Deport the illegal Irish first...there's more of them and they can't speak the language properly.Thers's a pretty good number of illegal Irish in almost every American major city on both coasts.....and after all we've done for the pasty bastards.
Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
Stuff like this video from MSM is what I'm talking about. It's going to be hard to deny Trump at the convention, IMO.
So Trump is a racist, bigot, Xenophobe and probably shakes tiny humans according to some because of his stance on illegal immigration from Mexico.
Guess what? Trump won the Hispanic vote a couple days ago.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/20/donald-trump-overwhelmingly-wins-hispanic-vote-nyc/
Guess what? Trump won the Hispanic vote a couple days ago.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/20/donald-trump-overwhelmingly-wins-hispanic-vote-nyc/
I had to give this a LIKE because it's at least rational and coherent.
There are over a billion Muslims in the world. The percentage of them that are radicalized is exceedingly small, but with such a large number to start with, that makes it not insignificant. There are also a billion Catholics in the world. If some small percentage of them became radicalized, would we suggest banning any of them coming into the country as well? What about the Sikhs and Tamil, the IRA or the KKK? Where is the line of demarcation? That's the underlying question. At what point do the lines between our ideals and our biases and prejudices blur and become indistinguishable?
Banning one particular group only leaves avenues for others to fill the void or find ways around it. The world we have now does not lend itself to isolationism well at all. The modern ease of travel and transit and the need for those to be available mean that the best option is to be vigilant and take reasonable precautions. Closing borders, building walls and banning any particular segment of the population from entering the country are reactionary, not reasonable.
History shows that when societies have become reactionary to real or perceived threats, one of the first casualties is always personal liberty. That's something I can't abide by. The moment that your liberties are diminished, mine are as well.
Re-quoting:
Sorry, but I see Trump's comments as the manifestation of his prejudices and a xenophobic attitude, and pandering to the same in those that might support him. Injecting those into his message was unnecessary. One can hold a position for stronger immigration policies and controls without using that type of rhetoric.
Yes, within his own party and his primary adversary (somewhat equally) slighted them for their "New York values".
"According to the most recent Gallup poll taken in March, 77 percent of Hispanics view Mr. Trump unfavorably, and as he has become better known to the community, he’s become more disliked."
Moral of the story: never insult a New Yorker for being a New Yorker. 
Fer shame. You didn't make it a selfie with your crew.No pink hair but you get the drift....
That is something that we agree on.
And as much as I disagree with Buchanan in other areas, I think he was pretty spot-on with his evaluation of what could happen with outcomes of the convention. I have the distinct feeling and impression that if there's a back-room attempt to broker the convention, that the party is betting the farm on the outcome and the dice they're playing with are loaded..
Yes, if there is a significant threat, by all means ban them.
Hogwash. I ban groups from my house. The world does not grind to a halt. There is no shame in keeping my family safe. The same goes for my country. Your view indicates that there is some threshold for how many innocent people can be killed. If a few bad guys get in with the good ones and they kill a few people, it insignificant. I don't see it that way. One of those killed could be my own. Since Europe has allowed the influx of immigrants to flood them, just banning people from a certain part of the world like Syria is no longer viable. To keep the terrorists out, we must keep the Muslims out. Now, the "Their not all terrorists" mantra is probably correct. But, I'm afraid that because the "good ones" didn't fight to get rid of the radicals, they have stuck themselves in their situation, as poor as it may be. Bringing their problems to my country doesn't solve their problems, it makes it my problem and theirs. So, while you may not be thinking of your family, I am driven to keep mine alive and it starts by not inviting strangers over. Now, had each individual country kept control over their borders, there would not be the spread of terrorism that we see now. What isn't reasonable is to continue to allow them to roam freely through the world. It sure as hell has not worked out well so far.
What history is that? Please elaborate.
You can "see it" any way you want. It doesn't make it true. Can you read the mans mind? Your subjective opinion is just that and you've already proven you'll change what he says to fit your opinion. Misquoting the man told me what I needed to know about about your bias. He didn't say anything prejudiced but you found a way to misquote him to fit your narrative.
Yes, within his own party and his primary adversary (somewhat equally) slighted them for their "New York values".
"According to the most recent Gallup poll taken in March, 77 percent of Hispanics view Mr. Trump unfavorably, and as he has become better known to the community, he’s become more disliked."
Moral of the story: never insult a New Yorker for being a New Yorker.
Tough way to spin a win. Like it or not, he got the votes.
