>Certainly true, but it's somewhat empty jobs, as they didn't contribute to GDP, really. I mean, the Sov's never sold that much of their equipmnent. As such, it was a drain on the economy, and diverted money that could have been spent on other infrastructure or, say, food. For a modern example, see N. Korea - spends all their money on military while people starve. Sure, the military's the biggest employer - but that doesn't help anyone else.
Who says about selling or staving in the USSR? Everyone had the same food, nobody starved since 60-s. And just giving this military and civilian equipment to pro-communist dictators like Saddam (and jobs that were produced in such a manner) was subsidized by everyone earning less.
Basically, to describe it in Western terms, you add tax on wages to spend it on unprofitable "foreign policy". Kind of 87 bln for Iraq war with the exception that Iraq war was IMHO necessary for the US long-term survival, and its scale moneywise was insignificant with the Soviet upkeeps on "Being the center of progressive humankind", to translate one of the slogans.
>That's the key point I think - sustain. I completely agree that the lack of incentive held back their economy, and of course the inherently inefficiency of central planning.
My primary point is that all of it could have worked (and worked) in thirties and fifties when the population was motivated.
>I simply think that the arms race (and the spending that accompanied it) brought on the end earlier than it would have.
I have thought a bit, and I remembered what killed the economy. It could have chugged along for a long time, but stupidity of Gorbachev did it. At some point West asked him to make internal prices on oil-derived products equal to the world prices, and when he did it (that meant increasing it several times), the economy fell apart. Then after dissolution of the USSR most republic's leaderships consisted of thugs who really enriched themselves at the expense of the hyperinflation and people not being paid salaries for 6 months.
If he would instead start something like NEP (New Economic Policy) like Lenin did in the beginning of twenties, the country could have become enlivened and transformed without that much shock and awe. This would restore motivation for significant part of the population.
>To me, it's like someone with AIDS who gets a cold and dies. Technically, it's the cold virus that killed them - but really they died of AIDS. Same here - I believe the Sov's were killed by the arms race - but they died of a completely broken economy like you mention.
I would not think it was THAT serious; your comparison likens Soviet system to an AIDS whether I'd liken it to obesity;-).
One needs to see not only "birthrate" (BTW, your numbers are "fertility rate" and not birth rate), but the amount of population below 14 and median age.
Look also at the comparison between birth rate and death rate.
You'll see that Japan and UK has already reached stability in their populations whether India and Mexico hasn't yet.
China (thanks to communists) has been able to get its birth rate down, but India and Mexico have two times Chinese rate. Saudi Arabia has three time Chinese rate.
China and US hasn't reached "saturation point" yet. It means that the average lifespan is still growing and thus causes population growth because children are born but their grandgrandparents are not dying yet (unlike in the past).
While agreeing with you on the most counts, I think that reasonable currency exchange rates would allow American-made products to compete better.
If there would not be foreign competition, California would have lost to Texas, Oregon, South Dakota*, and it would still be good for the country since people can easily move to these destinations.
With different countries you don't have this luxury, even with Canada.
* I've seen the statistics of more than 1.5 mln people escaping Califirnia and moving to Oregon, Washington et al.
The key to look for before accusing Bush in every mortal sin possible is drilling in Alaska.
The real reason why they want to do this is lessening dependence on the foreign-sourced oil.
Their goal is to lower the dollar value that will allow the American economy to stay more competitive. Some steps were made (against euro), but unfortunately it will call an outcry if gas prices go up, especially considering the sad fact that all of these brain-dead idiots called consumers gobble up 13-mpg SUVs like crazy.
Drilling in alaska (I know, it sucks big time) will allow to dampen the impact of having weaker dollar.
> Does this mean that the rest of the world should stop buying US products?
Nope. But the trade should be balanced. There is some difference between having foreign trade and trade deficit of 500 bln/year (~5% of the GDP).
>Afterall if we buy something from the US, that means that we're not maing it ourselves and in the process someone in the UK who could have made that product is out of a job.
First of all, cars ALWAYS add something in terms of equipment. Second, many cars are priced at loss (most of small cars in the US, for example). Third, have you heard about consumer and deale rebates? There were years when MSRP was not changed, but you could buy a car thousands off MSRP.
USSR collapsed not because of the military spending spree (they were spending A LOT during all the time of their existence, and Military Industry was providing TONS of jobs).
The real reason for the collapse was the death of the Communist ideology in the population's minds. Thus, there was no stimulus to work well and invent.
As late Soviet saying nicely summed it up: "They pretend paying us, and we pretend working".
Such an attitude can't sustain participating in a technological race. Certainly, there were inventors and scientists who have worked for the sake of it, but it was not enough. Thus, the quality of manufacturing, ergonomics and comfort&convenience were very low et al.
Also, the economy was inflexible with the planning athorities trying to plan in 1980 how many soap bars the country will need in Y2K.
This was what killed the economy and not the arms race.
When speaking of cheap versus expensive country, you forget about the currency exchange rate.
IIRC, Eastern Europe froze their currency rewlative to Euro that allowed their level of life to get higher.
At the same time, Chinese and Hindi governments hold the rate such a way to give themselves unfair economic advantage. If the rate would be more adequate, US would be able to compete. However, rates are determined by the relative strengths of export and import lobbies, and "import lobby" is much stronger in the US now.
As for your rants about India and third world "deserving" something/better life - I'd disagree on the spot. The real reason their level of life is lower is their uncontrolled birth rate. When you need to invest in 1 or 2 kids, they need to feed 5 to 10. Thus, the accumulation of wealth is not happening, the infrastructure is always behind, you can't find enough teachers and doctors et al.
It is kind of OT, but I can't help noticing that even Hollywood outsorces A LOT of production.
LOTR was made in NZ; most of movies and shows that depict Seattle are actually made in Vancouver, BC (for example, Highlander the series). Some others are made in the other parts of Canada.
I do also know from a struggling animator friend about outsorcing of the cartoon making to South Korea etc.
American creative workers look more and more like the elves whose power (technological edge;-) diminishes, and who can't protect their turf against invaders (not that they are orks and goblins or evil).
> Ann Coulter was Fired from National Review because of her extreme and insulting views. The NR originally defended her piece because it was apparently in response to such a shocking event, but she didn't back down from her statement even today.
You confirm my point of view that extremist views are not a part of the mainstream American press.
>I strongly diagree with you that it is the only way to stop the war by transferring all Palestinians out. With no further options for peace, ALL Arabs will then support war. It will create hundreds of Bin Ladens.
Plain wrong. MOST Arabs ALREADY support war, and they supported it since creation if Israel. As for Bin Ladens, do you know how many terrorist leaders tried to attack Israelis and Jews worldwide?
They were able to do so only because it was allowed and encouraged by their government and Leftists from all over the world (often on the money that Soviet Communist leaders underpaid to my working parents).
>Do you think the Saudis can crack down on citizen funding terrorism if EVERYONE does it?
They can easily crack up current radicals, and thinking ALL will do it is a very big stretch. MANY might whine and yeall, but only a few will DO something.
>If Israel does that, they will be destroyed. And perhaps they would deserve it for such an extreme and unfair deed.
Oh, poor Palestinians! Next step for you to is to declare how they can do terrorism because they are so unhappy, as leftists do!
Fairness is crap; stopping the war is more important. And moving Palestinians out will lead to increasing the probability of peace whether giving them territories will lead to further war and increase of probability for destruction of Israel (as practice has shown).
>If you think that Arab culture is all about showing force, then you and Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon should read more. Treating your opponent in such a disrespectful manner only increases hostility.
Bullshit. Force is the language Arabs understand as the practice shows. This is how YOU get respect from them.
As for the author of this article, he, suffering from a "need of approval", confuses approval with satisfying your goal. No one will doubt that Arabs will be afraid and vent these fears. However, it is much more important that the governments start cracking down on terrorism and smartest leaders (Caffafi) make peace with the West.
Leftist idiots whine about "everyone needs to be made happy in order for them to love us" whether realists understand that in hierarchical cultures then more you give someone then more they demand, as stupid European liberals learned in 1939 (and in 2000, when Arafat started his war - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=1833 ).
Also, about the article. Author is contradicting himself. On one hand, he calls for appeasing TV-watching Arabs by doing steps they would like and PROVING them something (pages 2-6). On the other hand, the first page says directly that it is pretty much futile task ("Because the administration is right about the political, social, and economic stagnation afflicting much of the Arab world, the way out of the dilemma should not be to return to the traditional "realist" course of pursuing U.S. security interests through strategic alliances with local authoritarian regimes. Nor would a change in U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians be a panacea, as the lukewarm regional reaction to the Bush team's promotion of its "road map" for Middle East peace demonstrates".). Appeasing won't work with these who is full of "conspiracy theories" - just look at these Americans who believe that government/corporations are evil. It is a belief that one can't dispell.
