There are many many different ways of starting a business. Your way is one but not the only one. Just because there are different ways that expose the founder to less personal financial risk doesn't make their way any less "real" than yours is. You are the one afterall who decided to lay all your assets on the line when you didn't have to.
As a non AC you don't know when someone replies to your post, thats all. You have to check on your own.
Unless the rest of the western world wants the US to become a haven for European/Japanese/Austrailan criminals than it makes a lot of sense to have them have reciprocal extradition treaties.
I wish you weren't an AC so you could see the fact that the death penalty isn't on the table in the US for this type of crime. The death penalty in the US is reserved for 2 crimes, Murder and Treason. Thats it. Anything that falls short of that excludes the death penalty.
So in this case there's no reason for the UK to not extradite this person.
There is nothing wrong with extraditing criminals to other nations. NOTHING. We extradite criminals to the UK, so why shouldn't you do so for us?
For the record most friendly nations have long standing and well known EXTRADITION TREATIES. For most serious crimes you cannot hide behind your home country to get away with them. If you commit a felony in France, France can ask the UK or US or Germany to send that person back to France to stand trial.
Of course since in this case it involves the US the automatic built in anti-US hate thats so trendy amongst both Europe and the Slashdot set is simply too tempting to resist.
Incorrect. If the country seeking extradition promises not to execute the prisoner then extradition is allowed. For this crime the death penalty is not on the table thus he can be extradited.
Everything you just said, and by that I mean EVERYTHING, has been refuted by actual sales and well reality.
1. iPods and iTunes. iTunes drives sales of iPods. The iPod dominates the market. Its because of iTunes. I mean I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.
2. Macs and Mac OS X. Mac OS X drives sales of Macs. Even iTunes and iPods drive sales of Macs. Apple's Mac marketshare has been on the upswing ever since the iPod was introduced. The "Halo effect" is in full effect. Apple is selling more Macs now than it has in over 15 years. They can't make the things fast enough.
Basically I don't know where you got your thoughts from because they are just completely and totally in the realm of wishful thinking.
Hahaha I don't know if you are serious about this or not but if you are man you are seriously out of touch with non-geek users.
There's no way people are going to put up with going through "command line exercizes" so that they can learn how to use it. To most folks a computer is a tool to get things done on, not a hobby to work on itself. The command line isn't better for anyone who is NOT a geek. For non-geeks the graphical user interface with its drag and drop abilities rules the roost. But seriously, good luck with that cause you're going to need it.
Seriously what is it with geeks assuming that the CLI is superior to the GUI for everyone? Can you not see from Distrowatch alone that the most popular distros are the ones that are the easist to use? You don't see Slackware or Gentoo in the #1 spot do you? No. You see Ubuntu. I know you are all a bunch of smart guys so why is this so hard to understand for you?
Not only is it a no-brainer, its also a no-straighter! Because after you get locked up for selling crack and are issued your own personal boyfriend you won't be straight no more!
"Just from a common sense point of view, your statement makes no sense. You don't need business acumen to stay rich, when you are rich you can hire people with business acumen."
Common sense isn't that common. Its not anymore common to the children of the rich than it is to anyone else's children. You'd think it would be as simple as hiring a financial advisor for most families but its not. If the kids fire the advisor their parents hired before they died then what else can be done to save the family fortune? A kid who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth is far less likely to realize the true value of a dollar and of hard work than his first generation parent did. I went to rich private schools (on scholarship) and I can tell you that many of those kids are pissing through their fortunes right now that they're adults.
"Unfortunately, the wealthy often resort to force. They may not know it, but much actual force and coercion is used in maintaining such inequalities in distribution of wealth. They are also the beneficiaries of much hidden socialism. Although much of what our government does benefits everyone, most of it benefits the rich more." What initiation of force? Seriously. When have the rich organized gangs to break into people's homes and steal the money under their mattresses?