Last edited:
It depends on how you define "radicalized". If you include those who hold various beliefs that are generally incompatible with what we regard as a free society, then the percentage is not "exceedingly small" by any means.
After the civil war the Democrat Party lost the American vote...after the civil war the republican party had half the white vote and ALL the black vote...the RNC was the party of Lincoln the Party of emancipation,The DNC went from being the party of slavery to the party of jim crow and the kkk...the kkk wasn't just targeting blacks...they were targeting blacks who were regestering blacks in to the republican party and getting them to vote.
The DNC need a voting block to appeal to and they turned to the massive immigrant population the robber barons were flooding the country with..this wave of immigrants like the present wave of immigrants were not a result of a mandate from the people of the US,but were the results of a hanfull of elite industrialists who were looking to rape the natural and human resources of the contenient many of these people were european bankers and elite.
The DNC turned to ward healing in the immigrant communities buying votes, just as today the DNC takes a gun and puts it to the head of American citizens and forces them at the point of violence to give them money through taxes to then go to and buy the votes of the immigrant communities,this is why back in the 60s the DNC changed the immigration policies of the US from one of bringing in the those whose skills were most needed by the country to bringing in those who pose the greatest burden to the country.The DNC wants to bring in the poorest most alien and most illiterate groups,because these people will be the most dependent on the DNC to steal from Americans in order to survive,it has come to the point now were the immigrant communities demand the DNC not just give them the neccesity to survive but to ensure for them a comfortable life at the expense of the US taxpayer.....
One has to wonder if one has half a brain...why is it that the DNC isn't interested in the quality of life of the average Mexican until that Mexican ILLEGALLY crosses the border....why is that the DNC targets and vilifies Isreal for it's policies, targeted and harrassed South Africa for it's policies, and yet Latin America treats it's citizens like shit even murders them on mass scales and not a single member of the DNC has proposed any legislation that would punish the billionaers who bleed the poor of Latin America dry? why because the DNC doesn't give a fuck about the lives of Mexicans it gives a fuck about importing a voting block and forcing th American citizen to finance it.It wraps it's con game in a sugar coated wrapper of mindless leftist rhetoric and self righteous american liberals and race baiters swallow it down...and all they are doing is helping prop up poverty and death in Latin America. Without the valve of being able to dump their poor on the US ...the goverment of Mexico would be faced with 20 million leading a revolution,,,the DNC's immigration policies protect a handfull of billionaires control over the wealth of Mexico,and to steal the ballot boxes from Americans. Without immigration the DNC would have disappeared 50 years ago.
The DNC need a voting block to appeal to and they turned to the massive immigrant population the robber barons were flooding the country with..this wave of immigrants like the present wave of immigrants were not a result of a mandate from the people of the US,but were the results of a hanfull of elite industrialists who were looking to rape the natural and human resources of the contenient many of these people were european bankers and elite.
The DNC turned to ward healing in the immigrant communities buying votes, just as today the DNC takes a gun and puts it to the head of American citizens and forces them at the point of violence to give them money through taxes to then go to and buy the votes of the immigrant communities,this is why back in the 60s the DNC changed the immigration policies of the US from one of bringing in the those whose skills were most needed by the country to bringing in those who pose the greatest burden to the country.The DNC wants to bring in the poorest most alien and most illiterate groups,because these people will be the most dependent on the DNC to steal from Americans in order to survive,it has come to the point now were the immigrant communities demand the DNC not just give them the neccesity to survive but to ensure for them a comfortable life at the expense of the US taxpayer.....
One has to wonder if one has half a brain...why is it that the DNC isn't interested in the quality of life of the average Mexican until that Mexican ILLEGALLY crosses the border....why is that the DNC targets and vilifies Isreal for it's policies, targeted and harrassed South Africa for it's policies, and yet Latin America treats it's citizens like shit even murders them on mass scales and not a single member of the DNC has proposed any legislation that would punish the billionaers who bleed the poor of Latin America dry? why because the DNC doesn't give a fuck about the lives of Mexicans it gives a fuck about importing a voting block and forcing th American citizen to finance it.It wraps it's con game in a sugar coated wrapper of mindless leftist rhetoric and self righteous american liberals and race baiters swallow it down...and all they are doing is helping prop up poverty and death in Latin America. Without the valve of being able to dump their poor on the US ...the goverment of Mexico would be faced with 20 million leading a revolution,,,the DNC's immigration policies protect a handfull of billionaires control over the wealth of Mexico,and to steal the ballot boxes from Americans. Without immigration the DNC would have disappeared 50 years ago.