His proposal to promote democracy directly is also not a very smart one. It will really undermine and alienate current Arab governments, and they are ones controlling the flood gates of terrorism.
> The editorial was here, written by Ann Coulter, popular Fox News 'expert' who has also been on CNN a few times as well. This was a syndicated piece she wrote.
I agree with her on many points (even though disagree on some). I also understand that her response was called by the shock of the attack and loss of friend (look at the date of the article). Americans don't know how to deal with death.
For example, she is absolutely right on the point of freedom and trust. american airports security system was intended on people who do not want to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. Thus, now ALL OF US has lost part of our freedom because of these bastards.
And National Revoew is not one of the most popular papers, it is known conservative one.
>Point of Order, transferring all Arabs out of Palestine is an extreme option, and unfair to the millions of Palestinians.
Sure, it is unfair. I was not talking about fairness. But it is the only chance to stop the war. So, it is up to you to decide if you value peace more than fairness/"justice".
>If that happened, terrorism would skyrocket. What would stop people then from more attacks? They already lost their homes and livelihoods, and probably some family members in that transfer.
What will stop them? How about inability to do anything? As of now, they can infiltrate to Israeli territory because the border between territories and Israel is much less secure than the state borders, and blow themselves to pieces hoping to get something out of it.
After the transfer they won't be able to gain anything by exploding themselves (besides having much harder time to get into Israel).
The key in the East is the perception of strength. This way one who makes concessions is considered weak and thus nobody cares about his interests; he needs to submit to force. This is true for any "warrior civilizations", and this is what stupid Americans don't understand.
Israel's "painful concessions for the lasting peace" will be perceived as a weakness, and Arabs will become emboldened in their thinking that they can defeat and destroy Israel. This can be understood by anyone who knows at least anything about their (and not only their) mentality.
If you don't belive me, link the panic withdrawal from Lebanon with the Arafat's war that started about 3 months after that (these 3 months were spent planning and preparing for it). This link is the direct effect of showing weakness, and no amount of paper with "peaceful agreements" will change the mentality.
>If you think this war was mandatory, then you are the only person I know of who believes that.
This is probably because I'm extremely smart and can see more than many.
>And the facts are looking less in your favor daily. Didn't Bush make these plans since the day he was inaugerated, according to ex-White House officials? Didn't Cheney and Rumsfeld create such a scenario in a think-tank in the 90's?
Facts? Who cares about facts?;-) Seriously, I think it was mandatory not because of "WMD" that moght not have existed; this is the war to change some of the nastiest policies of the rulers in the region. In these countries tyrannical rulers report to no one and do crap they want.
This war has put them into different boat; they basically felt the wrath of Allah (who works in a strange ways as Gods do in all the religions). Maybe it will bring them some conscience. At least I know that Iran opened its WMD program to inspectors, Lybia decided to settle with the West and Saudies started cracking down on terrorism. Everything is exactly as I hoped in 2002 when writing this: http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/iraq.html
>There are millions of Palestinians, are you going to say that none want peace? So are you going to be so blind as to say Israel wants peace, but Palestinians don't? That's an awfully big generalization, and an incorrect one considering the PA backed the Road Map,
>I've seen editorials in the US advocating "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
What was the newspaper? Some Christian one for fanatics? There would not be any editorial like that in a significant and respectable newspaper.
Also, press in the US is not controlled by the government.
>I've also seen editorials that say not to trust Muslims, Muslims are barbaric, Muslims are a fifth column in the US. I will condemn that Saudi "Blood Libel" editorial, but don't be so blind as to say the same thing doesn't happen in the US.
Again, press in the US is not controlled by the government, and.
>Bush made a correct choice in the Israeli-Palestinian issue? I think his Road Map was overall good, but "correct" is subjective, Israeli hardliners hated it.
Americans don't understand what is going there at all; Europeans do, but they are really easy with the idea of crucifying Israel in order to wrest Arab markets from Americans. Regular population is dumb in both places. The only solution to end the war is a transfer of Arabs out of Palestine.
>Quit calling me a leftist. I don't think that everyone is the same,
Yeah? Whoi was telling about press as if press has the same role and is perceived the same way in both Arab world and USA?
>I talk about US policy the way I do because I am an outraged conservative
Frankly speaking, you sound more like a Muslim who lives in Europe or the USA. I can understand that life suddenly became uncomfortable for you, but it still does not mean you're right in our argument.
>(who registered Republican long ago) who did not support this war and feels that the country is slow to conclude that it was a mistake.
This war was mandatory for the long-term survival of the USA and the world.
> While I do think that the books you cited have some merit (and they look informative), you should perhaps read books written by Muslims. I doubt they fully understand the motives of Muslims if they aren't one. Big difference in my experience.
Hey, man, you don't understand the fact that I look at the deeper level. It is not about Muslims or not Muslims (and most "motivations" are just rationalizations of certain deeper motives that only a psychologist or ethologist can uncover), it is about civilizations built on k- or R-strategies.
This is why I think this entire "Israeli-Palestinian peace process" is a sick joke and crap; it is self-deception for anyone who thinks this will end up in a long-lasting peace.
Agreements with Arabs (and anyone else whose ideology is based on R-strategy) are not worth papaer they are written at - just look at the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Palestinians don't want peace; they want only victory, and they are ready to put any amount of bodies to achieve their goals. Also, their whole self-identity and "natianal idea" is in this war; any peace agreement will be just a step to regroup and gather forces before starting a new war (look at Egypt that arms itself for 20 years; look at what happened after Arafat got power).
Being a "Warrior civilization", they will never have "peace advocates" at power; only these who can show strength can be at the helm. After all, this is hyerarchical society.
This is why I want you to read the books. Unfortunately, you most probably don't know Russian, otherwise I'd give you a couple links that would totally transform your view on the world and society, but you still can pick up some pieces of information from English language sources (like ones I gave you).
Unfortunately, punitive damages is a really stupid idea; only greedy lawyers like it.
The reason for that is that a company is not a human. If you're awarded 100,000$ from Joe Blow, he will lose these money. If you're awarded the same amount from a company called "Joe Blow, Inc", it will mean that this company will charge its customers more to fathom the payout.
Thus, all of these lawsuits are basically a form of insurance when everyone (policyholders/customers) pays and just a few collect.
Increasing the amount payd beyond reasonable compensatory damages, brainwashed idiot in jury essentially robs himself and other average Joes to enrich the "victim" and the greedy lawyer.
>That is where I beg to differ. Taking your own evolutionary yardstick, people's capacities are distributed on a bell curve, where the extremes are the drooling morons and geniuses. Vast majority will fall in the fattest part of the curve. Unfortunately the ratio of combined morons, average Joes and those just above average people will always be greater then that of the self made "winners".
>Same thing again, I dont believe that it is achievable without some serious reingeenering of the inner workings of the human mind by means of genetic engineering, Sparta-like pruning or some such. No I dont think mysticism will do the trick.
No genetic engineering or propaganda, mysticism will do the trick (look below).
>On top of that, you have the probem of vastly uneven starting positions. In Libertarian society it would be possible (just like presently) for some people to be so far ahead in wealth and power (implied by material resources) of others that their offspring would be unassailable by default.
You're takling about different space. If everyone has ability to learn, it does not matter if I won't become Alexander because it might be that my destiny is to be Diogen;-). One needs to move beyond the idea of competition with others; he needs to focus not on the other guys but on being the best he can be.
>If I were to be born at the bottom of the pile and have the smarts and ability to be a "winner" and if the "mystical" teachings found little traction with me I might consider some rather unorthodox strategies of getting ahead if you get my meaning.
I get it.
>And smarter a villain I would be, quicker I would overtake the place. I am sure there would be enough of malcontents to organise into some sort of bloody revolution fueled by my genetically engineered weapons of mass destruction.
Not that simple. You won't get too far. You underestimate these who is "enlightened". Even I can sometimes see people's intentions like an x-ray. They can do it easy, and they can be very ruthless if they think you're going to harm the world.
>I would like also to point out that you seem to equate the "losers" with lazy and uresourceful. Unfortunately many of these people today are very smart and can be quite tennacious when they hate someone. They just find a vegeatative state more appealing most of the time. That is how a band of jealous "losers" who feel wronged can organise itself into something rather frightening and efficiently lethal to the "winners". You see their "winner" traits are only triggered if they feel envy and subsequently hate. And the strategies they usualy employ when annoyed have little to do with peaceful competiton.
Sure. however, society of winners is not an easy one to take on. Most of these jealous malcontents can be easily dispatched, and sometimes even before they do major harm. It is really hard to become a "Stainless steel rat" in the society of telepaths if you get my analogy.
