s own, or do I place a bullet in a specific spot and bring a quick end to it's suffering?  Which would you consider to be "good"?

I see your point but you don't need a gun to do that in fairness. The only thing I can think of that actually need a gun for is to safely to harm to others.

 

I view capitalism as more of a natural force.  I have skills that I put to good use taking care of cows and land for producing feed and milk which I sell for money that I can use for buying the things that I am not so good at producing. If I am profitable, I can reinvest some of the money into equipment for the farm to improve efficiency, or for hiring help and expertise that I may need or find useful.  

 

It seems a natural arrangement to me.

 

Capitalism, at it's best, is mutually beneficial for all those who do business together, and can allow for growth and creativity

 

The danger of and to capitalism is unbridled greed.

Capitalism is all about competition. One persons gain is another's loss. That's a lot of wasted energy. Unchecked capitalism would create a huge divide of the classes, something that's already a problem.

 

Another big problem with capitalism is that it tends to reward functionality. Artistic work is only viable if it's profitable unless it's done as a hobby and this really stifles creativity.

 

 

Communism on the other hand works on cooperation rather than competition so that energy isn't wasted and everyone can work towards a common goal. The downside is that it doesn't reward individual productivity or encourage innovation, competition is a great motivator.

 

 

Both are open to abuse in order to benefit a select few. It's just less obvious when capitalism is abused.

 

Capitalism is good because it promotes growth, innovation, and development, while Socialism (Communism) stifles it.  Replication without growth and innovation results in stagnation.  Please review the history of the Soviet Union and China over the last century before making a stupid comment like that.  China has been only slightly more successful (or less of an abject failure) due to the relative homogeneity.

Typical brainwashed US propaganda BS! Socialism is not communism. Communism isn't wrong or evil, no more than capitalism anyway.


  • CraigD and Mariel33 like this

#20 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 06:46 PM

I see your point but you don't need a gun to do that in fairness. The only thing I can think of that actually need a gun for is to safely to harm to others.

 

 

In my experience, a gun is the quickest and most economical way to euthanize an animal, provided you know where to place the bullet.  Some may prefer to administer death by injection, but  when it comes to carcass disposal, you have to be concerned about scavengers ingesting the drug should they raid the compost pile.  

 

Additionally, we have many neighbors who hunt on our land, most using guns.  None of them have harmed anyone else with a gun.

 

. Unchecked capitalism would create a huge divide of the classes, something that's already a problem.

 

While I agree that unchecked capitalism fueled only by greed is harmful, I really can't think of anyplace where there is no class division.  Even in country where capitalism is stifled, you still have an elite ruling class.

 

In any case, it is easier to make a system work in theory than in practice.


  • CraigD likes this

#21 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 11:26 PM

In my experience, a gun is the quickest and most economical way to euthanize an animal, provided you know where to place the bullet.  Some may prefer to administer death by injection, but  when it comes to carcass disposal, you have to be concerned about scavengers ingesting the drug should they raid the compost pile.  

 

Additionally, we have many neighbors who hunt on our land, most using guns.  None of them have harmed anyone else with a gun.

 

While I agree that unchecked capitalism fueled only by greed is harmful, I really can't think of anyplace where there is no class division.  Even in country where capitalism is stifled, you still have an elite ruling class.

 

In any case, it is easier to make a system work in theory than in practice.

If capitalism needs representative democracy, how should people determine who becomes elected representatives?



#22 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 01:22 AM

Additionally, we have many neighbors who hunt on our land, most using guns.  None of them have harmed anyone else with a gun.

I didn't say other people. ;)

 

While I agree that unchecked capitalism fueled only by greed is harmful, I really can't think of anyplace where there is no class division.  Even in country where capitalism is stifled, you still have an elite ruling class.

Yes but true communism has no wealth divide and the more a society leans towards true capitalism, the bigger the divide between the top and the bottom classes, as in more people occupy those extremes. It also favours those who are already wealthy which is completely backwards. Left to run for long enough it creates a ruling elite few that have the vast majority if the wealth and the rest gradually become less wealthy. That's what's happening right now and has been for a long time.