"In short, I think people have every right to place whatever limits they want on others, as long as no coercion is used. That only leaves open withdrawal of reward. So groups of people can say, if you want to do business with us, you must respect an income and ownership cap. And you must not do business with people who don't respect that cap. There are far more people who would be below any reasonable cap, and it would be in their best interests to agree to such a system. It is entirely fair, and there is nothing the small minority of wealthy people could do about it without resorting to force."
What coercion? Please provide examples so I can know what you're talking about here. If someone is a moron and is too stupid to realize they're getting screwed in a specific deal then I don't harbor much sympathy for them. But in most transactions they simply don't work unless BOTH parties are enhanced by the transaction. For example, if I want a car I pay for the car. The dealer gets my money, I get the dealer's car. We both benefit from the transaction. Where's the coercion or force there? You are assuming that things are the way they are due to the application of force because you cannot accept the possibility that most folks are satisifed with our economy the way it is. No one would tell you its perfect but most folks are able to look at other places on the planet and compare themselves and no I'm not talking about just with Africa or other third world nations. There are plenty of Americans, you know like almost the entire collective group called Republicans who represent half our citizens, who detest the idea of higher taxes or increased social programs. These Republicans are not all rich either. Most of them are "Sams Club Republicans" and not "Coutnry Club Republicans" so they would benefit in your planned "take back the power and wealth" scenario....the only problem for you is they want absolutely no part in it. So where's the force there? Has the Republican party hired jack booted thugs to hold regular republicans at gunpoint and force them to vote against their own best interests?
As for the middle class, I'm well aware that it is shrinking. I'm not sure it was ever supposed to stay as large as it had for so long. The concept of a middle class is very much an anomaly. After the GI's returned from war during WWII there was a baby boom and job boom fueled by the GI bill and the rise of our post-war consumer economy. But that boom didn't last forever. For the overwhelming marjority of human history the largest class of human beings actual numbers wise has always been the abject poor, NOT the middle class. Its very possible we'll return to that. Of course it pays to keep in mind that there's "poor" and
I love Athens and ancient greece. I just saw 300. Great movie. This thread is madness. No THIS IS SLASHDOT!!!!!!!
I don't think its appropriate for society to dictate a cap on what anyone can make. I know no one is worth a million times what someone else is worth however the salary of that executive is a matter for the shareholders/owners of that company to consider and for them alone. Its not your company, its not my company, its not the workers company. Unless you are a majority shareholder its neither your place nor your business how much a CEO makes. In any case except for the few companies that are collectively owned, the owners are still making the lionshare of the profits. So this only applies to non-founding/owning management anyway.
Feedback loops do exist, even in present day America. Our founding fathers were worried about creating a new permanent aristocratic class which is why they did not allow a nobility or inherited titles. It turns out that those steps were enough. They shouldn't have worried. Thanks to both taxation (and I'm not just talking about the inheritance tax) and the generational differences in talent/skill very very FEW families manage to hold onto their wealth for more than 3 or 4 generations. As more and more generations come along its split more and more amongst an ever increasing number of children. First generation has 4 kids, next generation has 8, next has 16, next has 32, next has 64, so on and so on. In order for every member to maintain the level of wealth that the first started with each successive generation requires a relative with the same level of business acumen. That RARELY happens. It does happen occasionally, just not in any kind of a reliable fashion. You can count on the fact that whoever's family is rich today, probably won't be in 150 years.
I wish I could find the article that stated that most of the millionaires that exist in the US today are self made ones but I can't. But I can believe it. I work in real estate and I've dealt with customers who have through their own intelligence built great sums of wealth and others through their own stupidity lost great sums of wealth. As long as human stupidity remains a constant in our world and as long as we forbid inherited titles of nobility in this country than an entrenched aristocracy will NEVER be an issue here in the United States. (or most of the western world.)