>In essence what I was trying to explain before is that the system like that is at best an unworkable utopia and is just as flawed and vulnerable as the current concoctions. It would only succeed if nearly everyone was of similiar mindset. And that is by definition an impossibility with the current memebers of Homo Sapiens.
Does this opinion of yours make you sit on your butt and just do nothing about the world? This is not MY way. At least I can be proud of improving not only myself, but helping to direct several more people towards being happier and more knowledgeable than they were before (also, I've saved two people from suicide). Each of these who were touched by my light became a step closer towards the libertarian ideal of self-sufficient man. Some made only 5 centimeter step, but it was still better than nothing.
And this is the only way towards it - man by man realizing that you're the only one to self thyself.
>So tried Communism (as Marx would have it - he went end
>Ha, I have no troubles whatsoever with this, mysticism not required, I am quite at ease with my materialist worldview. I was merely describing what happens to the vast majority of people.
Mystics teach that everyone lives the life he deserves/wants (internally).
>>You've forgotten the word "ignorant";-).
>Well, lets not get personal, shall we. What is one man's ignorance and delusion is another's sane and methodical approach to the world.
Oh, man! Get a sense of humor and allow me to make pun on your nickname!;-)
>I was trying to be diplomatic but as you can probably imagine, talking to a materialist about "energy of Judgement" is about as futile as it is going to get.
This is because you don't understand tha tthe term "energy" in this connotation is a methafor similar to the "device driver; it can hide tape, disc, com-port or/dev/null.
Energy of Judgement is "Too much of activity in the left, logical side of the brain that perceives and produces logical chains and lives in a completely determined world". Hence your love of science that is basically a pyramid of logically connected and proven information.
>As to the qigong I can only go by pieces like this.
Oh, this is crap because it takes everything at a face value. I don't know if Chi, God or reincarnation exist or not, but it is not important; this might be just a language that allows me to program my psyche, and I have experience how using these methafors and assimilating several concepts allowed me to improve my life. And this is the only thing that matters.
>On the subject women and sexual exploits I shall remain mute although I would admit that every discipline has its masters and I am probably not considered one. But then again, for me, unlike for some others, that not the goal of my existence.
Oh, man, don't take everything at a face value! Women are just one example; it touches everything because HE WHO MASTERD MYSTICAL METHODS of managing and focusing his psyche IS MORE EFFICIENT IN EVERYTTHING. For example, I think and write articles much faster than before partially because I was able to unload my "mental computer" from some part of the "background crap" that was running on it since I was a child.
And this is just a beginning of my Path.
P.S. Hope you won't be offended if I stop answering at some point. I have a shitload of everything, and you're skeptical anyway. If you'd be willing to listen what I say instead of trying to protect your world view, I could have invested some energy, but you don't. Maybe this Path is not for you, maybe you aren't ready yet. Me personally needed to get to know living hell in order to start desiring to heal myself NO MATTER WHAT.
>Sure its true that by "changing yourself" you can achieve state of harmony with the world. A rock is in harmony with the world too. No pain. No worries. Perfect synchrony with the universe. Trouble is people are not rocks. What upsets the balance all the time are: faulty evolutionary (assuming you are not a creationist) psychological baggage (some of which can indeed be controlled by mental effort),
MOST of which can be dealt with (BTW, I'm not a creationist; you could have understood it from my depiction of reprodiction strategies).
>disturbing social interactions and knowledge about the world. It is a long known fact that more knowledgeable you are, less comfortable and more stressed you are.
Only if you're not changing your programs. Imagine a tree with enormous crown and weak root/straw - this is what your typical "knowledgeable man". If he is also able to find harmony, the load of knowledge will be tolerable.
>"Ignorance is bliss", one of the wisest proverbs in existance. That is because knowledge, while offering some kinds of power, also offers uncertainity. As more questions get answered, even more new questions arise. That is what pains most people. That is why they invent various religions. To simplify their worlds. To give them order and meaning.
Religions give simplicity of beliefs to masses, but mysticism gives ability to live with uncertainty, harmony and acceptance to these who can master it.
>This spirituality/mysticism is just another go at it. It might work as a therapy if one believes in it, but battle scarred, thick skinned materialists like myself are far beyond its reach.
You've forgotten the word "ignorant";-). Certainly - you operate on the energy of Judgement that blocks you from perceiving anything that might shatter your world.
Only these who really want it will get it. It is only children who are easier to affect.
Still, not everyone needs to be a saint, but everyone can benefit from it in the area of physical and mental health as well as certain abilities (like sexual, for example).
>And it is cynical dudes like us who you gotta worry about when promoting a way to "get or strengthen all kind of gifts and achieve enlightenment". We might just start asking for proof, complete with controlled lab experiments.
You won't get much (even though these experiments are already performed and are successful; read "The way of qigong" by Ken Cohen). However, first time your woman sleeps with a guy who knows Tantric or Daoist sexual techniques, you'll probably lose her. It will be a wake up call for Neanderthals (hope you understand my comparison).
In the Orient Teachers were able to find students by the sheer demonstration of what they were.
>It all depends what you deem the "purpose" of human society is.
Tell me what is the purpose of human live is, and I'll tell you what is the purpose of society.
>If you put "progress", "innovation" and "creativity" ahead of "happiness", than what you say is true. Having large part (the "loserish" part is something like 60% of the population) of the society unhappy so that the creative few can be free and live large is an acceptable price. On the other hand when one answers "happiness", then the happiness of the majority takes precedence over the few who are then limited in achieving their potential. Its this choice that is being made. Tyranny of the masses I am afraid and if you want to go your way you will most likely end up shoving it down the throats of rather ungrateful majority of "losers". I dont see much prospect for sucess in this recipe.
Wrong. Hapiness is a relative thing, and it is very much a question of the contents of a mind (I've read a definition of happiness as a match between the reality and internal expectation of it. Thus, guilt-driven leftist will never be happy even if all the corporations in he world will be sued into non-existence). Change the mind when people are young, make achivers from them, and they will be happy achieving and creating.
The truth is that EVERYONE can do that. However, current society makes degenerates out of people, it tries to make not creators but consumers. And if you've seen my "Victims' society" essay, and you looked around, you'll find that "losers" will always be envious, and they will always be a drag. It is just that in the leftist-proposed system they will be a bigger drag and a bigger burden to the extent of some weaker "creators" will lose their intent to create since many people will do only what is necessary.
Thus, "leftist" system is going to hunt and destroy (at first not physically, like communists did, but through instilling guilt and passiveness; later - physically because no one "loser" likes to see that he is a loser) these who are able to do something, i.e. the best.
The Libertarian one will try to make everyone better.
So, which system deserves to live?
>What I understood from that book, it described a society of ultimate egoists who practice non-agression as means of maintaining social order. That means they have no government, no army and no common funds for defense. Accordingly, I, the would-be-emperor Ignoramus,...
It is easy to invent non-existing dragon and slay it, right?;-) She (and I did not read her books) describes the end result; certainly, the society will nt jump right there while the world is not ready. Transition will be gradual, and it will have a very good army until the world is ready. And when the world is ready, a group of you won't be able to get a military training like that.
>If by making the achievers happy you plan to piss off the vast majority of non-achievers, you got some seriously painful lessons coming up about the rules of politics.
Nope. It is all the question of balance. If potential underachivers are educated at school properly, they will try tyo become achivers. And I don't mean salary; many people agree that the different between a winner and a loser is inside their minds.
>You know, this whole thing reminds of Sparta. I think Spartans were Libertarians in that sense. They even made sure only strongest children are allowed to live. I think it fits quite nicely with what you promote. I knew this had a familiar ring.
This way you can equate the America of the 19th century to Sparta. Meritocracy does not mean warriors society.
>This is not about strong versus weak. It is about how to find a system where all these various stripes of society can cooperate without major friction. Trying to make everyone uniform (and thats what the Spartan.. err... I mean Libertarian system is) will not work. The problem is difficult and messy and I dont think
>As the experience with all the "revolutions" and attempts at introducing social changes have shown in the past, the designers of an "improved" social system must first show that the system will not fail miserably under the worst case scenarios
OK, answer a question - do you think that it will be much or any worse comparing with the current "modern American capitalism" system? WHERE exactly it will be worse?
BTW, Communism will not work since it is too far from human nature whether Libertanism is much closer. True, it will be harder on the "loserish" part of population, but the "welfare capitalism"="european socialism" is much harder on active, achieving part of the population whose freedom and creativity is stiffled and whose very existance is threatened by the liberal brainwashing (like "You're nothing but potential victims of evil corporations/men/rich; you need to fight for someone bailing you out") in schools and families.
Who in your opinion deserves to be happier - achievers or lazy ones?