 

I what what the OP is trying to get at might be this:



#23 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 05:17 AM

 

 

Yes but true communism has no wealth divide and the more a society leans towards true capitalism, the bigger the divide between the top and the bottom classes, as in more people occupy those extremes. It also favours those who are already wealthy which is completely backwards. Left to run for long enough it creates a ruling elite few that have the vast majority if the wealth and the rest gradually become less wealthy. That's what's happening right now and has been for a long time.

 

The thing is, you can't eliminate capitalism, because that is how people naturally interact.  Even in communist and socialist countries you have "black markets" where unregulated trade takes place.  True communism requires a stifling of human nature.



#24 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 05:52 AM

The thing is, you can't eliminate capitalism, because that is how people naturally interact.  Even in communist and socialist countries you have "black markets" where unregulated trade takes place.  True communism requires a stifling of human nature.

How I see it is that the interaction that sustains capitalism is impossible without violence and controversy. Therefore is it a contradiction to support capitalism but to oppose controversy and violence?  


Edited by Mariel33, 28 December 2016 - 06:13 AM.


#25 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 06:22 AM

How I see it is that the kind of interaction that sustains capitalism is impossible without violence and controversy. Therefore is it a contradiction to support capitalism but to oppose controversy and violence?  

Humans are disagreeable creatures, so human life is impossible without controversy.  

 

As I have pointed out before, capitalism can exist without violence.  It is the people that choose violence that are the problem.

 

If capitalism needs representative democracy, how should people determine who becomes elected representatives?

How are leaders chosen in any situation?  If you have a group of people that want to build a barn, you can't have everyone just randomly nailing lumber, you need someone to direct the efforts of the individuals.  Absent any government or business institutions, a leader with experience will need to somehow arise and lead the project if it is to succeed.  This can be done without an official vote if all involved recognize the most experienced and able leader and just start following.



#26 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 06:26 AM

Humans are disagreeable creatures, so human life is impossible without controversy.  

 

As I have pointed out before, capitalism can exist without violence.  It is the people that choose violence that are the problem.

 

How are leaders chosen in any situation?  If you have a group of people that want to build a barn, you can't have everyone just randomly nailing lumber, you need someone to direct the efforts of the individuals.  Absent any government or business institutions, a leader with experience will need to somehow arise and lead the project if it is to succeed.  This can be done without an official vote if all involved recognize the most experienced and able leader and just start following.

Eventually, infrastructure and structures outright become pointless (skyscrapers, industry and motorways aren't needed), so once all structures that are needed have been built, is it reasonable to expect that no one takes orders from anyone else?


Edited by Mariel33, 28 December 2016 - 06:27 AM.


#27 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 06:36 AM

We still need structures, unless you want to live in naturally formed caves, and structures need to be maintained, and probably eventually replaced.  It seems to me that the only way to avoid the need for leaders and followers is to live an isolated life.  



#28 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 10:00 AM

We still need structures, unless you want to live in naturally formed caves, and structures need to be maintained, and probably eventually replaced.  It seems to me that the only way to avoid the need for leaders and followers is to live an isolated life.  

What happens when anyone can maintain their structure, and perhaps even replace it?



#29 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 06:27 PM

The thing is, you can't eliminate capitalism, because that is how people naturally interact.  Even in communist and socialist countries you have "black markets" where unregulated trade takes place.  True communism requires a stifling of human nature.

I agree.

 

I look at it as a bunch of people marooned on an island (Earth). They would need to build/find shelter, find fresh water, catch food, maybe eventually create an education/apprenticeship system and eventually they could have a functioning and sustainable society. To start with they'd all be very busy and once they have a vibrant and prosperous community they would be able to use the extra time to improve it and focus on taking care of aspects that aren't ideal until they'd made the best of their situation and then be free to enjoy it.

