Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Do you have any clearly defined thought processes on what society should be like?

...as you've phrased the question...no. I have very clearly defined thoughts on how I would prefer society to be. That's not quite the same as "how society should be." There is no single "how society should be" any more than there's a single "how hamburgers should be cooked."

People want different things. I can tell you what I want, but I realize that's not necessarily going to work for everybody.

Do you have any notions of why it should be that way?

See previous answer. Perceiving things with "should" is a fuzzy, imprecise way of thinking.

Do you have any suggestions of how to get there?

Sure. Lots. The only real hurdles are that people are accustomed to doing things a certain way, and that not everyone agrees on a desirable end result.

For example, in my little world, nobody would work at any job they didn't want to, survival wouldn't really be a big problem for anybody, and people would be able to do pretty much most things they want. Like I mentioned a few posts ago, probably nobody wants to flip hamburgers or wait tables. So why not have a society where nobody does those things? But...when I try to explain that to somebody who makes their living flipping hamburgers or waiting tables...it's difficult to overcome that because they feel dependent on it, even though it's not what they want to be doing. Honestly, it's not all that much different from trying to free a slave and them feeling threatened because...where will they sleep? Who will feed them? Ok, yes...that might be a legitimate concern from their point of view...but you can't really help them improve their situation without first getting them to see things differently.

So, the first step of how to get there is getting people to understand that things are only the way they are because we've become accustomed to doing them that way. For example, income taxes mentioned earlier. This country ran perfectly fine with no income taxes for over a hundred years. To me, going back to that seems like a good idea. But try to explain that to somebody who believes taxes are necessary and they immediately respond with "but what about roads and hospitals? Those are funded by taxes. Would you just do away with them?" That response misses the fact that we had roads and hospitals before we had income tax. These things are only funded by income tax now...because we collect income tax. Government will always find a way to spend money you give it. That doesn't mean it's impossible to have things without government and compulsory income taxes under threat of imprisonment. The current system is self perpetuating, and it's helpful to be sufficiently removed from it to see the whole picture. It's difficult to see the whole picture when you're caught up in it.

Hopefully that example wasn't too much of a sidetrack. Again, the answer to your question is yes. People have to see what's possible before they can be expected to reach for it. We would never have landed on the moon if it never occurred to us that it could ever really happen. But once people understand the possibilities...getting there is just an engineering problem.

Have you ever lived under the poverty level?

Yes.

[MaximumZero]

-snip-

Thank you.

[LordBucket]

Thank you.

You're welcome. Please let me know if you have further questions.

[MaximumZero]

Thank you.

You're welcome. Please let me know if you have further questions.

I don't really have any questions, but I prefer it when people shoot straight, instead of trying to hide their opinions behind, or letting their opinions be lost in (which I suspect was the case with you), flowery language.

[Azthor]

Close, but not quite. The wealthy do care about status symbols, but they choose that which would stand out amongst their peers, not the average man. Whereas a "nouveau riche' might buy a from widely known luxury brand to show off to his acquaintances, someone native to wealth would be prone to favoring a more obscure, yet all the more exquisite, brand,  likely to pass altogether unrecognized by most. Capitalizing on your example, the earlier would buy a Rolex, whereas the later would purchase a Lange & Söhne. That is right, almost everyone here would recognize a Rolex, but could the same be said for a Lange or a Patek?

It's funny you use that example. I have a friend who has very strong opinions about rolex vs cartier.

Personally, my take on it is...if you were rich...why would you wear a watch? Keeping track of time is for people who have to be somewhere tomorrow at 8am. Buying an "expensive watch" to show how wealthy you are strikes me as humorously ironic. You may as well have your collar and chain plated in gold.

Anyway, this comes down to impressions. My sample group might be different from yours. But when I see a guy who collects watches in a showcase that keeps them moving, when I see guy who builds a building to put his vintage cars in...I see hobbyists. Not people trying to show off. The guy who shows you his stamp collection isn't trying to impress you, is he? No, he just really likes stamps and is trying to share something he enjoys. People with more money just have more expensive hobbies.