As for your idea of a small gruop of determined jackasses taking over, it is easy to take over Communism/Leftism/Dictatorship where superpowerful state is serving as an interface to everything and has a monopoly for being strong and using force. One just needs to infiltrate the state and then rule the way he wants without overstressing the "cattle" in order to avoid revolution.
At the same time, how will they be able to take over the society of strong and determined people who are not afraid of anything, including uniting?
Here is the complete article (and my commie Mozilla opens it well enough;-).
Iraq war has brought deep divide to America.
In order to understand the warring sides, we need to take excurce into biology. Evolution has produced two different reproduction strategies. r-strategy means "many offsprings, some survive". An alternative, K-strategy, means "a few offsprings, most survive". Most of the species employ only one, some can have both.
Some of the reserchers believe that humans employ only the K-strategy, but they are mistaken. It is really easy to see that most traditional civilizations employ the other one. This is a real culprit behind the worlds' rapid population growth after Western medical technology got transplanted into the cultures with traditionally high birth rates that were meant to offset high mortality. In these cultures life is not worth a damn, rulers can kill their subjects in thousands without much resistance. This is why agreements with the countries whose culture is based on the r-strategy are not worth the paper they are written on. Not being constrained by the amount of lives wasted, they will hit you as soon as they will be sure enough of coming victorious.
Besides the actual birth rate every society or civilization has some reflection of it in its culture. r-strategy explains traditional civilizations' enormously high birth rates being proclaimed in the religious scriptures and minorities with childless women being discriminated against. Childbirth is not just a virtue but a duty there. Chinese or Arabs will despise death and be a heroic culture long after actual birth rates drop. Meanwhile, some K-starategy theorists will explain why we need a welfare state that will feed all the lazy and sick as well as protect every life at any cost to the individual freedom and individuals' checkbooks. The uniqueness of the American culture is how fast everything moves in it reflecting the change of the beliefs of individuals. Thus the lower birth rate almost immediately turned into the extreme valueing of life and inability to perceive death with dignity. It spawned abusive lawsuits when dying is enough reason to claim millions even when it is your own fault, emotional dramas, state-protector et al.
r-strategy spawned Indian rituals of wife being burned after her husband's death. Suicide bombers and kamikaze can be possible only in the r-strategy society too. K-stra
Libertarian nightmare is not as bad as the Liberal one where everyone's freedom is choked by the government and lawyers to appease loudly whining and wailing "victims" and their advocates.
One would be really stupid to expect everyone share this philosophy at the same time. Thus, libertarian ideas are not ready for the mainstream yet.
However, if the true spirituality/mysticism* will be taught societywide, it will be much less chances that someone will try to own everything. BillG basically compensates for the small size of his dick, and Hitler had sexual problems. What I try to tell is that most of the aggressors (unless something really threatens them) are compensating for their issues.
Reducing the amount of issues in the society will provide for the stable part that will be able to withstand the attempts to rock the boat.
* Here is an exerpt of what spirituality/mysticism is:
Most people can't separate three distinct parts of religion (that is also called spirituality in modern speak) from each other. These parts are beliefs, morals and mysticism. There can be myriad systems of beliefs and morals, but most of the mystical systems have a lot in common. And "properly" can be related to the mysticism, but only barely. Most of the properness stuff is usually related to the beliefs or morals.
Beliefs are "Jesus is Lord", "No God but Allah", "Reincarnation exists/does not exist" or even "Communism is our future", "Human rights are mandatory" and "Corporations are evil". Ja, ja, communism as well as modern leftists' views are both religions that only pretend to be spiritual since they are not based on the mysticism. The essence of beliefs is "The world is the way I think it is, and it is supposed to be the way I want to see it".
Morals are based on beliefs, and describe one's interactions with the world in the form of "In this situation I should behave like that", "I need to strive for this" and "This is acceptable, that is not".
Mysticism is the way of getting to know your true self and transforming your body and mind. It is based on one fundamental axiom that states "Everything that happens with you happens because you need it on one level or another". This cause brings the effect "If you want to change your life and the world, change yourself". I can talk about mechanism of this process in details, but the condensed version will state that you have a lot of different motivations inside you, and they are competing for the resources of your mind and shaping your life according to their often simplistic desires. So, Guilt will form events where you either feel guilty or manifest it some other way; Judgement will make you lock the horns with others, demand proof or even send you on the barricades or Crusade; Victim or Abuser will make you play these roles et al.
Mystic gradually learns to recognize and shut off these "incorrect" motivations thus freeing the resources of his/her mind and redirecting the energy into further self-improvement and creative work. He untangles and unwinds the true source of his beliefs and morals in order to forge and shape the true foundation that will stay with him for the length of his life. And it is sometimes not up to him to decide what will become the part of it. This process will also move him beyond many of his beliefs and restrictions or looseness of some of his initial morals. At some point he will be ready for the next stage that can be called spiritual development versus the psychotherapy of the first stage.
That process also resolves most bottlenecks within you and eliminates situations where you "hang", i.e. you learn to operate even in uncomfortable situations where you have no control at all. I know how hard it can be to achieve, and how ugly can certain situations get, but the result is IMHO worth it. Also go away pain of the past and most insecurities. They certainly still exist in reduced form, but they no longer affect your decision making process.
Certainly, modern Libertarianism is a R-based ideology* that stresses individual responsibility and meritocracy, but it is not that inhumane unlike your depictions.
It is more like "Your freedom finishes where others' freedom starts" and "Live and don't prevent others from living".
It differs from ultra-right "expansionist" ideology ("Starship Troopers" the book by Heinlein who I really love, he was a great thinker) by built in "limiters" of the modern society.
I like it personally because it gives me a sense of direction and pride for my achivements as well as motivation to continue improving myself. I don't think one can say the same thing if he is living at the society's expense free of any challenge, "protected" from life by governments and greedy lawyers.
*This is my article on strategies: http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/civilwa r.html
This is the other one that shows what leftist-dominated society is turning into: http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/victim.html
>No. It's the electoral system that's broken, and the Democrats are finally suffering from that breakage.
It is not "electoral system is broken", it is one of the ways to setup democracy - "Presidential democracy" (versus "Parliamentary democracy" where winning parties make a coalition to run the government).
>The current winner-take-all approach to delegates only really makes sense in a one party system. It's only barely workable in a two party system. If somebody like Nader doesn't force the question about the brokenness of the current system, then you'll continue to have the same broken system forever.
I've described what happens if someone like Nader breaks Democratic party (or someone like Buchanan breaks the Republicans that has much less probability to happen because there are IMHO more leftist fanatics rather than the rightist ones).
I don't know about the UK, somehow it slips out from my radar.
>Isn't this pretty much what has happened in the UK? I'm not an expert on this, but I've gotten the impression that the Labour stepped closer to the middle and pressed the Conservatives into the margins. This won't make the people on the right edge happy, but at least they have a party unlike the people on the left edge...
Oh, they have a party, but leftists have the party that is 80% of what they desire at power! It is much more than party with 40% of vote that does not get power.
>If you think of the political spectrum of the voters as a gaussian curve (I wonder if this is accurate?) it's clear that in a two-party system the party that is closer to one extreme than the other party is going to lose, since the other will catch more voters from the middle, where the bulk of the are. So it's in the both parties' interests to stay close to the center. But if one of them moves closer to the center, and the other moves closer to the edge to differentiate itself... Maybe this is the way to break the two-party system?
It will make it three party system, where one (centrist) will always be at power, and the other two will whine all the time about how badly the country is managed;-).
This is what happened after last election in Russia. "Free economy/free speech" parties did not pass the 5% barrier and are out of the Parliament whether the ruling party got the majority (IIRC). So, Communists and "Free economy" will have nothing but to whine.
>On the other hand, the same applies to multiparty systems too, to an extent. Any party far from the center will find itself in the opposition time after time, while other parties closer to each other form coalition goverments.
It rarely happens this way. Look at Israel. They have two big parties (about 60 to 75% of votes combined), and neither one can hold power alone. Thus they need to make coalitions with small "extortionist" parties that are interested in nothing more but funding for their voters or pushing their extreme leftist or rightist agenda.
Thus, parliamentary democracy is no saviour either.
I'm a Libertarian, and Nader is my biggest enemy on the political scene. He is the most anti-liberty candidate possible, and his view corrupt people into being crybabies who wants PROTECTION versus becoming self-sufficient beings who can solve their problems (and need Liberty; Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution, was a very clever man. One of his saying was "Freedom is realized necessity").
Nader is a front cheerleader for the REALLY evil corporation that extorts and squanders your money: http://www.triallawyersinc.com/
Slashdot Mirror
... it won't be bundled with a legal threat like SCO software.
Oh, man, you can't blame British for everything.
hongkong was British, Israel was British, and they are not that bad economically now.
