New Data Shows Just How Unequal Wealth Has Become in the U.S. Since the 80s - Polidicks

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28332350]Well past environment does determine how greedy we will be but also so does your current environment. So while being raised by a loving family will have you steal apples left the only true way to make sure no one ever steals apples is to make sure they all already have them. You get what I'm saying? A hungry person will steal food but his raising will make him less inclined to do so.[/QUOTE] It's a very fuzzy form of psychology, almost impossible to say people are greedy naturally since there is no way to determine natural behaviour when everyone is influenced significantly by their upbringing. There is no natural developed mind as to become developed, it had to soak up all the influence from things around it. If anything the natural mind is indifferent to greed as it is an empty shell waiting for something to shape it.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28332441]It's a very fuzzy form of psychology, almost impossible to say people are greedy naturally since there is no way to determine natural behaviour when everyone is influenced significantly by their upbringing. There is no natural developed mind as to become developed, it had to soak up all the influence from things around it. If anything the natural mind is indifferent to greed as it is an empty shell waiting for something to shape it.[/QUOTE] So you could put somebody in solitary confinement away from human life, from birth, they would never love or hate or be greedy? I would like to know the scientific basis for this. I am familiar with the "blank slate" or "blank state" but i hope you also know where that came from.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28332437]With laws in place and him following the law of the ordinary man, he can't kill like a government does, he can't coerce like a government does, he can't build an army nor can he rob people of their fortunes. I'm perfectly fine is some asshole wants to buy 40 Ferraris, that doesn't effect me at all, so long as the way he obtained that money was peaceful and not against any law.[/QUOTE] Expensive Lawyers, lobbyists and private security companies. In a capitalist system like in the US, money has bought the government. I could go on but I'm sure you can think of examples. [editline]28th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;28332486]So you could put somebody in solitary confinement away from human life, from birth, they would never love or hate or be greedy? I would like to know the scientific basis for this. I am familiar with the "blank slate" or "blank state" but i hope you also know where that came from.[/QUOTE] I am saying that there is no way to determine if someone is greedy by nature because blank slate says they are indifferent to greed. Someone isolated from everyone else would be shaped by that too, a complete lack of empathy for their fellows because they have never had any, likely scavenging whatever they can to survive, they would be shaped by it regardless. The best isolation I can think of is putting them in a coma from birth and waking them up when they are fully grown. I would expect however that they would either not understand higher concepts like greed or would be shaped by their experiences from the moment they wake up to test if they are greedy.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28332500]Expensive Lawyers, lobbyists and private security companies. In a capitalist system like in the US, money has bought the government. I could go on but I'm sure you can think of examples.[/QUOTE] Expensive lawyers are only given the power the government allows, same as lobbyists or security companies. We would fall back to this being another government problem. You can say the government was "bought" by special interests (and I'd like to see some solid proof of that, in the literal sense) but doesn't this go back to the "people" problem? citizens not remaining vigilant? That can make any system fail, once again not a defense or attack like somebody brought up earlier, but it works both ways. You could argue capitalism in its purest form had a pretty damn good run (governments are solvent, always, and forms of government are simply temporary. History has proven this)