If you were particular to watches you'd know that Cartier and Rolex are both designer brands, whereas Lange & Patek are classics and, as such, in a whole other league.” Hobbyism” is nothing but a passable excuse in this conversation; of course the wealthy may opt for the more expensive hobbies, but that is not an accessory's primary purpose, even less so the only one. A fine watch is not only tasteful, but artful; though pleasing to the eyes, it also accolades the wearer's taste. The very notion of which the wealthy are not obliged to look the part, however subtly it may be and whenever appropriate, is inherent to the newly initiated and reclusive. "Show off" is too light a word to describe the depth of social play at hand, but to address what strikes me as the foremost issue, note that, though I used a watch as an example, that is but an example; the object needs only be one of the individual's desire.

[LordBucket]

letting their opinions be lost in (which I suspect was the case with you), flowery language.

Hmm. Well, that was not my intent.

If you were particular to watches

A fine watch is not only tasteful, but artful; though pleasing to the eyes, it also accolades the wearer's taste.

I am not, and my taste is to not wear one. Yet neither am I offended when the person sitting across from me is wearing one that costs $20,000.

The very notion of which the wealthy are not obliged to look the part, however subtly
it may be and whenever appropriate, is inherent to the newly initiated and reclusive.

My sample group does not support that conclusion.

though I used a watch as an example, that is but an example; the object needs only be one of the individual's desire.

Certainly. And I've seen what you're describing, but generally with knowledge of things rather than things themselves. Wine, for example. Make the mistake of thinking that zinfandel grapes are white, and that immediately marks you as a a member of the outgroup in some circles. But the people who play those games aren't usually people I'd consider rich.

[Azthor]

Certainly. And I've seen what you're describing, but generally with knowledge of things rather than things themselves. Wine, for example. Make the mistake of thinking that zinfandel grapes are white, and that immediately marks you as a a member of the outgroup in some circles. But the people who play those games aren't usually people I'd consider rich.

I can see that happening, if only because thinking that Zinfandel grapes are white is a strong hint towards being all too acquainted with blush wines (White Zinfandel), in lieu of the classics. Though wine tasting is becoming an increasingly widespread practice, which entails popularization and, with it, social devaluation, it lives on as a classy leisure activity, when properly conducted; wine cellars, sommeliers and the likes of a Henri Jayer's don't come easily. Still, you've got me curious, how would you define said sample group?

[Frumple]

Have you ever lived under the poverty level?

Yes.

Going with the other questions...
So, how'd you get out from under it?
What's your sure-fire strategy that other people should use to out from under it? It would seem you believe it is possible with right action for anyone to escape the condition. Perhaps some details?


As the aside, should isn't a particularly imprecise or fuzzy concept. It's just a prescriptive statement indicating best action or rule. When a person says "should", if they're using it in the general sense, they're saying that they find whatever follows to be the most appropriate action or situation, and thus something that is rightfully assumed by other people, i.e. become a rule or law, in other words a universal (at least in relation to the subject in question; the subject can be as large or larger than existent reality or as small or smaller than a single group or person) pattern.

E:As a later note, realized after some idle rumination, LB, your confusion over should statements seeming to be preference statements is likely a very natural confusion -- it is absolutely true that most people would prefer it if the actions prescribed were followed or the situation described organized as such. However, that preference is separate from the prescriptive statement, despite generally accompanying it. It's understandable how you'd conflate the two (and, being fair, prescriptive statements are often misused in an attempt to add greater authority to preference statements), but they are in fact separate things. Perhaps that makes things more clear for you?

E: If you'd really like, I could give a little breakdown morality 101 lesson and provide a more clear picture of exactly where prescriptive statements stand. Be a bit of a derail, but not terribly much effort.

[ed boy]

As the aside, should isn't a particularly imprecise or fuzzy concept. It's just a prescriptive statement indicating best action or rule.