Last edited:
The problem with liberals and others with their claim of a more open world in regards to economy and immigration is their failure to include the result of that more "inclusive" world.
While it is correct to say things like, 'We have a global economy', the result has not been positive. Just look around. Everything is getting worse not better.
The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result." Albert Einstein.
Open borders and world economy has not made people more free. It has not stopped economic strife. It has not created equality. It has not stopped war.
There are many reasons why it doesn't work. What amazes me is the refusal to look at the current results while not only continuing on the path but actually saying that more open borders is the answer. How stupid is that?
While it is correct to say things like, 'We have a global economy', the result has not been positive. Just look around. Everything is getting worse not better.
The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result." Albert Einstein.
Open borders and world economy has not made people more free. It has not stopped economic strife. It has not created equality. It has not stopped war.
There are many reasons why it doesn't work. What amazes me is the refusal to look at the current results while not only continuing on the path but actually saying that more open borders is the answer. How stupid is that?
I think it's hubris and laziness,and conciet...it's like the do gooders who used to drop a wad of cash in the church collection plate...they assurred themselves that they had cleansed their souls of all sin, and they no longer had to think about the poor or why the poor were poor...the moderen liberal puts a gun to the head of the working class families head takes their money and drops it in the collection plate of the welfare state and then pats themselves on the back for what great humans they are unlike those filthy republicans...
As you say globalisim has destroyed lives...corn growers in Mexico an occupation that many held and provided them with a lifestyle that gave them a degree of independence, have now all been destroyed by cheap corn flooding into Mexico from American growers who are in no small part subsidized by the American Taxpayers.....these people are now made wage slaves.
Globalization is a con game that's being wrapped in leftist rhetoric so the stupid swallow it down...at the end of the day it is the uber rich who will profit mightly from globalization while the people are left to be wage slaves to corporations and left with enviromental disasters.
YOU god damn gun nut NRA suporting,white supremacy worshiping animal killing,planet destroying.gay bashing baby shaking woman beating,indegineous people killing,porno watching,asian american oppressing,fundamentalist yahooing,constitutionalist flag waving,pick up truck carbon eating,tree murdering,river polluting, global warming denying,American with disability harassing,safe space raping,triggering,privledged,hate speech mouthing,.......NUT, how the hell are ya.
Damn skippy.Ohh yeah
Thank you for offering this point of view. I do think that there are many Muslims who do embrace their religion peacefully and honor that peace. Reading this point of view you express here does explain what I did perceive as being hate, fear. As you point out it is fear, fear of loss or harm to your family. I can better comprehend now the view of keeping 'them' all out. It was what got taught about wearing a uniform.
"You all look the same. if one of you goes off and kills a kid, you all killed a kid."
So, I can comprehend what you express here. It in my view is a valid argument and rationale to block access to all of a specific group. Normally, though I would rather see peaceful inclusion in equanimity. Further, I can agree with some of your views on globalism. It does not work when the 'Free Market' is set loose. I'm not sure it would work if it used the 'Fair Market'. It would be interesting to give that a try though, I think. Meanwhile, I'm heading the route of going local as best I can. Now, granted a lot of my vaping stuff is not local. Finance despite my dislike of the notion of money, plays part in that. One has to use what one can afford. And yes, going to be saving for better quality gear found locally, getting into some DIY for juices.
Again, thank you for presenting this view clearly.
It seems as though the problem with immigration in this country or Europe is that people are not asked simple questions . Do you want to be loyal to one flag , one nation , one set of laws , one
constitution, and one set of social norms ? If the answer , or their actions say no , then they stay on the other side of the wall.
constitution, and one set of social norms ? If the answer , or their actions say no , then they stay on the other side of the wall.
well, then I guess the next logical question would be.....are you lying to get some free shit.
To be fair, my point of view is not only restricted to fear. Terrorism can not be eliminated by spreading it out.
If a population is infected with plague, or ebola, then a mass movement of that population into the rest of the world will spread the disease, not wipe it out. Again, it's very poor circumstances for those affected(not sick but in an infected region) but in order to minimize and defeat the disease it must be isolated. If a very small percentage of migrating people carry the disease, the migration has not only been useless to keep non infected people safe, it has potentially spread the disease making it much harder to address.
We only need to look at recent history to see this happening with terrorism. Under current policy, terrorism is increasing. If I had my way, from the start, the disease would have been isolated and then eliminated. This would have included not weakening other countries immune systems like Syria, Libya and others.