 

That's not what's happening though. A lack of jobs is viewed as a bad thing. It seems like the goal of the current system is to ensure that people are kept busy so that the problems of society can never really be addressed and hunger, war and poverty continue to the benefit of only a select few.


Edited by A-wal, 28 December 2016 - 11:50 PM.


#30 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 29 December 2016 - 06:07 AM

I didn't say other people. ;)

 

Yes but true communism has no wealth divide and the more a society leans towards true capitalism, the bigger the divide between the top and the bottom classes, as in more people occupy those extremes. It also favours those who are already wealthy which is completely backwards. Left to run for long enough it creates a ruling elite few that have the vast majority if the wealth and the rest gradually become less wealthy. That's what's happening right now and has been for a long time.

 

How much poverty is real, (inability to obtain water, food, clothing and shelter) and how much is perceived ( inability to obtain the latest gadget or fashion item)?  My mother has told the story many times about once, years ago, seeing a news report about how many people were living below the poverty level, and how shocked she was to learn that we were below the poverty level! She had no idea that we were poor.

 

Had the original poster listed greed and envy as being "bad" instead of capitalism and guns, I would be inclined to agree that we need to keep those human traits in check.



#31 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 30 December 2016 - 02:13 PM

What happens when anyone can maintain their structure, and perhaps even replace it?

 

Anyone can.  That is why Home Depot, Lowes, and other building supply businesses exist.  Personally I have been a construction inspector for 28 years and seen plenty of commercial and residential work.



#32 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 30 December 2016 - 05:21 PM

Anyone can.  That is why Home Depot, Lowes, and other building supply businesses exist.  Personally I have been a construction inspector for 28 years and seen plenty of commercial and residential work.

But what when anyone can maintain their own house - or structure - without the need for business of any kind, because money doesn't exist?


Edited by Mariel33, 30 December 2016 - 05:22 PM.


#33 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 30 December 2016 - 05:38 PM

But what when anyone can maintain their own house - or structure - without the need for business of any kind, because money doesn't exist?

 

Just what rock have you been living under?  Business does exist, and people can maintain their own houses.  I have been a homeowner for 30 years, and have no landlord to call about repairs so I do what I can (except the new roof, fascia, soffits, and windows).  Money is a medium of exchange for goods and services that are recognized by society in general.  Barter would only work in a more primitive society with no central organization.


Edited by fahrquad, 30 December 2016 - 05:39 PM.


#34 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 31 December 2016 - 09:54 PM

Just what rock have you been living under?  Business does exist, and people can maintain their own houses.  I have been a homeowner for 30 years, and have no landlord to call about repairs so I do what I can (except the new roof, fascia, soffits, and windows).  Money is a medium of exchange for goods and services that are recognized by society in general.  Barter would only work in a more primitive society with no central organization.

Money is a medium of exchange for goods and services that are recognized by society in general. Barter would only work in a more primitive society with no central organization.

I’m not sure that the assertion that moneyless trade is possible only in a more primitive society than ours is true, or that money is necessary for a more advanced, put still pre-abundance society.

Money enabled many advances in civilization, making trade much easier, but I think this was primarily because money is a means of communication, where that communication is limited to information about the value of goods and services. As other, more general communication technology improves, the need for money is reduced.

We are seeing this, in a limited way, with barter and swapping websites. If these become more widely used and sophisticated, the amount of money needed for trade will reduced beyond the negligible amount it is reduced by them at present.

A key concept attending advances in trade that might lead to the obsolescence of money is economic friction. I’m surprised at how little systematic, encyclopedic information about this are found by a superficial internet search, given how fundamental it seems to understanding modern economics. Is short, economic friction is anything prevents markets from perfectly following the law that buyers will always buy from the seller offering the desired good or service at the lowest price. Friction is caused mainly by a breakdown of the communication of information about cost – for example, when we go to a brick-and-mortar store, we’re don’t know if its good can be bought at another store for less. Internet-based technology can fix this source of friction.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Ego, Society, Politics, Human behaviour, Spirituality