>Certainly true, but it's somewhat empty jobs, as they didn't contribute to GDP, really. I mean, the Sov's never sold that much of their equipmnent. As such, it was a drain on the economy, and diverted money that could have been spent on other infrastructure or, say, food. For a modern example, see N. Korea - spends all their money on military while people starve. Sure, the military's the biggest employer - but that doesn't help anyone else.
;-).
Who says about selling or staving in the USSR? Everyone had the same food, nobody starved since 60-s. And just giving this military and civilian equipment to pro-communist dictators like Saddam (and jobs that were produced in such a manner) was subsidized by everyone earning less.
Basically, to describe it in Western terms, you add tax on wages to spend it on unprofitable "foreign policy". Kind of 87 bln for Iraq war with the exception that Iraq war was IMHO necessary for the US long-term survival, and its scale moneywise was insignificant with the Soviet upkeeps on "Being the center of progressive humankind", to translate one of the slogans.
>That's the key point I think - sustain. I completely agree that the lack of incentive held back their economy, and of course the inherently inefficiency of central planning.
My primary point is that all of it could have worked (and worked) in thirties and fifties when the population was motivated.
>I simply think that the arms race (and the spending that accompanied it) brought on the end earlier than it would have.
I have thought a bit, and I remembered what killed the economy. It could have chugged along for a long time, but stupidity of Gorbachev did it. At some point West asked him to make internal prices on oil-derived products equal to the world prices, and when he did it (that meant increasing it several times), the economy fell apart. Then after dissolution of the USSR most republic's leaderships consisted of thugs who really enriched themselves at the expense of the hyperinflation and people not being paid salaries for 6 months.
If he would instead start something like NEP (New Economic Policy) like Lenin did in the beginning of twenties, the country could have become enlivened and transformed without that much shock and awe. This would restore motivation for significant part of the population.
>To me, it's like someone with AIDS who gets a cold and dies. Technically, it's the cold virus that killed them - but really they died of AIDS. Same here - I believe the Sov's were killed by the arms race - but they died of a completely broken economy like you mention.
I would not think it was THAT serious; your comparison likens Soviet system to an AIDS whether I'd liken it to obesity
One needs to see not only "birthrate" (BTW, your numbers are "fertility rate" and not birth rate), but the amount of population below 14 and median age.
Look also at the comparison between birth rate and death rate.
You'll see that Japan and UK has already reached stability in their populations whether India and Mexico hasn't yet.
China (thanks to communists) has been able to get its birth rate down, but India and Mexico have two times Chinese rate. Saudi Arabia has three time Chinese rate.
China and US hasn't reached "saturation point" yet. It means that the average lifespan is still growing and thus causes population growth because children are born but their grandgrandparents are not dying yet (unlike in the past).
While agreeing with you on the most counts, I think that reasonable currency exchange rates would allow American-made products to compete better.
If there would not be foreign competition, California would have lost to Texas, Oregon, South Dakota*, and it would still be good for the country since people can easily move to these destinations.
With different countries you don't have this luxury, even with Canada.
* I've seen the statistics of more than 1.5 mln people escaping Califirnia and moving to Oregon, Washington et al.
The key to look for before accusing Bush in every mortal sin possible is drilling in Alaska.
The real reason why they want to do this is lessening dependence on the foreign-sourced oil.
Their goal is to lower the dollar value that will allow the American economy to stay more competitive. Some steps were made (against euro), but unfortunately it will call an outcry if gas prices go up, especially considering the sad fact that all of these brain-dead idiots called consumers gobble up 13-mpg SUVs like crazy.
Drilling in alaska (I know, it sucks big time) will allow to dampen the impact of having weaker dollar.
> Does this mean that the rest of the world should stop buying US products?
Nope. But the trade should be balanced.
There is some difference between having foreign trade and trade deficit of 500 bln/year (~5% of the GDP).
>Afterall if we buy something from the US, that means that we're not maing it ourselves and in the process someone in the UK who could have made that product is out of a job.
But do you sell anything to the US?
You're plain wrong.
First of all, cars ALWAYS add something in terms of equipment.
Second, many cars are priced at loss (most of small cars in the US, for example).
Third, have you heard about consumer and deale rebates? There were years when MSRP was not changed, but you could buy a car thousands off MSRP.
USSR collapsed not because of the military spending spree (they were spending A LOT during all the time of their existence, and Military Industry was providing TONS of jobs).
The real reason for the collapse was the death of the Communist ideology in the population's minds. Thus, there was no stimulus to work well and invent.
As late Soviet saying nicely summed it up: "They pretend paying us, and we pretend working".
Such an attitude can't sustain participating in a technological race. Certainly, there were inventors and scientists who have worked for the sake of it, but it was not enough. Thus, the quality of manufacturing, ergonomics and comfort&convenience were very low et al.
Also, the economy was inflexible with the planning athorities trying to plan in 1980 how many soap bars the country will need in Y2K.
This was what killed the economy and not the arms race.
When speaking of cheap versus expensive country, you forget about the currency exchange rate.
IIRC, Eastern Europe froze their currency rewlative to Euro that allowed their level of life to get higher.
At the same time, Chinese and Hindi governments hold the rate such a way to give themselves unfair economic advantage. If the rate would be more adequate, US would be able to compete. However, rates are determined by the relative strengths of export and import lobbies, and "import lobby" is much stronger in the US now.
As for your rants about India and third world "deserving" something/better life - I'd disagree on the spot. The real reason their level of life is lower is their uncontrolled birth rate. When you need to invest in 1 or 2 kids, they need to feed 5 to 10. Thus, the accumulation of wealth is not happening, the infrastructure is always behind, you can't find enough teachers and doctors et al.
It is kind of OT, but I can't help noticing that even Hollywood outsorces A LOT of production.
;-) diminishes, and who can't protect their turf against invaders (not that they are orks and goblins or evil).
LOTR was made in NZ; most of movies and shows that depict Seattle are actually made in Vancouver, BC (for example, Highlander the series). Some others are made in the other parts of Canada.
I do also know from a struggling animator friend about outsorcing of the cartoon making to South Korea etc.
American creative workers look more and more like the elves whose power (technological edge
> Ann Coulter was Fired from National Review because of her extreme and insulting views. The NR originally defended her piece because it was apparently in response to such a shocking event, but she didn't back down from her statement even today.
You confirm my point of view that extremist views are not a part of the mainstream American press.
>I strongly diagree with you that it is the only way to stop the war by transferring all Palestinians out. With no further options for peace, ALL Arabs will then support war. It will create hundreds of Bin Ladens.
Plain wrong. MOST Arabs ALREADY support war, and they supported it since creation if Israel. As for Bin Ladens, do you know how many terrorist leaders tried to attack Israelis and Jews worldwide?
They were able to do so only because it was allowed and encouraged by their government and Leftists from all over the world (often on the money that Soviet Communist leaders underpaid to my working parents).
>Do you think the Saudis can crack down on citizen funding terrorism if EVERYONE does it?
They can easily crack up current radicals, and thinking ALL will do it is a very big stretch. MANY might whine and yeall, but only a few will DO something.
>If Israel does that, they will be destroyed. And perhaps they would deserve it for such an extreme and unfair deed.
Oh, poor Palestinians! Next step for you to is to declare how they can do terrorism because they are so unhappy, as leftists do!
Fairness is crap; stopping the war is more important. And moving Palestinians out will lead to increasing the probability of peace whether giving them territories will lead to further war and increase of probability for destruction of Israel (as practice has shown).
>If you think that Arab culture is all about showing force, then you and Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon should read more. Treating your opponent in such a disrespectful manner only increases hostility.
Bullshit. Force is the language Arabs understand as the practice shows. This is how YOU get respect from them.
As for the author of this article, he, suffering from a "need of approval", confuses approval with satisfying your goal. No one will doubt that Arabs will be afraid and vent these fears. However, it is much more important that the governments start cracking down on terrorism and smartest leaders (Caffafi) make peace with the West.
Leftist idiots whine about "everyone needs to be made happy in order for them to love us" whether realists understand that in hierarchical cultures then more you give someone then more they demand, as stupid European liberals learned in 1939 (and in 2000, when Arafat started his war - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=1833 ).
Also, about the article. Author is contradicting himself. On one hand, he calls for appeasing TV-watching Arabs by doing steps they would like and PROVING them something (pages 2-6). On the other hand, the first page says directly that it is pretty much futile task ("Because the administration is right about the political, social, and economic stagnation afflicting much of the Arab world, the way out of the dilemma should not be to return to the traditional "realist" course of pursuing U.S. security interests through strategic alliances with local authoritarian regimes. Nor would a change in U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians be a panacea, as the lukewarm regional reaction to the Bush team's promotion of its "road map" for Middle East peace demonstrates".). Appeasing won't work with these who is full of "conspiracy theories" - just look at these Americans who believe that government/corporations are evil. It is a belief that one can't dispell.