But that's precisely what makes it such a fuzzy statement. What is considered best is an incredibly vague concept, and it depends entirely on what metric you're working with. There's no such thing as a 'best' course of action, unless you also specify what you're trying to achieve, and how you weigh the various factors that can change. So when someone simply says "X should happen", they're either implying the existence of a single universal metric (and are wrong), or they're forcing everyone else to try and guess which of the infinitely many metrics they're using

[Leafsnail]

And no, Leafsnail, he made the reasonablish point that income taxes weren't necessary until America became all super-powery. I'd assume he'd prefer the government run it's bare necessities (roads et al) off of sales tax instead of income.

And you know what?  If America weren't all "super-powery" then the vast majority of people in America who are currently rich would not be.  I guess I should have said "He wants to eliminate all sensible taxes" considering there's no way in hell sales tax is gonna fund a modern superpower (in any case I don't see why sales tax is so much better than income tax - the only difference is that you're taking the majority of your money from people who can't afford it rather than people who can).

But I'm just not going to waste my time trying to show a 100 dot per inch picture to someone who only sees 10 dots per inch.

"You're just too stupid to understand the awesomeness of my position, HEH".

[scriver]

Have you ever lived under the poverty level?

Yes.

Going with the other questions...
So, how'd you get out from under it?
What's your sure-fire strategy that other people should use to out from under it? It would seem you believe it is possible with right action for anyone to escape the condition. Perhaps some details?

And furthermore, how many people were dependant on your support at this point? For how long? So yeah, details, please. Your assertion is useless without them.

Do you have any clearly defined thought processes on what society should be like?

...as you've phrased the question...no. I have very clearly defined thoughts on how I would prefer society to be. That's not quite the same as "how society should be." There is no single "how society should be" any more than there's a single "how hamburgers should be cooked."

People want different things. I can tell you what I want, but I realize that's not necessarily going to work for everybody.

More of the hollow faux-philosofic dancing-around-the-stubject Max just told you to stop dropping. It's clear to everyone that in the context of how they are used, those two phrases are completely interchangeable. Starting talking about semantics instead of what is actually being said, or in this case instead of answering the damn question, is nothing more than a cheap attempt to either derail the topic or circumvent it without actually saying anything.

I am attacking a position that he seems to be saying he holds

If you can show me where he gives an actual position and not 2 pages of "Are you sure you're not
a lazy bum who enjoys being poor?" then I will address that instead.

Pretty sure I've never said that. You seem to be reading between the lines to come to conclusions of your own, and missing out on the things I'm actually intending to communicate.

Spoiler: Here is where you said it (click to show/hide)

So, let me ask you a question:

Do you want out? Do you want what you said here, to be able to pay your bills and give your daughter two consistent wants every month? Do you want the $25,000/yr that you say would allow you to easily have a happy lifestyle?

Do you want it?

Or...and I apologize, but it must be asked...or do you want to complain about why you can't have it?

Or are you still going to pretend that "you were only asking questions"? Because we all, including you, know that you weren't, and your attempts to deny it just further cements what a dishonest arse you are.

The very notion of which the wealthy are not obliged to look the part, however subtly
it may be and whenever appropriate, is inherent to the newly initiated and reclusive.

My sample group does not support that conclusion.

Look out! He is armed with selective reality and not afraid to use it!

Please...nobody take any interpretation by Leafsnail about anything I say seriously. I honestly get the impression that his thinking is just not clear enough to understand the things we're talking about.

Spoiler: Also Here, and the bullshit in the beginning of the thread (click to show/hide)

But...when you say that, people panic because they feel their livelihood being threatened. They want to work. People rejoice when jobs are created. They panic when jobs are eliminated and workers are replaced with machines, because the system is designed to require people to participate in its self perpetuation. The whole system is dumb. But know that you're participating in it. And you're contributing. If you work a job, if you pay to support your work habit, if you lobby to keep your jobs rather than being replaced by machines...you're working to support the system that enslaves you.

I think it would be healthy if more people understood this. Maybe it's impractical to just walk off your job. Maybe it's impractical to stop perpetuating the system. But if more people understood how it worked, it might be easier to transition out of it.