[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28324532]I find it funny how people think capitalism is the only thing at fault for this huge difference between the top .01% and everyone else. It's not. The reason they have all the money is because they've rigged the system which shouldn't be possible in a government that works. They've been rigging it ever since the turn of the century, and though there have been those that fight against it (some who go to far and believe in an anti-capitalistic ideology that doesn't work and helps dictators get into power) they have been succeeding ever since. I know that most people in this thread are going to accuse me of being a crazy tinfoil conspiracy nut which is sad because that attitude blinds you and forces you to believe the mainstream (which has already shown itself to be misinformed for some strange reason). [B]The reason this exists is because the super rich control the government, and they control it through organizations such as the CFR and Trilateral Commission[/B]. If you research the CFR you'll find that almost every major media corporation is part of this group, and they all work together for a single goal. That sounds dangerously close to a single corporation running as a monopoly. But these people aren't just the super rich, [B]they're the financial controllers as well[/B]. They run Wall Street which in turn helps run the entire world economy. [B]They run the federal reserve[/B] (a private bank who's leaders are in no way chosen democratically or even that influenced by Washington), they also run the banks through the federal reserve. [B]These Bankers as I should call them have been trying for a long time to destroy the US in a plan to create a one world government[/B], and they haven't been completely hiding it either. They meet once a year in meetings with no official name which some in the public call Bilderberg meetings. You know all those protests at the G8 meetings? If as many people knew about the Bilderberg meetings as those they wouldn't be just smashing windows, they'd be causing complete chaos in the streets. [B]These people are actually conspiring to take down the dollar, to prevent the yuan from getting too powerful and to create a world bank that is separate from all the governments and controls the world's finances.[/B] Most of you probably won't believe me because you've heard it a thousand times before from some nut job saying all the world leaders are lizard people from the planet ziburu or some crazy tinfoil conspiracy about 9/11 but this is an actual conspiracy, [B]an illegal group of people from nations around the world who meet in secret to form agendas for a sinister purpose.[/B] They are the reason things are so bad right now, not capitalism itself. That and Reagan's supply side economics, that was terrible.[/QUOTE] Let me guess, you watched the "Obama Deception" movie? Yup, typical conspiracy crap that has no basis in reality or actual evidence. People have nothing better to do than take something such as a meeting and spin conspiracy theories that are manipulated so that it fits their world view. Shit, just look at how different ideological groups spin this Bilderberg meeting to fit their needs: The left believes its a meeting to establish corporate dictatorship, the right believes its a meeting to establish a global government. Both are equally stupid theories, given that we have absolutely no evidence of anything and attempting to theorize insane ideas is simply conspiracy bullshit.

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28281439]Stay classy America[/QUOTE] The whole world is shaped like this, unfortunately.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28332551]Expensive lawyers are only given the power the government allows, same as lobbyists or security companies. We would fall back to this being another government problem. You can say the government was "bought" by special interests (and I'd like to see some solid proof of that, in the literal sense) but doesn't this go back to the "people" problem? citizens not remaining vigilant? That can make any system fail, once again not a defense or attack like somebody brought up earlier, but it works both ways. You could argue capitalism in its purest form had a pretty damn good run (governments are solvent, always, and forms of government are simply temporary. History has proven this)[/QUOTE] Picking and choosing from history is never good. Plenty of capitalists have failed miserably just like other systems. Capitalism is certainly not perfect. I agree that any system can fail, that is evident in everything. It must then be judged in what other characteristics it gives. I'd think a Capitalist system has the problem of people in power abusing their position just like in a Socialist system, but the Socialist one removes the influence of the wealthy.

[QUOTE=Kontradaz;28332589]corporate dictatorship[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]global government[/QUOTE] Those aren't incompatible, what's your point? Also, don't get hung up on the whole left vs right thing, democrats work in the favor of the corporations that fund them just as much as republicans, and George Bush Sr. started the whole global government conspiracy theory by going on about a new world order all the time. The meaningless left versus right controversy only exists to confuse people and distract them from the truth, democrats and republicans are fundamentally the same party.

[QUOTE=Pockets;28332805]Those aren't incompatible, what's your point? Also, don't get hung up on the whole left vs right thing, democrats work in the favor of the corporations that fund them just as much as republicans, and George Bush Sr. started the whole global government conspiracy theory by going on about a new world order all the time. The meaningless left versus right controversy only exists to confuse people and distract them from the truth, democrats and republicans are fundamentally the same party.[/QUOTE] My argument revolved around the conspiracy theory that exists regarding the Bilderberg group and the Bilateral Commission. This is a common conspiracy theory that, while unproven or supported by factual data, is believed in and twisted by a handful of people. People who regard themselves as left perceive it in a different way than the people who consider themselves right do. My argument had nothing to do with political parties but, rather, the people who subscribed to the parties. While I don't doubt that corporations and governments are entities that attempt to increase their size, influence, and strength, I don't place stock in this whole conspiracy theory that says that these organizations are actively planning to subject the people of this world to destruction or dictatorship; especially considering how little evidence/data these theorists seem to have on this issue. I'd rather not get caught up in the sensationalism.