"Or for that matter, what about the personal responsibility of the rich themselves? Why is it okay for them to use money and power to keep the poor poor and them rich? The poor aren't all poor because of bad choices. It is the height of arrogance to think so. Face facts: not everyone can be rich. Not everyone can be a leader. Not everyone can make money off of the hard work of others, because who then would be doing the hard work."
Nothing is guaranteed in life. I KNOW everyone can't be rich. My question is whats wrong with that? First of all you continue with the assumption that the rich are doing something to keep the poor poor. If you give 10 random people who you grabbed off the street $10 million dollars and checked back on them in 10 years each person would have a different result. Some would still have $10 million, some more and others less. There's nothing you can do to change that. As long as I am not bringing you harm then I am not responsible for you or for anyone else.
"As for what would work? I'm not the naive ideologue you seem to think. In fact, I have given it a lot of thought. Collectivist systems such as the Mondragon Collective in Spain have proven themselves more effective than pure capitalism. Look at the number of startup failures they have. Compared to us, they have far fewer new business failures because the whole society is set up to encourage people to form new collectives, and the society provides all the business, employement, and financial services necessary to ensure success, all in the form of collectives as well.
People are no less motivated just because they have an income and wealth cap in Mondragon."
Welp from what I can see here on Wikipedia.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooper ative_Corporation It doesn't look like things are ending up all that well for Mondragon. Things may have started off well but the system doesn't seem to scale very well. Now that its the 7th largest corporation in Spain, and the largest in the Basque region, it appears the distance between the leaders at the top and the workers on the bottom has gotten to large causing resentment. There's also allegations work has been outsourced to Latin America secretly. Also less than half of the 70,000 workers are full members of the Collective. Here's some juciy tidbits: 'Trade unions have complained of anti-unionizing policies in Eroski. Some have accused Mondragón of using the co-operative ideals as a marketing figleaf.
The distance between the most senior levels of management and individual managers has also caused concern. There is less feeling amongst the members or socios that they run the company. Measures to prevent too great a gap between manager and worker payscales have been relaxed to better compete for high-level professionals, leading to greater tensions. In recent years, some co-operatives have withdrawn from MCC to try and reinstate a more personal management of each company by its workers.'
Sounds like a GREAT plan. Not. You see, all of these "alternatives to capitalism" seem to work best on the drawing board where they don't have to compete with capitalism itself. You can see from your own example that having to compete with other companies for executive talent requires them to management more money which in turn alienates the rank and file socialists on the shop floor. Thats an inbuilt hard limit to how big any collective can become.
"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really do want a better world, but I often find that people advocating the loudest for "personal responsibility" are the ones most vested in keeping their unfair privilege and the ones least likely to accept any form of personal responsibility that is not thrust on them by force.
One of the primary perks of being in the dominant class is that you never have to question your assumptions. You assume that hard work will always succeed because
"You know why I don't like the way the market works? Because rich people fuck with the market and make it work in their favor. I wouldn't mind so much if people who were rich actually deserved it because they were smarter or worked harder, but the majority of rich people aren't and don't. They are rich because money breeds money, and because they have no compunctions about fucking over others."
Is it really this way though? If it is then you're right and it sucks. But what about personal responsibility? When people, poor and middle class, constantly make bad choices and decisions that keep them poor how is that a rich person's fault? Why do you automatically assume the world is the way it is because of the plans of the rich instead of the faults of the poor?
"Race is just a red herring, though, thrown out by the rich to keep the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves instead of uniting to fight them. There are far more middle class and poor people than there are rich people, and if we want to we can just take all their shit and there is nothing they can do. Yeah, that's right you rich motherfuckers, the police and military are all poor and middle class to, who do you really think they'd side with?"