This is basically LordBuckets problem in a nutshell. He just knows the world better than everybody else. He's just more intelligent, more experienced, wiser, more worldly than other people. Everybody else needs to be told of the world works, how they work, what the consequences of their actions are, because if they aren't already thinking like he is, they're obviously just ignorant of the world and their part in it. The same goes if you disagree with him. Because he is clearly the most intelligent person around, people who disagree must obviously be idiots or ignoramuses, and they can be dismissed as such, and you really doesn't have to be taking what they say seriously. Only intelligent opinions are worthy of consideration after all, and yeah, if you're intelligent, you would of course already be agreeing with him in the first case.

[Truean]

Wealth, it's really all about population compared to resources. We tried this thing against poverty and hunger called " the green revolution." Basically we tried to grow so much food, that there wouldn't be hunger. Makes sense on a basic level. Hunger = not enough food. Grow more food = no more hunger.... Except feedback loop effects. Simply, people had more kids....

We need to realize some things about wealth:

a.) It is created and needs sustaining. It doesn't happen in nature. Naturally, we're all just hairless apes.
b.) Wealth is sustained  by having a crop of consumers who can afford whatever you do for them and are interdependent. Thus it matters if the average person is screwed.
c.) Wealth needs to be the product of effort and attention and be actively seized from the corrupt.
d.) Seeing as the machinery that makes wealth is reliant upon there being a large group of average people to build and support that machinery, we need to at least make things livable for the average person.
e.) Loss is not always from the lack of effort, ability or deserving nature. Winning is not always from the presence of effort, ability or deserving nature. Hands down, people get sick, they die, simply and I would say unarguably, shit happens. It is very often nobody's fault. We need a better way to deal with losses.
f.) Strangely, we currently have a huge tax gap helping the very rich the most, and hurting most the self employed (who due to self employment taxes pay more than most ever will as a percentage).
g.) We don't think about the sources of things or the consequences. The notion that people get what they want if they work for it sounds good in theory, but then you practice a little reality and it all falls apart, terribly. Even little things, like a soccer ball, end up being a horrid thing to own, because of the way they were manufactured. The way they were manufactured, directly benefits the consumer due to lower price. Fact of the matter is, those soccer balls are usually sewn together in third world sweatshops.... Thus, buy refusing to pay a couple extra dollars for the item, the consumer is encouraging this horrid state of affairs and ergo is hurting somebody to get what he or she wants. The consumer just doesn't have to look at the consequences of their actions or even necessarily know about them to begin with. All they see is "O that soccer ball looks nice and it's only $3...." There's more to it than that....


In the end, our ability to provide for 6, or is it 7 billion people, is not there. Worse, the problem isn't getting better. Somehow, the world's population is still growing by leaps and bounds. If we were really, actually smart, we'd figure out how to regulate births in an acceptable manner, hopefully by giving people complete control over it, and then plan them around making sure everyone had enough instead of just popping out kids left and right, which appears to be the plan for now. Tragic. We let all these kids "compete" with one another for everything that is based off position in life and that competition is completely needless and often incredibly cruel, especially when you realize the sheer number of kids born in 3rd world countries or even certain parts of the US who have 0 chance.... It isn't right that we have people "getting what they want"  (when what they want is usually stupid judging by the millions of dollars in pet rock sales) in this senario when there are people who don't even have what they need and have no opportunity to get it. There has to be SOMETHING we could put these people to work doing, but it seems we won't.

At the end of the day, most of the people who are doing fine seem to have this "I'm fine so hurray for me and to hell with you," attitude.

Pictured: Most people's attitudes about other people once they have what they want.

[Gantolandon]

I would like to point out that the money had to come from somewhere. Even inherited money was earned by somebody back up the family tree at some point. And for those who invest their money, then consider that the contribution they are making is capital towards running something else. After all venture capitalists don't actually "do" anything, but they still allow things that do that would otherwise fail start, which is a "contribution". Sure wealthy people might be "just sitting there", but for most their money is still actively contributing through investments, as well as the fact that just because they aren't doing anything now doesn't mean they haven't done anything, ever.