I don't view my position as isolation of the US, I view it as isolation of the disease so it can be eliminated, or at least controlled. When the disease is eliminated or controlled, we can get back on track and the region can rejoin the rest of the world.
I comprehended that. Direct question for you though.
Would that you were grand leader most exalted, change policy so that none on Earth went hungry knowing that food and other resources are abundant and lacking only will to logistically ensure all had plenty?
Know it is another question but it is relevant. Again, assuming you had oh super great leader status, would you alter policy so that any wanting homes had them freely, or if they contributed say 20 hours a week volunteering at any local work needing done? Further would you offer free medical care, free education for any voluntarily offering labor, services, products to local communities? Let's also put down a ground line, people volunteer 30 hours a week, they get housing, food, medical, power, heating, sewage all covered in return for volunteering in their community. Lets say you can effect that globally as the grand leader. Would you do that?
To clarify, anyone of any race, creed, nation, ability, gender, orientation, religion can volunteer to do 30 hours of work for their local community. In return they get all their basic needs met freely. This is my idea of equanimity, all of us together as one family, all our basic needs met. If someone desires more let them do more than the volunteer 30 hours to attain that. Yes, that is fair. Still they have their basic needs met and can go get educated to do brain surgery if they want, while doing 30 hours a week at say a bakery, or laying road, fixing a dam, rebuilding classic cars.
I ask because to me this seems a logical way to end fear, which also ends terrorism, the systematic use of fear to attain goals. If you think about it, the U.S. government, or any government is a system. Government uses fear of punishment to keep citizens obeying laws. Is that not terrorism as well?
Let the people do and have a leader lead without leading. The people see the example and emulate it. See someone in need, help out best you can. Kind of goes to Plato's axiom. "Be kind to any you meet, we all walk hard roads."
Just another little tidbit here, this idea I have is kind of similar to what a guy in Lebanon was attempting to do for his country and neighboring Africa. He wound up dead because he wanted to not use the American dollar, wanted to divest from American interests and chose to not consent to the American way. Sure we brought freedom there to him and his. Even when leaders seek peace, act in peace it seems terrorism and war dominate and continue on.
So, if you could switch out the whole system we have, would you? Apologies, I'll hop off this box now. I much dislike political crap. It does not seem to solve anything but rather to make everything worse. Apologies for hijacking a little. @Time, you can respond or not. My bit is a bit rhetorical and hypothetical. I was not directing the litmus of my expression at you specifically, rather a general you. You specifically just happened to present a focus. No ill will toward you specifically.
Last edited:
No. Grand Leader is one thing but only a God could pull it off. Since I don't believe in a God and wouldn't purport to be one or speak for one if I did, human nature would not allow such a feat.
It's human nature to desire MORE. There is no cure for greed or corruption. I might make thing equal for all as a means to placate them but I'm human so my "equality" and that of my friends and family might be a better equality. These things always breed resentment and discontent.
Also, I live on a Reservation. Homes are provided for those that are born into them(tribal members). While I won't elaborate, much of what I see is not what I would describe as a healthy community.
All are born equal. That is to say all have equal rights and any laws should apply to all, equally. But all are also individuals. As individuals they must have the individual choices to do as they please and live with the circumstances of their choices. Given, of course, that their choices do not restrict the rights of others.
Heh. You added a bunch.
I'll address some of this later, but right now I'll point out that what you describe is basically a government job for everyone. 20-30 hour community service for basic needs is a government job with the payment being the house and etc. The government cannot employ a complete population. It's just a form of communism.
I certainly don't mind discussing such things. I know there are a portion of the population that believes man is something more than what we really are. That hardship can be eliminated. It cannot be eliminated.
very well put Time......how do you quantify the worth of someone's life experince....from the material security they possess...the spiritual enlighement they attiain, the level of art they produce,the childeren they raise, the land they take care of, the knowledge they persue, the music they play, the laugh they can produce,the friends they have......people have diffrent goals with what to do with the time they are alloted on the planet and they make choices and sacrfice one thing for the other in order to attain those goals...this is what is wrong with socialism and communisim it sees the human being only in terms of the material units it produces, and only see it;s needs in terms of material needs. It does not allow for they individual to choose their own definition of a worthy life.Life has been and will always be a very messy affair,but that is the nature of freedom.
Lord Sidhartha was the heir to the throne, a prince in line to inheret a kingdom and great wealth....he left it all behind took up the begging bowl and became a mendicant monk with not a whit of material security,and he became the Buddha...was his life better or worse off for that choice...was humanity better or more poorly served by his choice...