Well seeing as that hasn't happened I'm guessing the police and military would side with the side of law and order. While the police and military are mostly made up of poor and middle class families they do have HOPES and DREAMS of rising above that. They don't want to fight the rich because they want to BE rich themselves. And the way for them to do that is not to overthrow the status quo but to make it via their own merit. In any case its irrelevant. After EVERY revolution, EVERY SINGLE ONE, a new elite forms. You just end up shuffling the deck a bit. As time goes on those who are better at their jobs and or smarter will rise to the top and those who suck or are dumb will go back down to the bottom. We'll be right back square where we started from. The collective masses of the poor and middle class are not some mindless mob who all think alike. Setting aside the very REAL and DISTINCT differences between middle class and poor folks themselves (such as middle class folks being deathly afraid of sinking down to the "poor" level and being disgusted with the habits and the way "poor" folks live their lives, and the resentment the poor harbor towards not just the "rich" but the "middle class" for daring to have more than they do.) everyone is different, there's many different groups within this lot. Your dreams of everyone uniting together against the rich are just that, PIPE DREAMS.
So whats your plan then? Constant, never ending revolutions? In other words, do you have an alternative way of doing things that WORKS as opposed to the tired old ideologies of "blaming the man" or "stealing from the rich to give to the poor (life choice makers) communism/socialism" that flat out don't work and have been collectively shat upon and rejected by nation after nation, continent after continent except for the poor deluded fools in Latin America?
Congrats, you managed to fit both RACSIM and CLASSISM in your post. Doesn't matter if they're true if you can slander two whole groups of people because you don't like the way the market works does it?
How highly this guy thinks of himself? He's biased? He has the damn proof in his own email account! He's not IMAGINING this, its friggin real. What are you? The Lord King Emperor of Denial and Enabling?
Slashdot Mirror
There are many many different ways of starting a business. Your way is one but not the only one. Just because there are different ways that expose the founder to less personal financial risk doesn't make their way any less "real" than yours is. You are the one afterall who decided to lay all your assets on the line when you didn't have to.
Law & Order = Ripped From The Headlines
Law & Order: SVU = Ripped From The Pantylines
Law & Order: CI: Ripped From Their Behinds
Obviously you aren't a true geek.
As a non AC you don't know when someone replies to your post, thats all. You have to check on your own.
Unless the rest of the western world wants the US to become a haven for European/Japanese/Austrailan criminals than it makes a lot of sense to have them have reciprocal extradition treaties.
I wish you weren't an AC so you could see the fact that the death penalty isn't on the table in the US for this type of crime. The death penalty in the US is reserved for 2 crimes, Murder and Treason. Thats it. Anything that falls short of that excludes the death penalty.
So in this case there's no reason for the UK to not extradite this person.
There is nothing wrong with extraditing criminals to other nations. NOTHING. We extradite criminals to the UK, so why shouldn't you do so for us?
For the record most friendly nations have long standing and well known EXTRADITION TREATIES. For most serious crimes you cannot hide behind your home country to get away with them. If you commit a felony in France, France can ask the UK or US or Germany to send that person back to France to stand trial.
Of course since in this case it involves the US the automatic built in anti-US hate thats so trendy amongst both Europe and the Slashdot set is simply too tempting to resist.
Does the rehabilitation work though? Or does it just allow the criminal to get off with a lighter sentence?
Incorrect. If the country seeking extradition promises not to execute the prisoner then extradition is allowed. For this crime the death penalty is not on the table thus he can be extradited.
Yes, it should. A whole lot.
Languages change.
Asshats don't.
So is the other half of Jersey full of the rich commuters who work in NYC?
Everything you just said, and by that I mean EVERYTHING, has been refuted by actual sales and well reality.
1. iPods and iTunes. iTunes drives sales of iPods. The iPod dominates the market. Its because of iTunes. I mean I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.
2. Macs and Mac OS X. Mac OS X drives sales of Macs. Even iTunes and iPods drive sales of Macs. Apple's Mac marketshare has been on the upswing ever since the iPod was introduced. The "Halo effect" is in full effect. Apple is selling more Macs now than it has in over 15 years. They can't make the things fast enough.
Basically I don't know where you got your thoughts from because they are just completely and totally in the realm of wishful thinking.