My point is that, at this moment, they contribute absolutely nothing. Their money and the people they hire do. You could as well replace them with cats or cardboard human silhouettes, which would most probably consume a lot less resources. Was the original contribution so great that they (and their children, and their children's children) should be allowed to never again having to lift a finger AND live opulently compared to the people who will have to work through their entire lives? I somehow don't think so.

The idea that people learn in their childhoods is that the resources are scarce and people need to work somehow and contribute to their society to have their share. You will not find many people who will question this and plenty think that it is OK to let some people starve because they are useless. So, why exactly let a small group of people do nothing and consume much more resources, because their grandparents may have contributed something?

[Criptfeind]

I would like to point out that the money had to come from somewhere. Even inherited money was earned by somebody back up the family tree at some point. And for those who invest their money, then consider that the contribution they are making is capital towards running something else. After all venture capitalists don't actually "do" anything, but they still allow things that do that would otherwise fail start, which is a "contribution". Sure wealthy people might be "just sitting there", but for most their money is still actively contributing through investments, as well as the fact that just because they aren't doing anything now doesn't mean they haven't done anything, ever.

My point is that, at this moment, they contribute absolutely nothing. Their money and the people they hire do. You could as well replace them with cats or cardboard human silhouettes, which would most probably consume a lot less resources. Was the original contribution so great that they (and their children, and their children's children) should be allowed to never again having to lift a finger AND live opulently compared to the people who will have to work through their entire lives? I somehow don't think so.

The idea that people learn in their childhoods is that the resources are scarce and people need to work somehow and contribute to their society to have their share. You will not find many people who will question this and plenty think that it is OK to let some people starve because they are useless. So, why exactly let a small group of people do nothing and consume much more resources, because their grandparents may have contributed something?

At that point though you have to point out a specific place where it is unfair. Do you go to the person who actually made the money and say "No. It's not okay for you to save for your descendents." Do you go the next person in line who made the investments they live off of and say "No. It's not okay for you to grow what you have." Do you go to where the investments went into and say "No. It's not okay for you to be involved in this?"

It's all fine and dandy to look at the whole thing and say something is not right here, but until you can point to a action and not the net outcome I don't see how you can stand behind this thought.

[Gantolandon]

I would like to point out that the money had to come from somewhere. Even inherited money was earned by somebody back up the family tree at some point. And for those who invest their money, then consider that the contribution they are making is capital towards running something else. After all venture capitalists don't actually "do" anything, but they still allow things that do that would otherwise fail start, which is a "contribution". Sure wealthy people might be "just sitting there", but for most their money is still actively contributing through investments, as well as the fact that just because they aren't doing anything now doesn't mean they haven't done anything, ever.

My point is that, at this moment, they contribute absolutely nothing. Their money and the people they hire do. You could as well replace them with cats or cardboard human silhouettes, which would most probably consume a lot less resources. Was the original contribution so great that they (and their children, and their children's children) should be allowed to never again having to lift a finger AND live opulently compared to the people who will have to work through their entire lives? I somehow don't think so.

The idea that people learn in their childhoods is that the resources are scarce and people need to work somehow and contribute to their society to have their share. You will not find many people who will question this and plenty think that it is OK to let some people starve because they are useless. So, why exactly let a small group of people do nothing and consume much more resources, because their grandparents may have contributed something?

At that point though you have to point out a specific place where it is unfair. Do you go to the person who actually made the money and say "No. It's not okay for you to save for your descendents." Do you go the next person in line who made the investments they live off of and say "No. It's not okay for you to grow what you have." Do you go to where the investments went into and say "No. It's not okay for you to be involved in this?"

It's all fine and dandy to look at the whole thing and say something is not right here, but until you can point to a action and not the net outcome I don't see how you can stand behind this thought.

I don't follow your logic. If you can clearly see that something is not right there, why is my point still invalid until I can show that one, exact moment where everything goes wrong? Why can't it be possible that current economy is just inadequate in valuing one's contribution to the society, artificially inflating some people's worth and forcing the rest to work even harder to satisfy their demands?