His proposal to promote democracy directly is also not a very smart one. It will really undermine and alienate current Arab governments, and they are ones controlling the flood gates of terrorism.
I think that this phenomenon of TVsatio
> The editorial was here, written by Ann Coulter, popular Fox News 'expert' who has also been on CNN a few times as well. This was a syndicated piece she wrote.
;-)
I agree with her on many points (even though disagree on some). I also understand that her response was called by the shock of the attack and loss of friend (look at the date of the article). Americans don't know how to deal with death.
For example, she is absolutely right on the point of freedom and trust. american airports security system was intended on people who do not want to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. Thus, now ALL OF US has lost part of our freedom because of these bastards.
And National Revoew is not one of the most popular papers, it is known conservative one.
>Point of Order, transferring all Arabs out of Palestine is an extreme option, and unfair to the millions of Palestinians.
Sure, it is unfair. I was not talking about fairness. But it is the only chance to stop the war. So, it is up to you to decide if you value peace more than fairness/"justice".
>If that happened, terrorism would skyrocket. What would stop people then from more attacks? They already lost their homes and livelihoods, and probably some family members in that transfer.
What will stop them? How about inability to do anything? As of now, they can infiltrate to Israeli territory because the border between territories and Israel is much less secure than the state borders, and blow themselves to pieces hoping to get something out of it.
After the transfer they won't be able to gain anything by exploding themselves (besides having much harder time to get into Israel).
The key in the East is the perception of strength. This way one who makes concessions is considered weak and thus nobody cares about his interests; he needs to submit to force. This is true for any "warrior civilizations", and this is what stupid Americans don't understand.
Israel's "painful concessions for the lasting peace" will be perceived as a weakness, and Arabs will become emboldened in their thinking that they can defeat and destroy Israel. This can be understood by anyone who knows at least anything about their (and not only their) mentality.
If you don't belive me, link the panic withdrawal from Lebanon with the Arafat's war that started about 3 months after that (these 3 months were spent planning and preparing for it). This link is the direct effect of showing weakness, and no amount of paper with "peaceful agreements" will change the mentality.
>If you think this war was mandatory, then you are the only person I know of who believes that.
This is probably because I'm extremely smart and can see more than many.
>And the facts are looking less in your favor daily. Didn't Bush make these plans since the day he was inaugerated, according to ex-White House officials? Didn't Cheney and Rumsfeld create such a scenario in a think-tank in the 90's?
Facts? Who cares about facts?
Seriously, I think it was mandatory not because of "WMD" that moght not have existed; this is the war to change some of the nastiest policies of the rulers in the region. In these countries tyrannical rulers report to no one and do crap they want.
This war has put them into different boat; they basically felt the wrath of Allah (who works in a strange ways as Gods do in all the religions). Maybe it will bring them some conscience. At least I know that Iran opened its WMD program to inspectors, Lybia decided to settle with the West and Saudies started cracking down on terrorism. Everything is exactly as I hoped in 2002 when writing this: http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/iraq.html
>There are millions of Palestinians, are you going to say that none want peace? So are you going to be so blind as to say Israel wants peace, but Palestinians don't? That's an awfully big generalization, and an incorrect one considering the PA backed the Road Map,
>I've seen editorials in the US advocating "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
.
What was the newspaper? Some Christian one for fanatics? There would not be any editorial like that in a significant and respectable newspaper.
Also, press in the US is not controlled by the government.
>I've also seen editorials that say not to trust Muslims, Muslims are barbaric, Muslims are a fifth column in the US. I will condemn that Saudi "Blood Libel" editorial, but don't be so blind as to say the same thing doesn't happen in the US.
Again, press in the US is not controlled by the government, and
>Bush made a correct choice in the Israeli-Palestinian issue? I think his Road Map was overall good, but "correct" is subjective, Israeli hardliners hated it.
Americans don't understand what is going there at all; Europeans do, but they are really easy with the idea of crucifying Israel in order to wrest Arab markets from Americans. Regular population is dumb in both places. The only solution to end the war is a transfer of Arabs out of Palestine.
>Quit calling me a leftist. I don't think that everyone is the same,
Yeah? Whoi was telling about press as if press has the same role and is perceived the same way in both Arab world and USA?
>I talk about US policy the way I do because I am an outraged conservative
Frankly speaking, you sound more like a Muslim who lives in Europe or the USA. I can understand that life suddenly became uncomfortable for you, but it still does not mean you're right in our argument.
>(who registered Republican long ago) who did not support this war and feels that the country is slow to conclude that it was a mistake.
This war was mandatory for the long-term survival of the USA and the world.
> While I do think that the books you cited have some merit (and they look informative), you should perhaps read books written by Muslims. I doubt they fully understand the motives of Muslims if they aren't one. Big difference in my experience.
Hey, man, you don't understand the fact that I look at the deeper level. It is not about Muslims or not Muslims (and most "motivations" are just rationalizations of certain deeper motives that only a psychologist or ethologist can uncover), it is about civilizations built on k- or R-strategies.
This is why I think this entire "Israeli-Palestinian peace process" is a sick joke and crap; it is self-deception for anyone who thinks this will end up in a long-lasting peace.
Agreements with Arabs (and anyone else whose ideology is based on R-strategy) are not worth papaer they are written at - just look at the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Palestinians don't want peace; they want only victory, and they are ready to put any amount of bodies to achieve their goals. Also, their whole self-identity and "natianal idea" is in this war; any peace agreement will be just a step to regroup and gather forces before starting a new war (look at Egypt that arms itself for 20 years; look at what happened after Arafat got power).
Being a "Warrior civilization", they will never have "peace advocates" at power; only these who can show strength can be at the helm. After all, this is hyerarchical society.
This is why I want you to read the books. Unfortunately, you most probably don't know Russian, otherwise I'd give you a couple links that would totally transform your view on the world and society, but you still can pick up some pieces of information from English language sources (like ones I gave you).
Unfortunately, punitive damages is a really stupid idea; only greedy lawyers like it.
The reason for that is that a company is not a human. If you're awarded 100,000$ from Joe Blow, he will lose these money. If you're awarded the same amount from a company called "Joe Blow, Inc", it will mean that this company will charge its customers more to fathom the payout.
Thus, all of these lawsuits are basically a form of insurance when everyone (policyholders/customers) pays and just a few collect.
Increasing the amount payd beyond reasonable compensatory damages, brainwashed idiot in jury essentially robs himself and other average Joes to enrich the "victim" and the greedy lawyer.
>That is where I beg to differ. Taking your own evolutionary yardstick, people's capacities are distributed on a bell curve, where the extremes are the drooling morons and geniuses. Vast majority will fall in the fattest part of the curve. Unfortunately the ratio of combined morons, average Joes and those just above average people will always be greater then that of the self made "winners".
;-). One needs to move beyond the idea of competition with others; he needs to focus not on the other guys but on being the best he can be.
>Same thing again, I dont believe that it is achievable without some serious reingeenering of the inner workings of the human mind by means of genetic engineering, Sparta-like pruning or some such. No I dont think mysticism will do the trick.
No genetic engineering or propaganda, mysticism will do the trick (look below).
>On top of that, you have the probem of vastly uneven starting positions. In Libertarian society it would be possible (just like presently) for some people to be so far ahead in wealth and power (implied by material resources) of others that their offspring would be unassailable by default.
You're takling about different space. If everyone has ability to learn, it does not matter if I won't become Alexander because it might be that my destiny is to be Diogen
>If I were to be born at the bottom of the pile and have the smarts and ability to be a "winner" and if the "mystical" teachings found little traction with me I might consider some rather unorthodox strategies of getting ahead if you get my meaning.
I get it.
>And smarter a villain I would be, quicker I would overtake the place. I am sure there would be enough of malcontents to organise into some sort of bloody revolution fueled by my genetically engineered weapons of mass destruction.
Not that simple. You won't get too far.
You underestimate these who is "enlightened". Even I can sometimes see people's intentions like an x-ray. They can do it easy, and they can be very ruthless if they think you're going to harm the world.
>I would like also to point out that you seem to equate the "losers" with lazy and uresourceful. Unfortunately many of these people today are very smart and can be quite tennacious when they hate someone. They just find a vegeatative state more appealing most of the time. That is how a band of jealous "losers" who feel wronged can organise itself into something rather frightening and efficiently lethal to the "winners". You see their "winner" traits are only triggered if they feel envy and subsequently hate. And the strategies they usualy employ when annoyed have little to do with peaceful competiton.
Sure. however, society of winners is not an easy one to take on. Most of these jealous malcontents can be easily dispatched, and sometimes even before they do major harm. It is really hard to become a "Stainless steel rat" in the society of telepaths if you get my analogy.