How would doing what you request encourage people to buy Macs or iPods?
If what you request wouldn't then why should Apple do it?
The sound quality is already decent. Only mutants with special ears care about higher bitrates.
There's nothing pathetic about protecting your citizens from gambling away their mortgage/rent/food money with the ease of a click of a mouse button.
Try not to be an anti-US sheeple for once.
As easy as can be to bring as many people as possible into the computing fold.
Unless of course you are an elitist prick in which case naturally you'd want some barriers to entry.
Hahaha I don't know if you are serious about this or not but if you are man you are seriously out of touch with non-geek users.
There's no way people are going to put up with going through "command line exercizes" so that they can learn how to use it. To most folks a computer is a tool to get things done on, not a hobby to work on itself. The command line isn't better for anyone who is NOT a geek. For non-geeks the graphical user interface with its drag and drop abilities rules the roost. But seriously, good luck with that cause you're going to need it.
Seriously what is it with geeks assuming that the CLI is superior to the GUI for everyone? Can you not see from Distrowatch alone that the most popular distros are the ones that are the easist to use? You don't see Slackware or Gentoo in the #1 spot do you? No. You see Ubuntu. I know you are all a bunch of smart guys so why is this so hard to understand for you?
Not only is it a no-brainer, its also a no-straighter! Because after you get locked up for selling crack and are issued your own personal boyfriend you won't be straight no more!
"Just from a common sense point of view, your statement makes no sense. You don't need business acumen to stay rich, when you are rich you can hire people with business acumen."
Common sense isn't that common. Its not anymore common to the children of the rich than it is to anyone else's children. You'd think it would be as simple as hiring a financial advisor for most families but its not. If the kids fire the advisor their parents hired before they died then what else can be done to save the family fortune? A kid who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth is far less likely to realize the true value of a dollar and of hard work than his first generation parent did. I went to rich private schools (on scholarship) and I can tell you that many of those kids are pissing through their fortunes right now that they're adults.
"Unfortunately, the wealthy often resort to force. They may not know it, but much actual force and coercion is used in maintaining such inequalities in distribution of wealth. They are also the beneficiaries of much hidden socialism. Although much of what our government does benefits everyone, most of it benefits the rich more." What initiation of force? Seriously. When have the rich organized gangs to break into people's homes and steal the money under their mattresses?
"In short, I think people have every right to place whatever limits they want on others, as long as no coercion is used. That only leaves open withdrawal of reward. So groups of people can say, if you want to do business with us, you must respect an income and ownership cap. And you must not do business with people who don't respect that cap. There are far more people who would be below any reasonable cap, and it would be in their best interests to agree to such a system. It is entirely fair, and there is nothing the small minority of wealthy people could do about it without resorting to force."
What coercion? Please provide examples so I can know what you're talking about here. If someone is a moron and is too stupid to realize they're getting screwed in a specific deal then I don't harbor much sympathy for them. But in most transactions they simply don't work unless BOTH parties are enhanced by the transaction. For example, if I want a car I pay for the car. The dealer gets my money, I get the dealer's car. We both benefit from the transaction. Where's the coercion or force there? You are assuming that things are the way they are due to the application of force because you cannot accept the possibility that most folks are satisifed with our economy the way it is. No one would tell you its perfect but most folks are able to look at other places on the planet and compare themselves and no I'm not talking about just with Africa or other third world nations. There are plenty of Americans, you know like almost the entire collective group called Republicans who represent half our citizens, who detest the idea of higher taxes or increased social programs. These Republicans are not all rich either. Most of them are "Sams Club Republicans" and not "Coutnry Club Republicans" so they would benefit in your planned "take back the power and wealth" scenario....the only problem for you is they want absolutely no part in it. So where's the force there? Has the Republican party hired jack booted thugs to hold regular republicans at gunpoint and force them to vote against their own best interests?