automerge broked, THANKS MAN

Most governments in history end up being run by a small elite. Everything else is done to make the government look like it isn't. Hence the best form of government would be meritocratic based as at least the smart people would end up running it.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28332551]Expensive lawyers are only given the power the government allows, same as lobbyists or security companies. We would fall back to this being another government problem. You can say the government was "bought" by special interests (and I'd like to see some solid proof of that, in the literal sense) but doesn't this go back to the "people" problem? citizens not remaining vigilant? That can make any system fail, once again not a defense or attack like somebody brought up earlier, but it works both ways. You could argue capitalism in its purest form had a pretty damn good run (governments are solvent, always, and forms of government are simply temporary. History has proven this)[/QUOTE] But in any system where money is the sole and most important goal as strider, and as far as I can tell, you believe in, then why is hard to believe that people with lots of money will have no problem trying to bend the rules(which are easily bent when everyone has the same end goal) to their own means. Think about it. A government official? His primary goal would be to make money. He would, illegally, sell rights. The whole government would. There would be no form of "checks and balances" due to the fact everyone ultimately, just wants profit. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] Also, the saying the victors write the history is very important in these matters of government sale of politicians. The lobby industry itself exists just to buy politicians. The people with money can hide things, to think that we'd know the second something terrible happened like that? Not so likely I think.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28332279]You will need to cite sources on that or something[/QUOTE] it's a philosophical/humanist argument, I can't give you statistics on it. Mankind would not have survived, in tribes constantly on the brink of death at the hands of natural forces, for tens of thousadns of years, if humans were naturally greedy and selfish [QUOTE=s0beit;28332279]Yes but if it's harm minimization you're looking at, somebody being an asshole with money is a whole lot better than somebody being an asshole with government.[/QUOTE] "Harm minimization?" "People being an asshole with government?" Do you realize how shallow and simplistic that is? You got to look at the world with more nuance than that, please. [QUOTE=s0beit;28332279]No, actually, there are a variety of factors in the resent collapse of the housing bubble. Many can be attributed to many different factors, i like to blame the central bank and government distorting the market but hey, a theory is like an asshole everybody has one.[/QUOTE] no but a theory has to be grounded in reality, it can be valid or invalid. I'm not sure you could give me a clear definition of what "distorting the market" is, and even if you could, in the decade leading up to the crisis, the Bush Administration and Congress' policies were, more or less, just: "DEREGULATE". There is no way you reasonably pin the collapse on anything other than the shortsightedness of the stock market and housing industries and the lack of regulation that allowed them to set themselves (and therefore america) up for failure. [QUOTE=s0beit;28332437]With laws in place and him following the law of the ordinary man, he can't kill like a government does, he can't coerce like a government does, he can't build an army nor can he rob people of their fortunes.[/QUOTE] The economic collapse that just happened a few years ago most definitely robbed a lot of people of their fortunes. People depend on the market for their well being. There are people all across America living in poverty because the market has failed to provide them with jobs. It is not an issue of "how bad the government is" vs "how bad the market is", stop looking at it like that because that is a child's view of the world. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;28332551]Expensive lawyers are only given the power the government allows, same as lobbyists or security companies. We would fall back to this being another government problem.[/QUOTE] but it's not a problem inherent in government. Your view is that, since our government is flawed, that all governments are flawed. That any problem with the american government is therefore a problem with government in general. Stop thinking like that. [QUOTE=s0beit;28332279] Coercion indeed exists in all governments but in my opinion, where it isn't needed it shouldn't be applied.[/QUOTE] IT IS NEEDED ON THE MARKET. People all across america are living in poverty, in substandard conditions, without healthcare because the market has screwed them over due to the shortsightedness and selfishness of stock traders and investment firms (it was not caused by the government "distorting the market" because that does not mean anything because you just made that phrase up). If the market does not recieve more regulation (I'm not talking COMMUNISM i'm talking sane and reasonable market regulation) it will continue to screw people and ruin the financial security of millions like it did a few years ago, cyclically, until the end of time. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] you said you enjoy hearing alternate viewpoints but clearly you don't because you are shooting them down withount trying to understand them or the perspective from which they came