Van Gough gave up the pursuit material security and lived in poverty to produce some of the greatest art of mankind...would Van Gough or the world have been better served if Van Gough had been forced to work of the people's collective pea farm 30 hours a week.
Last edited:
The problem with the grand leader is as i see it your assuming all people will go along with this ? That all would do their fair share and nobody would want more . Basicly nobody would have free will if this would work . What would become of the mentaly defective or physically defective in such a world ? I think your question is the same question that Hitler proposed ..him being the leader and all the supermen working as one for the good of Aryan society .
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
The ill, infirm, defective, elderly are all cared for the same as others. Everyone has all their basic needs met. Even those in need of special needs.
I am not holding out there needs to be a grand leader. I suggested that as means of providing a structure of authority, which seems all anyone desire. This is clear because we keep returning to this point, we make hierarchies in which those at top rule all.
What we need is realizing all life is equal. There is none better or worse. No life is less or more worth in pursuit and attainment of love, compassion, joy, satisfaction.
What I would like seeing can be put better here:
http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/p/contributionism-part-1-introduction.html
That itself is only a suggestion and only a portion of what I see as a response to not merely fixing a system we have that is broken, corrupted but replacing it all together. What we do does not work. Why not change what we do to see if that can work?
Instead of to have peace we prepare for and have war, why not act peacefully and create peace? Instead of the United States wasting over what, 45 billion tons of food annually, why not create a distribution system to help feed everyone and not have waste? It's too expensive? Really, when the methane released from that wasted food in our land fills kills the entire planet? Sure you go try buying another planet then. Too expensive then to simply change your mind, to change will?
This is why I dislike the political. It's full of bullshit ass wiping of those who deem it too expensive to save life, yet not too expensive to create nuclear weapons to destroy life. That shit is plain fucked up imho and I care less, call it socialism, call it dick in a hole. This to me isn't about any political 'party' as much as about human beings.
Yes, I realize we're flawed. Yes, I realize greed is a sick bitch refusing to die. We must at least forge some effort. Yes, I do think we are all worth it. I think we are capable of it, of being more than we are. I mean that in the most positive and non-meddling manner. We can be divinity I think. I think all we lack is changing mind, changing will.
This to me is being human and loving humanity as one race. If we continue as we are, not too many more tomorrows do I think we'll have. So why not try something different? Maybe we get different results?
Do I think people would go along? Tough question. Seems there is already resistance. "We can't do this, it's untested, it won't work, it's silly, too expensive."
When all you making excuses lie rotting in your graves, you might then realize death does not care about excuses. Life does not either. And yes, all these objections are nothing more than excuses.
Hm, let me give you something to gnaw on. We vape. It is different. Some of us used to smoke tobacco. We thought, "oh different, all the other different did not work to help us, this won't either." We were encouraged to try anyway, to let go of an excuse. A good number of us are five or six years without smoking tobacco. Now, governments are rising up to help tobacco companies regain profits.
Look at that, a small group of folks swayed big companies, swayed governments. We sway mainstream media too. The media is tobaccos voice for now. The media will be swayed. More smokers will see we found something that works, our number will grow, we'll keep swaying the minds and wills all the while.
Not sure if people will go along for other changes. At least there is one which is a concrete example of what happens if they do. It also proves what many deemed impossible to be possible. Ergo, I do think we can do better.
Last edited:
The methane point is moot. Everything that rots creates methane. Whether it's in a landfill in the US or a sewer or outhouse in Africa.
You keep talking about "expensive". Expensive isn't the issue with the exception that what you propose won't work so the expense is wasted.
People won't go along because people are individuals. You keep saying "equal" but refuse to see people as individuals. You don't take human nature and individuality into account. In order to accomplish what you propose, you have to take stuff from some people to give to others. Let's just use land as an example. Who decides who gets what? Are all houses going to be the same? Who decides who gets what house? Do I have to sell my horses so you can build houses in my pasture?
From your link,
"A move towards a world without money, is a giant step towards higher consciousness and a highway to enlightenment."
As dreamy as it sounds, we don't live in a world of "higher consciousness". We are not on the "highway to enlightenment". We live in the real world. In the real world, people do and act like people. Individuals. Some are good and some are not.
I agree with @Time. I think your heart is in the right place and it sounds like a great idea but people are the monkey wrench in the plan . There is still going to be corruption , criminals ,liars ,murderers, and theives and war and suffering its the human nature . Its the history of the earth . Thats why we have religion and laws so its not a all out killfest of only the strong . You speak of heaven but maybe earth is really hell and we are waiting to go to heaven when we die .