As for the middle class, I'm well aware that it is shrinking. I'm not sure it was ever supposed to stay as large as it had for so long. The concept of a middle class is very much an anomaly. After the GI's returned from war during WWII there was a baby boom and job boom fueled by the GI bill and the rise of our post-war consumer economy. But that boom didn't last forever. For the overwhelming marjority of human history the largest class of human beings actual numbers wise has always been the abject poor, NOT the middle class. Its very possible we'll return to that. Of course it pays to keep in mind that there's "poor" and
I love Athens and ancient greece. I just saw 300. Great movie. This thread is madness. No THIS IS SLASHDOT!!!!!!!
I don't think its appropriate for society to dictate a cap on what anyone can make. I know no one is worth a million times what someone else is worth however the salary of that executive is a matter for the shareholders/owners of that company to consider and for them alone. Its not your company, its not my company, its not the workers company. Unless you are a majority shareholder its neither your place nor your business how much a CEO makes. In any case except for the few companies that are collectively owned, the owners are still making the lionshare of the profits. So this only applies to non-founding/owning management anyway.
Feedback loops do exist, even in present day America. Our founding fathers were worried about creating a new permanent aristocratic class which is why they did not allow a nobility or inherited titles. It turns out that those steps were enough. They shouldn't have worried. Thanks to both taxation (and I'm not just talking about the inheritance tax) and the generational differences in talent/skill very very FEW families manage to hold onto their wealth for more than 3 or 4 generations. As more and more generations come along its split more and more amongst an ever increasing number of children. First generation has 4 kids, next generation has 8, next has 16, next has 32, next has 64, so on and so on. In order for every member to maintain the level of wealth that the first started with each successive generation requires a relative with the same level of business acumen. That RARELY happens. It does happen occasionally, just not in any kind of a reliable fashion. You can count on the fact that whoever's family is rich today, probably won't be in 150 years.
I wish I could find the article that stated that most of the millionaires that exist in the US today are self made ones but I can't. But I can believe it. I work in real estate and I've dealt with customers who have through their own intelligence built great sums of wealth and others through their own stupidity lost great sums of wealth. As long as human stupidity remains a constant in our world and as long as we forbid inherited titles of nobility in this country than an entrenched aristocracy will NEVER be an issue here in the United States. (or most of the western world.)
"Or for that matter, what about the personal responsibility of the rich themselves? Why is it okay for them to use money and power to keep the poor poor and them rich? The poor aren't all poor because of bad choices. It is the height of arrogance to think so. Face facts: not everyone can be rich. Not everyone can be a leader. Not everyone can make money off of the hard work of others, because who then would be doing the hard work."
Nothing is guaranteed in life. I KNOW everyone can't be rich. My question is whats wrong with that? First of all you continue with the assumption that the rich are doing something to keep the poor poor. If you give 10 random people who you grabbed off the street $10 million dollars and checked back on them in 10 years each person would have a different result. Some would still have $10 million, some more and others less. There's nothing you can do to change that. As long as I am not bringing you harm then I am not responsible for you or for anyone else.
"As for what would work? I'm not the naive ideologue you seem to think. In fact, I have given it a lot of thought. Collectivist systems such as the Mondragon Collective in Spain have proven themselves more effective than pure capitalism. Look at the number of startup failures they have. Compared to us, they have far fewer new business failures because the whole society is set up to encourage people to form new collectives, and the society provides all the business, employement, and financial services necessary to ensure success, all in the form of collectives as well.
People are no less motivated just because they have an income and wealth cap in Mondragon."
Welp from what I can see here on Wikipedia.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooper ative_Corporation It doesn't look like things are ending up all that well for Mondragon. Things may have started off well but the system doesn't seem to scale very well. Now that its the 7th largest corporation in Spain, and the largest in the Basque region, it appears the distance between the leaders at the top and the workers on the bottom has gotten to large causing resentment. There's also allegations work has been outsourced to Latin America secretly. Also less than half of the 70,000 workers are full members of the Collective. Here's some juciy tidbits: 'Trade unions have complained of anti-unionizing policies in Eroski. Some have accused Mondragón of using the co-operative ideals as a marketing figleaf.