>In essence what I was trying to explain before is that the system like that is at best an unworkable utopia and is just as flawed and vulnerable as the current concoctions. It would only succeed if nearly everyone was of similiar mindset. And that is by definition an impossibility with the current memebers of Homo Sapiens.
Does this opinion of yours make you sit on your butt and just do nothing about the world? This is not MY way. At least I can be proud of improving not only myself, but helping to direct several more people towards being happier and more knowledgeable than they were before (also, I've saved two people from suicide). Each of these who were touched by my light became a step closer towards the libertarian ideal of self-sufficient man. Some made only 5 centimeter step, but it was still better than nothing.
And this is the only way towards it - man by man realizing that you're the only one to self thyself.
>So tried Communism (as Marx would have it - he went end
>Ha, I have no troubles whatsoever with this, mysticism not required, I am quite at ease with my materialist worldview. I was merely describing what happens to the vast majority of people.
;-).
;-)
/dev/null.
Mystics teach that everyone lives the life he deserves/wants (internally).
>>You've forgotten the word "ignorant"
>Well, lets not get personal, shall we. What is one man's ignorance and delusion is another's sane and methodical approach to the world.
Oh, man! Get a sense of humor and allow me to make pun on your nickname!
>I was trying to be diplomatic but as you can probably imagine, talking to a materialist about "energy of Judgement" is about as futile as it is going to get.
This is because you don't understand tha tthe term "energy" in this connotation is a methafor similar to the "device driver; it can hide tape, disc, com-port or
Energy of Judgement is "Too much of activity in the left, logical side of the brain that perceives and produces logical chains and lives in a completely determined world". Hence your love of science that is basically a pyramid of logically connected and proven information.
>As to the qigong I can only go by pieces like this.
Oh, this is crap because it takes everything at a face value. I don't know if Chi, God or reincarnation exist or not, but it is not important; this might be just a language that allows me to program my psyche, and I have experience how using these methafors and assimilating several concepts allowed me to improve my life. And this is the only thing that matters.
>On the subject women and sexual exploits I shall remain mute although I would admit that every discipline has its masters and I am probably not considered one. But then again, for me, unlike for some others, that not the goal of my existence.
Oh, man, don't take everything at a face value! Women are just one example; it touches everything because HE WHO MASTERD MYSTICAL METHODS of managing and focusing his psyche IS MORE EFFICIENT IN EVERYTTHING. For example, I think and write articles much faster than before partially because I was able to unload my "mental computer" from some part of the "background crap" that was running on it since I was a child.
And this is just a beginning of my Path.
P.S. Hope you won't be offended if I stop answering at some point. I have a shitload of everything, and you're skeptical anyway. If you'd be willing to listen what I say instead of trying to protect your world view, I could have invested some energy, but you don't. Maybe this Path is not for you, maybe you aren't ready yet. Me personally needed to get to know living hell in order to start desiring to heal myself NO MATTER WHAT.
>Oh, brother..
;-).
What? It was done at least once (Hassidism).
>Sure its true that by "changing yourself" you can achieve state of harmony with the world. A rock is in harmony with the world too. No pain. No worries. Perfect synchrony with the universe. Trouble is people are not rocks. What upsets the balance all the time are: faulty evolutionary (assuming you are not a creationist) psychological baggage (some of which can indeed be controlled by mental effort),
MOST of which can be dealt with (BTW, I'm not a creationist; you could have understood it from my depiction of reprodiction strategies).
>disturbing social interactions and knowledge about the world. It is a long known fact that more knowledgeable you are, less comfortable and more stressed you are.
Only if you're not changing your programs. Imagine a tree with enormous crown and weak root/straw - this is what your typical "knowledgeable man". If he is also able to find harmony, the load of knowledge will be tolerable.
>"Ignorance is bliss", one of the wisest proverbs in existance. That is because knowledge, while offering some kinds of power, also offers uncertainity. As more questions get answered, even more new questions arise. That is what pains most people. That is why they invent various religions. To simplify their worlds. To give them order and meaning.
Religions give simplicity of beliefs to masses, but mysticism gives ability to live with uncertainty, harmony and acceptance to these who can master it.
>This spirituality/mysticism is just another go at it. It might work as a therapy if one believes in it, but battle scarred, thick skinned materialists like myself are far beyond its reach.
You've forgotten the word "ignorant"
Certainly - you operate on the energy of Judgement that blocks you from perceiving anything that might shatter your world.
Only these who really want it will get it. It is only children who are easier to affect.
Still, not everyone needs to be a saint, but everyone can benefit from it in the area of physical and mental health as well as certain abilities (like sexual, for example).
>And it is cynical dudes like us who you gotta worry about when promoting a way to "get or strengthen all kind of gifts and achieve enlightenment". We might just start asking for proof, complete with controlled lab experiments.
You won't get much (even though these experiments are already performed and are successful; read "The way of qigong" by Ken Cohen). However, first time your woman sleeps with a guy who knows Tantric or Daoist sexual techniques, you'll probably lose her. It will be a wake up call for Neanderthals (hope you understand my comparison).
In the Orient Teachers were able to find students by the sheer demonstration of what they were.
>It all depends what you deem the "purpose" of human society is.
...
;-)
Tell me what is the purpose of human live is, and I'll tell you what is the purpose of society.
>If you put "progress", "innovation" and "creativity" ahead of "happiness", than what you say is true. Having large part (the "loserish" part is something like 60% of the population) of the society unhappy so that the creative few can be free and live large is an acceptable price. On the other hand when one answers "happiness", then the happiness of the majority takes precedence over the few who are then limited in achieving their potential. Its this choice that is being made. Tyranny of the masses I am afraid and if you want to go your way you will most likely end up shoving it down the throats of rather ungrateful majority of "losers". I dont see much prospect for sucess in this recipe.
Wrong. Hapiness is a relative thing, and it is very much a question of the contents of a mind (I've read a definition of happiness as a match between the reality and internal expectation of it. Thus, guilt-driven leftist will never be happy even if all the corporations in he world will be sued into non-existence). Change the mind when people are young, make achivers from them, and they will be happy achieving and creating.
The truth is that EVERYONE can do that. However, current society makes degenerates out of people, it tries to make not creators but consumers. And if you've seen my "Victims' society" essay, and you looked around, you'll find that "losers" will always be envious, and they will always be a drag. It is just that in the leftist-proposed system they will be a bigger drag and a bigger burden to the extent of some weaker "creators" will lose their intent to create since many people will do only what is necessary.
Thus, "leftist" system is going to hunt and destroy (at first not physically, like communists did, but through instilling guilt and passiveness; later - physically because no one "loser" likes to see that he is a loser) these who are able to do something, i.e. the best.
The Libertarian one will try to make everyone better.
So, which system deserves to live?
>What I understood from that book, it described a society of ultimate egoists who practice non-agression as means of maintaining social order. That means they have no government, no army and no common funds for defense. Accordingly, I, the would-be-emperor Ignoramus,
It is easy to invent non-existing dragon and slay it, right?
She (and I did not read her books) describes the end result; certainly, the society will nt jump right there while the world is not ready. Transition will be gradual, and it will have a very good army until the world is ready. And when the world is ready, a group of you won't be able to get a military training like that.
>If by making the achievers happy you plan to piss off the vast majority of non-achievers, you got some seriously painful lessons coming up about the rules of politics.
Nope. It is all the question of balance. If potential underachivers are educated at school properly, they will try tyo become achivers. And I don't mean salary; many people agree that the different between a winner and a loser is inside their minds.
>You know, this whole thing reminds of Sparta. I think Spartans were Libertarians in that sense. They even made sure only strongest children are allowed to live. I think it fits quite nicely with what you promote. I knew this had a familiar ring.
This way you can equate the America of the 19th century to Sparta. Meritocracy does not mean warriors society.
>This is not about strong versus weak. It is about how to find a system where all these various stripes of society can cooperate without major friction. Trying to make everyone uniform (and thats what the Spartan.. err... I mean Libertarian system is) will not work. The problem is difficult and messy and I dont think
>As the experience with all the "revolutions" and attempts at introducing social changes have shown in the past, the designers of an "improved" social system must first show that the system will not fail miserably under the worst case scenarios
;-).
OK, answer a question - do you think that it will be much or any worse comparing with the current "modern American capitalism" system? WHERE exactly it will be worse?
BTW, Communism will not work since it is too far from human nature whether Libertanism is much closer. True, it will be harder on the "loserish" part of population, but the "welfare capitalism"="european socialism" is much harder on active, achieving part of the population whose freedom and creativity is stiffled and whose very existance is threatened by the liberal brainwashing (like "You're nothing but potential victims of evil corporations/men/rich; you need to fight for someone bailing you out") in schools and families.
Who in your opinion deserves to be happier - achievers or lazy ones?