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Exactly proving my point. "Hey bud fuck you it won't work so it'd be too hard, too costly, too expensive to even try."
How do you know it won't work? Ever tried it before? If not, why not? And don't just hand wave "it won't work" as an excuse because that is all it is. You may not think it'll work, some others might not. Ever seen how some dumb fool usually being told whatever won't work, takes the dare and makes it work? If you don't think it will why stop those who want to try? Why not fund them, support them in order that you can have the "I told you so"?
I did not refuse individuality and will not. What I see is equal is human beings and you trying to conflate that with disregard of individuality does not stand. Yes, I see people are all different. You can also see all people are people. That is what I mean by equal. Be different. Different does not make you more or less worthy, you're equal to someone even more different. You're all human beings.
And that excuses you or anyone to give up on humanity? "Oh fuck it, some are good, some are bad there's no fighting that or correcting it, won't bother."
I am not exactly saying correct it either in the way you may think. I am saying work with people, as individuals but equals. All of us are human and require approximately the same basic needs. Once you get enough to where the needs are met, volunteering could come into play more so.
Why do nurses choose nursing? They could easily peddle sex, work in factories, go fly planes, be cooks. No, they choose being nurses. People will do what people will do. Some like helping other people. If that means building schools, building bridges, being a nurse, doctor so it is.
People will do what they want to do, paid or not. They like doing what they do. Let them carry on with they do, excelling and becoming better at it all the time. Offer some minor incentive for those working extra to have more, say a ten percent bonus for being damn good at what they do. That is if you even have money at all. I do not see need for it really as the whole Earth belongs to every animal on it, not only humans. Every resource for every living creature.
Your question of who gets what house, what do houses get built like, etc. People still go on and build houses they desire, where they desire so long as someone else is not using the land and area they choose, unless of course they get together and decide upon some arrangements. For example one couple could choose to have a small trailer home, park it on a farm used by another couple and their family. The husband of trailer couple might be an irrigation engineer, he helps the farm by setting up better irrigation. His wife might be a school teacher, she offers the farm family private tutoring lessons. The trailer couple might enjoy moving around to various farms. The irrigation guy might pick up classes to groom horses and offer that skill as service too.
In short it really to me seems as moot as the methane point. The trouble caused by methane does not care about where it is or who caused it. People will live where they can in any way they can. If these means making agreements and honoring them, bartering, and sharing property a lot might do it if it also reduced crime. Recall, everyone has every basic need met. They only work extra to supply extra for themselves. So may be the farm family tells this cute trailer couple to fuck off, they need to grow more hay where the trailer would be. What then if the trailer couple found hay they could barter his grooming and irrigation skills to get? "Hey farmer Joe, I can get you more hay if you let us live there. I'll need to work over at Farmer Brown's two days a week though. I'll be here two days working for you. Another two days the guy Jones has horses I tend."
I'm not denying individual problems would arise, nor denying people are individuals. I am saying human beings are equal to human beings. We all need to 'get over ourselves' and see that, see we might make something work.
And no, I'm not suggesting any violence be used, no guns, no sneaky ass poison the well, no coercing anyone to give up anything. This is something peaceful.
Fair enough on tagging it collectivist. I could suggest it is not. This is more each individual ... in a way it is collectivist. Unbarring the negativity the idea has construed with it is difficult. People see collectivism and are reminded of fascism, communism. People with negative intentions used neutral ideas to effect negative change upon the world/s. There are people who try refraining from letting intention taint neutral ideas. They can do it but it requires lots of comprehension, not only on their part.
well the elephant in the room is that in say the western societies there is total freedom to experiment in collectivist experiments, and for the most part they have either been dismal failures or they have not offered people enough to make the idea popular.in other words in the marketplace of ideas...that dog don't hunt.
Fair. Still it is also fair to say the ancient Greeks tried all forms of governing, none worked. Still think we may do better.
What do we do with the non enlightened people in this society? Do we clense them? What about farmer bob who picked a bad piece of land and wants farmer joes land now instead . Who is in charge of giving these individual humans all this attention ?
Its not that people wouldn't want a society where everyone gets along and is at peace its just not possible. Will snakes also not eat mice ? Will lions not kill any other animal cause its not fair ? Its a nice dream but thats all it is its a dream a fairy tail .
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Its not that people wouldn't want a society where everyone gets along and is at peace its just not possible. Will snakes also not eat mice ? Will lions not kill any other animal cause its not fair ? Its a nice dream but thats all it is its a dream a fairy tail .