The distance between the most senior levels of management and individual managers has also caused concern. There is less feeling amongst the members or socios that they run the company. Measures to prevent too great a gap between manager and worker payscales have been relaxed to better compete for high-level professionals, leading to greater tensions. In recent years, some co-operatives have withdrawn from MCC to try and reinstate a more personal management of each company by its workers.'
Sounds like a GREAT plan. Not. You see, all of these "alternatives to capitalism" seem to work best on the drawing board where they don't have to compete with capitalism itself. You can see from your own example that having to compete with other companies for executive talent requires them to management more money which in turn alienates the rank and file socialists on the shop floor. Thats an inbuilt hard limit to how big any collective can become.
"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really do want a better world, but I often find that people advocating the loudest for "personal responsibility" are the ones most vested in keeping their unfair privilege and the ones least likely to accept any form of personal responsibility that is not thrust on them by force.
One of the primary perks of being in the dominant class is that you never have to question your assumptions. You assume that hard work will always succeed because
"You know why I don't like the way the market works? Because rich people fuck with the market and make it work in their favor. I wouldn't mind so much if people who were rich actually deserved it because they were smarter or worked harder, but the majority of rich people aren't and don't. They are rich because money breeds money, and because they have no compunctions about fucking over others."
Is it really this way though? If it is then you're right and it sucks. But what about personal responsibility? When people, poor and middle class, constantly make bad choices and decisions that keep them poor how is that a rich person's fault? Why do you automatically assume the world is the way it is because of the plans of the rich instead of the faults of the poor?
"Race is just a red herring, though, thrown out by the rich to keep the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves instead of uniting to fight them. There are far more middle class and poor people than there are rich people, and if we want to we can just take all their shit and there is nothing they can do. Yeah, that's right you rich motherfuckers, the police and military are all poor and middle class to, who do you really think they'd side with?"
Well seeing as that hasn't happened I'm guessing the police and military would side with the side of law and order. While the police and military are mostly made up of poor and middle class families they do have HOPES and DREAMS of rising above that. They don't want to fight the rich because they want to BE rich themselves. And the way for them to do that is not to overthrow the status quo but to make it via their own merit. In any case its irrelevant. After EVERY revolution, EVERY SINGLE ONE, a new elite forms. You just end up shuffling the deck a bit. As time goes on those who are better at their jobs and or smarter will rise to the top and those who suck or are dumb will go back down to the bottom. We'll be right back square where we started from. The collective masses of the poor and middle class are not some mindless mob who all think alike. Setting aside the very REAL and DISTINCT differences between middle class and poor folks themselves (such as middle class folks being deathly afraid of sinking down to the "poor" level and being disgusted with the habits and the way "poor" folks live their lives, and the resentment the poor harbor towards not just the "rich" but the "middle class" for daring to have more than they do.) everyone is different, there's many different groups within this lot. Your dreams of everyone uniting together against the rich are just that, PIPE DREAMS.
So whats your plan then? Constant, never ending revolutions? In other words, do you have an alternative way of doing things that WORKS as opposed to the tired old ideologies of "blaming the man" or "stealing from the rich to give to the poor (life choice makers) communism/socialism" that flat out don't work and have been collectively shat upon and rejected by nation after nation, continent after continent except for the poor deluded fools in Latin America?
I don't think you do. I don't think you ever did.
Congrats, you managed to fit both RACSIM and CLASSISM in your post. Doesn't matter if they're true if you can slander two whole groups of people because you don't like the way the market works does it?
How highly this guy thinks of himself? He's biased? He has the damn proof in his own email account! He's not IMAGINING this, its friggin real. What are you? The Lord King Emperor of Denial and Enabling?
Yeah because everytime I want to listen to some music I want to have to go down to some smelly crowded concert.
Oh joy.