[QUOTE=Kontradaz;28332950]My argument revolved around the conspiracy theory that exists regarding the Bilderberg group and the Bilateral Commission. This is a common conspiracy theory that, while unproven or supported by factual data, is believed in and twisted by a handful of people. People who regard themselves as left perceive it in a different way than the people who consider themselves right do. My argument had nothing to do with political parties but, rather, the people who subscribed to the parties. While I don't doubt that corporations and governments are entities that attempt to increase their size, influence, and strength, I don't place stock in this whole conspiracy theory that says that these organizations are actively planning to subject the people of this world to destruction or dictatorship; especially considering how little evidence/data these theorists seem to have on this issue. I'd rather not get caught up in the sensationalism.[/QUOTE] yo man check this shit out, they ain't theories, it's backed up and cited to all hell and back: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO[/url] - the FBI's organized program for fighting the civil rights movement that included the assassination of Fred Hampton and more than 200 other black bag operations [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA[/url] - the CIA's study into mind control and brainwashing [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dormouse[/url] - the CIA's initiative to offer up their comparatively light project MK-Ultra to divert attention from something even sinister-er: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE[/url] - the CIA's [i]actual[/i] study into mind control and brainwashing There's a lot of other ones to mention like Project Paperclip, Watergate, the fact that a bunch of banks went into oblivion and the american taxpayers bailed them out and yet we still call it capitalism, etc, but I think my favorite is one that happened pretty recently: [QUOTE=The Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A.]The Obama administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists.[/QUOTE] This one was just in the last [i]month.[/i] You can call conspiracy theory all you want, I'm sure you'd have said the same thing about COINTELPRO during the civil rights movement, but the truth is we have every reason to be paranoid and skeptical of our government and our large corporations. They have something of a track record, you see.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28334300]it's a philosophical/humanist argument, I can't give you statistics on it. Mankind would not have survived, in tribes constantly on the brink of death at the hands of natural forces, for tens of thousadns of years, if humans were naturally greedy and selfish [/quote] So in other words, there is no proof. Thanks. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28334300] "Harm minimization?" "People being an asshole with government?" Do you realize how shallow and simplistic that is? You got to look at the world with more nuance than that, please. [/quote] It's not shallow or simplistic, people abusing government has proven itself monumentally more dangerous throughout the course of history than people abusing money. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28334300] no but a theory has to be grounded in reality, it can be valid or invalid. I'm not sure you could give me a clear definition of what "distorting the market" is, and even if you could, in the decade leading up to the crisis, the Bush Administration and Congress' policies were, more or less, just: "DEREGULATE". There is no way you reasonably pin the collapse on anything other than the shortsightedness of the stock market and housing industries and the lack of regulation that allowed them to set themselves (and therefore america) up for failure.[/quote] Do you even know what the purpose of the central bank is? I never mentioned anything about regulation [b]at all[/b] and you're just pulling shit out of your ass at this point. I can give you a clear definition of it but I'll save it for another post since I'm sure I'll be coming back to this in the future. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28334300] The economic collapse that just happened a few years ago most definitely robbed a lot of people of their fortunes. People depend on the market for their well being. There are people all across America living in poverty because the market has failed to provide them with jobs. It is not an issue of "how bad the government is" vs "how bad the market is", stop looking at it like that because that is a child's view of the world.[/quote] There are people living in poverty and there always will be, in one way or another. There is no such thing as a perfectly equal world. There is also no such thing as a perfect market, markets naturally have a boom and bust cycle but the policies of the government only exacerbate it. The large boom inevitably leads to the large bust. This is not good. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28334300] but it's not a problem inherent in government. Your view is that, since our government is flawed, that all governments are flawed. That any problem with the american government is therefore a problem with government in general. Stop thinking like that. [/quote] No, i won't stop thinking like that. Government is a [i]necessary evil[/i] in society, not it's saving grace. It is here because there is no alternatives but it certainly isn't the ideal. The ideal would be no government but since we can't trust people to not kill, steal and other horrible things, it isn't possible. Men aren't angels, especially not any in expensive suits or standing behind podiums. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28334300] IT IS NEEDED ON THE MARKET. People all across america are living in poverty, in substandard conditions, without healthcare because the market has screwed them over due to the shortsightedness and selfishness of stock traders and investment firms (it was not caused by the government "distorting the market" because that does not mean anything because you just made that phrase up). If the market does not recieve more regulation (I'm not talking COMMUNISM i'm talking sane and reasonable market regulation) it will continue to screw people and ruin the financial security of millions like it did a few years ago, cyclically, until the end of time. [/quote] Coercion again, is a necessary evil. It should be applied minimally and only when people are in danger of losing their rights. That should be it's only goal. You can have your opinions on what you [i]think[/i] happened in this recent bubble collapse but we don't share the same opinion on that. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28334300] you said you enjoy hearing alternate viewpoints but clearly you don't because you are shooting them down withount trying to understand them or the perspective from which they came[/QUOTE] I understand the perspective and I'm trying to understand how they'd be possible, look, you can't just explain your viewpoint and not expect scrutiny. That accomplishes [b]nothing[/b]. You would prefer to rant about the glories of socialism for a couple pages without any rebuttal? That's not how good ideas are formed. There is a give and take. I'm not bitching about 3-4 people attacking me on each page so fucking man up and quit bitching.