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
I think you are making the assumption your can goveren people's consciousness...you can't.
"Life is suffering"- The Buddha.
Whether it was Satan offering Christ dominion over the world or whether it was the god Mara offering to Make Buddha the universal monarch..both were offered the power to install a goverment over humanity,and both refused the offer, because it was an illusion a false offer. Both Christ and the Buddha sought a way to end human suffering,and both realized that it wasn't who or what goverened humanity, but rather rasing human conciousness that would be the key to ending suffering...and the most efficent way to that conciousness is done in freedom.and the only one that can see the path to follow is each individual to his own.
For humanity to end suffering each individual must be given the freedom to express and follow THEIR own truth.
in other words...be excellent to one another and party on dudes.
Whether it was Satan offering Christ dominion over the world or whether it was the god Mara offering to Make Buddha the universal monarch..both were offered the power to install a goverment over humanity,and both refused the offer, because it was an illusion a false offer. Both Christ and the Buddha sought a way to end human suffering,and both realized that it wasn't who or what goverened humanity, but rather rasing human conciousness that would be the key to ending suffering...and the most efficent way to that conciousness is done in freedom.and the only one that can see the path to follow is each individual to his own.
For humanity to end suffering each individual must be given the freedom to express and follow THEIR own truth.
in other words...be excellent to one another and party on dudes.
Last edited:
As @pulsevape mentioned, it has been tried. It actually does exist to an extent, but it requires small(ish) groups that think alike. It works for the Amish But they have a strict system of belief. If it was something that could grow into a global system, if it could work, it would have been done by now. It works for the Amish because those that don't like it, can leave. It works for many religious systems on the small scale.
No, you're not understanding my point or I am not doing a very good job of explaining. I'll put it in my perspective. I see people on the street with their signs for handouts. The first thing I think is, why do they need help? Don't they have friends or family? Can they help themselves and just don't want to? I don't know. I do know that my house is open for a person that I know needs help and I know the person. So, in your proposal, no one needs help. But, what happens with people that don't want to do anything? Do they get a house?
People are individuals. Sure they are equal, but that is not the same. In the religious groups that use community such as the Amish, individuality is limited. Sure, you can have an individual personality and skill, but you can't watch tv. Your individuality is restricted. That's what makes those groups work. And for an individual that does not conform, there is no Amish to build your house. You're on your own.
So, who is going to build the house for the person that doesn't want to do anything? Everybody is equal, but only to the extent that they want to be equal. As individuals, they may not want to be equal. They might want to be more,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or less. Who says a person has done enough to get a house and how do you know that others won't resent a person who does very little? I don't have to resent the person with the sign as they chose to not have a house. I would resent the person with a sign if he/she got a house and did nothing but hold a sign for it. Individual choices have consequences.
I think you're a bit more optimistic than reality indicates. People now make money in lots of ways, many of them non productive. How is the race car driver going to survive? Who the hell is going to be okay with providing a guy with a home that does nothing but drive a car around a track for fun? What about a guy that is an invents stuff that is never useful? What do you do with failures? In reality, they have to move on. Work at McDonalds. My sister-in-law is a nurse because it's a job. She'd rather stay home and raise her kids. It's possible for me to make a living with horses. In what world is a community going to support such a thing for sport?
I don't believe your system will reduce crime very much. Having a house and food does not stop coveting. It doesn't stop jealousy. It doesn't stop addiction. It doesn't stop horny. It doesn't stop individuality.
A Navajo Prayer
In beauty may I walk
All day long may I walk
Through the returning seasons may I walk
Beautifully will I possess again
Beautifully birds,
Beautifully joyful birds
On the trail marked with pollen may I walk
With grasshoppers about my feet may I walk
With dew about my feet may I walk
With beauty may I walk
With beauty before me may I walk
With beauty behind me may I walk
With beauty above me may I walk
With beauty all around me may I walk
In old age, wandering on a trail of beauty, lively, may I walk
In old age, wandering on a trail of beauty, living again, may I walk
It is finished in beauty.
It is finished in beauty.
This seems to me to be a better way of achieving the end to suffering than some collectivist totalitatrian mindfuck.....actually it sounds like a good day out fishing to me...As a teacher I had once siad..."It's real hard to control happy people."