As for your idea of a small gruop of determined jackasses taking over, it is easy to take over Communism/Leftism/Dictatorship where superpowerful state is serving as an interface to everything and has a monopoly for being strong and using force. One just needs to infiltrate the state and then rule the way he wants without overstressing the "cattle" in order to avoid revolution.
At the same time, how will they be able to take over the society of strong and determined people who are not afraid of anything, including uniting?
Here is the complete article (and my commie Mozilla opens it well enough
Iraq war has brought deep divide to America.
In order to understand the warring sides, we need to take excurce into biology. Evolution has produced two different reproduction strategies.
r-strategy means "many offsprings, some survive". An alternative, K-strategy, means "a few offsprings, most survive". Most of the species employ only one, some can have both.
Some of the reserchers believe that humans employ only the K-strategy, but they are mistaken. It is really easy to see that most traditional civilizations employ the other one. This is a real culprit behind the worlds' rapid population growth after Western medical technology got transplanted into the cultures with traditionally high birth rates that were meant to offset high mortality. In these cultures life is not worth a damn, rulers can kill their subjects in thousands without much resistance. This is why agreements with the countries whose culture is based on the r-strategy are not worth the paper they are written on. Not being constrained by the amount of lives wasted, they will hit you as soon as they will be sure enough of coming victorious.
Besides the actual birth rate every society or civilization has some reflection of it in its culture. r-strategy explains traditional civilizations' enormously high birth rates being proclaimed in the religious scriptures and minorities with childless women being discriminated against. Childbirth is not just a virtue but a duty there. Chinese or Arabs will despise death and be a heroic culture long after actual birth rates drop. Meanwhile, some K-starategy theorists will explain why we need a welfare state that will feed all the lazy and sick as well as protect every life at any cost to the individual freedom and individuals' checkbooks.
The uniqueness of the American culture is how fast everything moves in it reflecting the change of the beliefs of individuals. Thus the lower birth rate almost immediately turned into the extreme valueing of life and inability to perceive death with dignity. It spawned abusive lawsuits when dying is enough reason to claim millions even when it is your own fault, emotional dramas, state-protector et al.
r-strategy spawned Indian rituals of wife being burned after her husband's death. Suicide bombers and kamikaze can be possible only in the r-strategy society too.
K-stra
Libertarian nightmare is not as bad as the Liberal one where everyone's freedom is choked by the government and lawyers to appease loudly whining and wailing "victims" and their advocates.
One would be really stupid to expect everyone share this philosophy at the same time. Thus, libertarian ideas are not ready for the mainstream yet.
However, if the true spirituality/mysticism* will be taught societywide, it will be much less chances that someone will try to own everything. BillG basically compensates for the small size of his dick, and Hitler had sexual problems. What I try to tell is that most of the aggressors (unless something really threatens them) are compensating for their issues.
Reducing the amount of issues in the society will provide for the stable part that will be able to withstand the attempts to rock the boat.
* Here is an exerpt of what spirituality/mysticism is:
Most people can't separate three distinct parts of religion (that is also called spirituality in modern speak) from each other. These parts are beliefs, morals and mysticism. There can be myriad systems of beliefs and morals, but most of the mystical systems have a lot in common. And "properly" can be related to the mysticism, but only barely. Most of the properness stuff is usually related to the beliefs or morals.
Beliefs are "Jesus is Lord", "No God but Allah", "Reincarnation exists/does not exist" or even "Communism is our future", "Human rights are mandatory" and "Corporations are evil". Ja, ja, communism as well as modern leftists' views are both religions that only pretend to be spiritual since they are not based on the mysticism. The essence of beliefs is "The world is the way I think it is, and it is supposed to be the way I want to see it".
Morals are based on beliefs, and describe one's interactions with the world in the form of "In this situation I should behave like that", "I need to strive for this" and "This is acceptable, that is not".
Mysticism is the way of getting to know your true self and transforming your body and mind. It is based on one fundamental axiom that states "Everything that happens with you happens because you need it on one level or another". This cause brings the effect "If you want to change your life and the world, change yourself". I can talk about mechanism of this process in details, but the condensed version will state that you have a lot of different motivations inside you, and they are competing for the resources of your mind and shaping your life according to their often simplistic desires. So, Guilt will form events where you either feel guilty or manifest it some other way; Judgement will make you lock the horns with others, demand proof or even send you on the barricades or Crusade; Victim or Abuser will make you play these roles et al.
Mystic gradually learns to recognize and shut off these "incorrect" motivations thus freeing the resources of his/her mind and redirecting the energy into further self-improvement and creative work. He untangles and unwinds the true source of his beliefs and morals in order to forge and shape the true foundation that will stay with him for the length of his life. And it is sometimes not up to him to decide what will become the part of it. This process will also move him beyond many of his beliefs and restrictions or looseness of some of his initial morals. At some point he will be ready for the next stage that can be called spiritual development versus the psychotherapy of the first stage.
That process also resolves most bottlenecks within you and eliminates situations where you "hang", i.e. you learn to operate even in uncomfortable situations where you have no control at all. I know how hard it can be to achieve, and how ugly can certain situations get, but the result is IMHO worth it. Also go away pain of the past and most insecurities. They certainly still exist in reduced form, but they no longer affect your decision making process.
The next stage of mysticism really s
I would not think so.
a r.html
;-)
Certainly, modern Libertarianism is a R-based ideology* that stresses individual responsibility and meritocracy, but it is not that inhumane unlike your depictions.
It is more like "Your freedom finishes where others' freedom starts" and "Live and don't prevent others from living".
It differs from ultra-right "expansionist" ideology ("Starship Troopers" the book by Heinlein who I really love, he was a great thinker) by built in "limiters" of the modern society.
I like it personally because it gives me a sense of direction and pride for my achivements as well as motivation to continue improving myself. I don't think one can say the same thing if he is living at the society's expense free of any challenge, "protected" from life by governments and greedy lawyers.
*This is my article on strategies:
http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/civilw
This is the other one that shows what leftist-dominated society is turning into: http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/victim.html
P.S. Don't be ignorant when reading!
>No. It's the electoral system that's broken, and the Democrats are finally suffering from that breakage.
It is not "electoral system is broken", it is one of the ways to setup democracy - "Presidential democracy" (versus "Parliamentary democracy" where winning parties make a coalition to run the government).
>The current winner-take-all approach to delegates only really makes sense in a one party system. It's only barely workable in a two party system. If somebody like Nader doesn't force the question about the brokenness of the current system, then you'll continue to have the same broken system forever.
I've described what happens if someone like Nader breaks Democratic party (or someone like Buchanan breaks the Republicans that has much less probability to happen because there are IMHO more leftist fanatics rather than the rightist ones).
I like this scenario much less than two parties.
I don't know about the UK, somehow it slips out from my radar.
;-).
>Isn't this pretty much what has happened in the UK? I'm not an expert on this, but I've gotten the impression that the Labour stepped closer to the middle and pressed the Conservatives into the margins. This won't make the people on the right edge happy, but at least they have a party unlike the people on the left edge...
Oh, they have a party, but leftists have the party that is 80% of what they desire at power! It is much more than party with 40% of vote that does not get power.
>If you think of the political spectrum of the voters as a gaussian curve (I wonder if this is accurate?) it's clear that in a two-party system the party that is closer to one extreme than the other party is going to lose, since the other will catch more voters from the middle, where the bulk of the are. So it's in the both parties' interests to stay close to the center. But if one of them moves closer to the center, and the other moves closer to the edge to differentiate itself... Maybe this is the way to break the two-party system?
It will make it three party system, where one (centrist) will always be at power, and the other two will whine all the time about how badly the country is managed
This is what happened after last election in Russia. "Free economy/free speech" parties did not pass the 5% barrier and are out of the Parliament whether the ruling party got the majority (IIRC). So, Communists and "Free economy" will have nothing but to whine.
>On the other hand, the same applies to multiparty systems too, to an extent. Any party far from the center will find itself in the opposition time after time, while other parties closer to each other form coalition goverments.
It rarely happens this way. Look at Israel. They have two big parties (about 60 to 75% of votes combined), and neither one can hold power alone. Thus they need to make coalitions with small "extortionist" parties that are interested in nothing more but funding for their voters or pushing their extreme leftist or rightist agenda.
Thus, parliamentary democracy is no saviour either.
I'm a Libertarian, and Nader is my biggest enemy on the political scene. He is the most anti-liberty candidate possible, and his view corrupt people into being crybabies who wants PROTECTION versus becoming self-sufficient beings who can solve their problems (and need Liberty; Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution, was a very clever man. One of his saying was "Freedom is realized necessity").
Nader is a front cheerleader for the REALLY evil corporation that extorts and squanders your money: http://www.triallawyersinc.com/
Enjoy!