[QUOTE=Pockets;28335539][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE[/url] - the CIA's [i]actual[/i] study into mind control and brainwashing[/QUOTE] Wow that is the least threatening acronym.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28335886]So in other words, there is no proof. Thanks. It's not shallow or simplistic, people abusing government has proven itself monumentally more dangerous throughout the course of history than people abusing money. Do you even know what the purpose of the central bank is? I never mentioned anything about regulation [b]at all[/b] and you're just pulling shit out of your ass at this point. I can give you a clear definition of it but I'll save it for another post since I'm sure I'll be coming back to this in the future. There are people living in poverty and there always will be, in one way or another. There is no such thing as a perfectly equal world. There is also no such thing as a perfect market, markets naturally have a boom and bust cycle but the policies of the government only exacerbate it. The large boom inevitably leads to the large bust. This is not good. No, i won't stop thinking like that. Government is a [i]necessary evil[/i] in society, not it's saving grace. It is here because there is no alternatives but it certainly isn't the ideal. The ideal would be no government but since we can't trust people to not kill, steal and other horrible things, it isn't possible. Men aren't angels, especially not any in expensive suits or standing behind podiums. Coercion again, is a necessary evil. It should be applied minimally and only when people are in danger of losing their rights. That should be it's only goal. You can have your opinions on what you [i]think[/i] happened in this recent bubble collapse but we don't share the same opinion on that. I understand the perspective and I'm trying to understand how they'd be possible, look, you can't just explain your viewpoint and not expect scrutiny. That accomplishes [b]nothing[/b]. You would prefer to rant about the glories of socialism for a couple pages without any rebuttal? That's not how good ideas are formed. There is a give and take. I'm not bitching about 3-4 people attacking me on each page so fucking man up and quit bitching.[/QUOTE] But you have no proof to say his original statement is wrong. You're going as much by your asshole as he is. Because we've had more time to fuck around with governments than with money due to our system now. And you STILL have that aire of "i'm right, you're wrong, deal with it". Maybe you aren't acting like that, but that's how I read what you say. I know I don't know shit all, I go by what Socrates says, any man who thinks himself wise is at best a fool. And no ones fucking attacking you.

i'm ok with you having your different views but don't say "i just want to understand your viewpoint" and then immediately shoot everything everyone says down and then tell people to "fucking man up and quit bitching" no one is attacking you calm down good lord if you can't stay civil then I'm not going to argue with you it's as simple as that

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28336718]i'm ok with you having your different views but don't say "i just want to understand your viewpoint" and then immediately shoot everything everyone says down and then tell people to "fucking man up and quit bitching" no one is attacking you calm down[/QUOTE] hey, he knows facts, objective truths you and I shant argue with.