In beauty may I walk
All day long may I walk
Through the returning seasons may I walk
Beautifully will I possess again
Beautifully birds,
Beautifully joyful birds
On the trail marked with pollen may I walk
With grasshoppers about my feet may I walk
With dew about my feet may I walk
With beauty may I walk
With beauty before me may I walk
With beauty behind me may I walk
With beauty above me may I walk
With beauty all around me may I walk
In old age, wandering on a trail of beauty, lively, may I walk
In old age, wandering on a trail of beauty, living again, may I walk
It is finished in beauty.
It is finished in beauty.
This seems to me to be a better way of achieving the end to suffering than some collectivist totalitatrian mindfuck.....actually it sounds like a good day out fishing to me...As a teacher I had once siad..."It's real hard to control happy people."
Last edited:
Perhaps not for greed, but corruption will end when people finally realize that political authority is a superstitious illusion.
That's true. But @MorelyMagicMist is under the impression our system is flawed and a new system will cure it. But, our system is not inherently flawed, it is corrupt. And a new system can and will be corrupted.
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
You miss the point fully. When all are equal it does not matter if one does, or does not do. Everyone is provided for because there is abundance. The universe creates abundance for all of itself. Earth does the same. All of this around us belongs to none of us, to all of us at the same time.
You cannot take it with you, no one can. Matter of fact might be said it owns you, me, everyone not that we can ever own it. We are only passing through. Why not leave it better or at east as near as life, nature has it as we can? Why not comprehend none own, we are only stewards at best making use of what have you at a given moment.
There is abundance at this moment, unfortunately there is lacking abundance in will to share. Why? Well, look up the scarcity myth. From what I've found it originates in England from some Christian preacher. He wrote that resources were finite on Earth and that we needed to stay at a certain population, or risk running out of resources.
Yes, we have certain finite resources. A few factors come to play though, human ingenuity being the biggest. We created new ways to synthesis resources, crude oil can be mixed up in a lab for around $20 per 55gal drum. It is a chemical composition, labs research those, learn. Human ingenuity also saw food production become excessive.
http://foodfirst.org/the-myth-scarcity-the-reality-there-is-enough-food/
Our farming capacity only continues to increase exponentially. We will continue having plenty food for all, indefinitely no matter our population. If nothing else Americans can take up what some of the rest of the world does, eats bugs. We have yet to truly engage in aqua-culture either, there's lots of kelp farms to grow as cover for clam beds and plankton hatcheries. Kelp also provides good bio-mass for fuels as well as being edible.
Building homes?
He admits it took him some time to build his simple hut. The point being houses can be built readily with materials at hand. Have folks unable to build their own, organize volunteers.
As much as you condemn folks for being inherently bad, evil, negative I will disagree. People want to share, want to be happy. The concept of ownership beyond owning the you inside you is silly. Once you die, the you in your body goes on, your body remains to become mulch. No that was not meant as gross, it may be poor taste but it clearly expresses my point. And you will possibly still miss the point. I can happily agree to disagree. I think new ideas will replace old staid ones which seem apt to block the path of life, life will only go around like little streams that erode mountains.
It is flawed, it supports falsified superstitious authority. Yes it is possible a new way could be corrupted. It is also possible it may not be, too. You seem keen to refuse to simply try. Therein lies the crux for me. You cling to the devil you know out of fear. Why fear human potential so much?
I am not arguing that evil or negative do not exist. What I am arguing is that due to evil and negativity, goodness and the positive remain shackled. "Oh but we must not try, because people are evil."
Right, you'll have evil people in any way you go. Usually the good people find ways to hobble the evil ones. Or, the evil people see the good people growing and thriving and they join in and become good to survive.
I happen to ponder something else too. The idea I suggest gives free access to everything on the planet to everyone. If I want a car, I go to where cars are locally distributed and get one. If I am not using the car I could leave it set by the road for someone else to use. If I still needed use of the car, I might lock it up and put an "In Use" sign on the dash.
My point is everyone has free access to everything. Why then would I for example want your house, your food? I can go get it freely for myself. Houses could even be shared resources. Be out traveling and see one empty, decide you need to rest for the night, maybe catch a weather forecast, get some grub and hot shower. The next morning you might go to the local food vendor and restock the house's pantry as a means of paying it forward, then leave on travels. People could also share a house for a night, or two. Everything freely accessible to all means there is no motive to cause harm, to deceive, steal. Not sure how that could be corrupted but I'll grant it might be.
Last edited:
Dude...come on..free access to everything, come on that's silly and you know it....that is fantasy stuff....it's like masturbating to fantasies of having sex with the entire Dallas cowboys cheerleader squad...not only is it definitly not gonna happen there is no earthly reason why it should.
- Status