[QUOTE=Pockets;28335539]yo man check this shit out, they ain't theories, it's backed up and cited to all hell and back: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO[/url] - the FBI's organized program for fighting the civil rights movement that included the assassination of Fred Hampton and more than 200 other black bag operations [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA[/url] - the CIA's study into mind control and brainwashing [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dormouse[/url] - the CIA's initiative to offer up their comparatively light project MK-Ultra to divert attention from something even sinister-er: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE[/url] - the CIA's [i]actual[/i] study into mind control and brainwashing There's a lot of other ones to mention like Project Paperclip, Watergate, the fact that a bunch of banks went into oblivion and the american taxpayers bailed them out and yet we still call it capitalism, etc, but I think my favorite is one that happened pretty recently: This one was just in the last [i]month.[/i] You can call conspiracy theory all you want, I'm sure you'd have said the same thing about COINTELPRO during the civil rights movement, but the truth is we have every reason to be paranoid and skeptical of our government and our large corporations. They have something of a track record, you see.[/QUOTE] Those links have nothing at all to do with the topic I was talking about. I don't deny that the FBI and the CIA have been involved in some shady business in the past and probably in the present, but that doesn't automatically create a link to the topic I was talking about. I probably would have said the same thing about COINTELPRO, mainly because that also lacked evidence until it was uncovered. So yes, until there is some hard data and factual information that proves that these groups are actively plotting to take over the world (a pretty far fetched claim- even with some logical reservation), I'd rather spend my energy focusing on issues that are out in the open and need to be dealt with. Issues in this world are far too complex and I am adverse to jumping into things and theories that are not grounded in actual evidence. Sorry, but the amount of bullshit conspiracy theories out there outnumber the small percentage that may be true.

Victors write the history. Why do people keep forgetting this? And yes, victors are whoever writes the history, in this case, the people who have won are the ones in power, thusly, history is written to show them favourably. Not a foreign concept

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28336569]But you have no proof to say his original statement is wrong. You're going as much by your asshole as he is. Because we've had more time to fuck around with governments than with money due to our system now. And you STILL have that aire of "i'm right, you're wrong, deal with it". Maybe you aren't acting like that, but that's how I read what you say. I know I don't know shit all, I go by what Socrates says, any man who thinks himself wise is at best a fool. And no ones fucking attacking you.[/QUOTE] Well when it comes down to it really, everything is subjective and all really depends upon what you think is most important in society. The debate between safety and freedom could really go on forever. When i said attacking me, what i really meant was attacking my opinions and yes, mostly, this is what they are. He all but called me a child in his reply and criticized every point i made yet finished it off with "dude, let us explain and stop talking", that is asinine. I will stop replying here too since this doesn't seem to be a productive area of discussion but i will say that nobody has really taught me anything about socialism itself, only the supposed downfalls of capitalism. I never once said capitalism was perfect, in fact i stated that no system is, no government is, what i really want most is just the least amount of harm in a society. As bad as capitalism is, it is [i]my opinion[/i] that it is the least harmful. If anyone wants to explain it to me, I'm waiting and I'll read it, and we can have a civilized discussion, maybe without calling people's opinions childish and then telling them to essentially stop talking. [editline]e[/editline] And for the record, I haven't shot anyone down or any ideas here. All discussion was productive until SigmaLambda shitposted it up.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28337832]Well when it comes down to it really, everything is subjective and all really depends upon what you think is most important in society. The debate between safety and freedom could really go on forever. When i said attacking me, what i really meant was attacking my opinions and yes, mostly, this is what they are. He all but called me a child in his reply and criticized every point i made yet finished it off with "dude, let us explain and stop talking", that is asinine. I will stop replying here too since this doesn't seem to be a productive area of discussion but i will say that nobody has really taught me anything about socialism itself, only the supposed downfalls of capitalism. I never once said capitalism was perfect, in fact i stated that no system is, no government is, what i really want most is just the least amount of harm in a society. As bad as capitalism is, it is [i]my opinion[/i] that it is the least harmful. If anyone wants to explain it to me, I'm waiting and I'll read it, and we can have a civilized discussion, maybe without calling people's opinions childish and then telling them to essentially stop talking.[/QUOTE] And we never said that capitalism is the worst form of government, just that pure capitalism is pure shit. No pure government system works.

[QUOTE=Kontradaz;28337012]I probably would have said the same thing about COINTELPRO[/QUOTE] [i][b]Racist.[/i][/b]

[QUOTE=s0beit;28337832]Well when it comes down to it really, everything is subjective and all really depends upon what you think is most important in society. The debate between safety and freedom could really go on forever. When i said attacking me, what i really meant was attacking my opinions and yes, mostly, this is what they are. He all but called me a child in his reply and criticized every point i made yet finished it off with "dude, let us explain and stop talking", that is asinine. I will stop replying here too since this doesn't seem to be a productive area of discussion but i will say that nobody has really taught me anything about socialism itself, only the supposed downfalls of capitalism. I never once said capitalism was perfect, in fact i stated that no system is, no government is, what i really want most is just the least amount of harm in a society. As bad as capitalism is, it is [i]my opinion[/i] that it is the least harmful. If anyone wants to explain it to me, I'm waiting and I'll read it, and we can have a civilized discussion, maybe without calling people's opinions childish and then telling them to essentially stop talking. [editline]e[/editline] And for the record, I haven't shot anyone down or any ideas here. All discussion was productive until SigmaLambda shitposted it up.[/QUOTE] What's good about Socialism? Well, in what I would consider an ideal society, the government should nationalize all large businesses/industries (Electric companies, oil companies, steelworks, etc.). This would be good because then if say, the oil companies are out for only profit, the people can elect representatives who won't allow them to be so greedy. In addition, the heads of the oil industry wouldn't really have much of a reason to go for profit, as the oil company is managed by a group of people in government, not just the "CEOs" or what have you. When it comes to smaller businesses, they should be intelligently regulated (Ex: making sure the food won't kill you, making sure the facility is clean regularly, etc.). Mostly the stuff we do now. Also, going back to your statement of "government is a necessary evil". How the hell does that make any sense? I could understand if you were saying "some aspects of our government are necessary evils", but it seems like you're saying the very idea of having a government is evil, which just isn't the case.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;28281443]Not really surprised but your average middle class household still makes more than if they were in another country[/QUOTE] what other country? liberia?

[QUOTE=Pockets;28335539]yo man check this shit out, they ain't theories, it's backed up and cited to all hell and back: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO[/url] - the FBI's organized program for fighting the civil rights movement that included the assassination of Fred Hampton and more than 200 other black bag operations [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA[/url] - the CIA's study into mind control and brainwashing [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dormouse[/url] - the CIA's initiative to offer up their comparatively light project MK-Ultra to divert attention from something even sinister-er: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE[/url] - the CIA's [i]actual[/i] study into mind control and brainwashing There's a lot of other ones to mention like Project Paperclip, Watergate, the fact that a bunch of banks went into oblivion and the american taxpayers bailed them out and yet we still call it capitalism, etc, but I think my favorite is one that happened pretty recently: This one was just in the last [i]month.[/i] You can call conspiracy theory all you want, I'm sure you'd have said the same thing about COINTELPRO during the civil rights movement, but the truth is we have every reason to be paranoid and skeptical of our government and our large corporations. They have something of a track record, you see.[/QUOTE]Do you actually know what Project Paperclip was about? It has absolutely bugger all to do with anything you've just said.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28339328]Do you actually know what Project Paperclip was about? It has absolutely bugger all to do with anything you've just said.[/QUOTE] it was the USA government's initiative to hire Nazi doctors, scientists and engineers after WWII. Am I wrong?

[QUOTE=Pockets;28340063]it was the USA government's initiative to hire Nazi doctors, scientists and engineers after WWII. Am I wrong?[/QUOTE]Partially. It included the seizing of any useful tech and research ahead of the Soviet advance. Nazi party members and the like were specifically excluded by Truman, but the project directors disobeyed that. If they didn't, Wernher von Braun would've never been hired, for example. How did you come to the conclusion that it supports the conspiracy theorist stuff?

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28340103]Partially. It included the seizing of any useful tech and research ahead of the Soviet advance.[/QUOTE] Oh, well, as long as those filthy communist didn't get any of it then it's all justified I guess. [QUOTE]Nazi party members and the like were specifically excluded by Truman, but the project directors disobeyed that. If they didn't, Wernher von Braun would've never been hired, for example.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, you could probably find one or two federal employees who disapproved of any of the other things I mentioned, too. What does that change? It still happened. [QUOTE]How did you come to the conclusion that it supports the conspiracy theorist stuff?[/QUOTE] I think most people would agree that the government hiring nazis is morally way past uncool, and that it's one incident among many that I think justifies speculation without undeniable evidence. Think about it this way: if you're dating someone and they've never been known to have problems with infidelity, then accusing them of infidelity on a hunch would be paranoid. If you're dating someone who has had sex with literally hundreds of other people over your relationship and has gone to ridiculously complex ends to cover it up every time, then accusing them of infidelity on a hunch would be [i]understandable,[/i] at least. edit: also i forgot to mention Waco up in my last post, what the dick