The nature of the Capitalist argument (only for the open-minded) (747 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.84 on 38 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by JeetKuneTony<psyqo87.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2004-10-17 06:52:28 EDT
This is not Jeetkunetony, just another user who is friends with him and wants an audience
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could say that it takes only one moment to change your life. Only one realization.
But without comparison and systemic analysis of that moment, there is no realization.
Therefore each moment of lucidity is merely a step in your awakening that had always been in the process of being developed, but never consciously realized.
The idea that an intrinsic value exists in the empirical, as opposed to the intellectual/intuitional, is absurd, because intrinsia exists in the context.
But intellectual development is a process of the mechanics of psychology's various reactions to empirical observations.
A person starts out with no contol over their surroundings, and therefore no control over their empirical observations.
A person's first methods of organizing their empirical observations into information are derived from the neuropathological patterns of the DNA.
Now let's apply this:
Capitalists believe that people have the power to shape their own destinies, and therefore should be left to totally fend for themselves.
But a person is born into their circumstances without any control.
There is a media and a society to feed you information constantly. Not much room to think for yourself.
Their organization of information, and therefore their worldview and will, are predetermined - they have no control.
Most people are born into the circumstances they grow up to be in. There are outliers, but they still did not have "control" over the fact that they were successful or not.
Where therefore is the "free will" that capitalists profess could give anyone the means to excel?
Socialism is founded on these principles (although I must admit this is a derived argument which I put together). The argument of "free will" can only be said to be that of the intuitional aspect of the mind (if you even profess to believe in such an idea, which is the idea of an extrapsychological phenomenon influencing our thoughts.) There are two schools of thought regarding intuition. The most popular in modern, Western thought is that an omnipotent deity has given "souls" to people that influence the intuition. The souls are sentient and therefore feel the pain of immoral decisions through some form of Providential punishment, which is just. If a soul makes good decisions to pass on to its vessel being (most think only humans have souls), it is rewarded. The second school of thought is that the entire universe is one soul, one essence, and sentient. There is no intuitional immorality, since the universe is the source of all goodness. All intuition is toward positive means, and immorality is the lack of intuition. This school of thought is partially derived from the world's first religions (known collectively as Animism), was first clearly presented in Eastern philosophies such as Taoism, and is being refined by a litany of superstring theorists, many of whom are being effectively chastised by their colleagues through a general sentiment that such "crackpots" should be ignored.
There is now a clear indication that the intuitional aspect of thought is ideological, and therefore conflicts with secular thought (which favors independence of thought instead of authoritarian ideology). Furthermore, secularism favors science. While the latter school of intuitionism is still ideological, it is much more scientifically built, and only idealized in the notion that logic, reason, and science exist to a certain end, not merely as absolutes. So secularism tends toward the latter anyways, even though it does not necessarily force it as an ideological agenda (or disallow the former intuitional school of thought).
How can a secular government force an ideological concept? If we are allowed to push agendas in legislation, where is the line drawn? The application of "free will" must be treated as bullshit, because it is undue supernaturalism. It is tantamount to saying that we must launch thermonuclear missles at the moon because if we don't, the Sun-God will punish us in His eternal jealousy against the Unholy Satellite, which steals His rays to power the evil lunar Liberal Cloning Device. In the meantime we suffer crop devastation because radioactive moondust is blotting out the fucking sun (sorry, I meant Ra, how un-"Politically Correct" of me!), and we suffer tidal distruption due to an inconvenient reality that the Unholy Satellite regulates our ocean as well as wildlife; not to mention the fact that the evil moon god keeps our Gaian mother in gravitational balance, so we end up being pulled into (and devoured by) Our Radiant Majesty, who is glorious. A hyperbole? Possibly. Or maybe just the ends of a twisted logic, like those who think that those who are born to have the means and will to succeed deserve more than those born into more modest means and psychological development. Someone has to cook for the affluent, right? Might as well be the mentally weaker, the racially inferior, the poorer and the dirtier. Why not?
Slavery isn't politically correct anymore anyways, right?
...
Wrong. It just takes a different form nowadays.
...
And it has become clear to me that we must pursue an economic system in which decisions are few and left to the people to decide.
The practical aspects of Communism deserve strenuous debate, but so does our brainwashing.
And goddamn it, think before you reply.
User Reviews
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 17:32:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(just give me zeroes, this isn't my post. I got my computer back now.)
Submitted by equalizer (user info) at 2004-10-17 11:45:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But equalized! :)
Submitted by equalizer (user info) at 2004-10-17 11:44:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Garbage.
Submitted by big_wigger (user info) at 2004-10-17 11:44:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that is a huge load of crap. you write like everything exists in a vacuum. most people LIKE being told what to do. nothing would get done otherwise. do you comprehend how many processes are involved in something as seemingly simple like building a road? labor, productions of parts from raw materials, engineering and much more come together so the trucks can bring food to your local mart and you can drive to work to be able to afford food thereby freeing your mind from the task of how to go about sustaining you body so you can move on to thinking about how everything is screwed up. So you see if you dont get the food in your belly so easily your never going to reach a place where you can sit back and think about how everything could be better. its really a Catch-22. If you have to fight to survive you find happiness in smaller things (lowered expectations) if you have so much so easily you cant appreciate it. so if everyone has it so easy then NOBODY is satisfied. ying - yang, no pleasure without pain.
if everyone was a decisionmaker a) nothing would ever get decided upon and b) who would do the work? from reading your post it seems as if you want to move the world into some enlightened intellectual place where everyone is afforded equal opportunity, but for whom exactly? do you ever think that maybe people that live in indonesia or south america that dont have TV, internet or any of our crap and live a life that pretty much died out in the western world a few hundred years ago are more happy and fufilled in their smaller tribal setting than they would be if they had to process all the stupid information you would want to cram down them so they could be "informed" and take part in your process?
its important that the trains run on time and that the garbage gets picked up because when you fail to account for all the seemingly mundane and unsexy things that HAVE to happen for our society to function so you can have electricity and a global production system that co-operates for profit so you can have your 'puter and post your stuff. some things simply need to be managed and not left to a comittee.
there are 6 billion people on this planet, you cant make a coat that will fit them all. down that path lies madness.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-17 11:18:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is intellectual masturbation.
Submitted by heyzues (user info) at 2004-10-17 10:31:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I read this and most of the reviews, then I took an IQ test. It went up ten points.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-17 10:31:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:56:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
I personally believe that intuition is the result of the distribution of instantaneous positions of unstable quantum particles in c-space. Quantum reality allows for the intuition to seep into the neuron activity in the brain.
-----
Let me explain.
Particle x has to be in area v of the field a given amount of time, but there is no rules governing instantaneous position.
-----
Well, if the quantum distribution of intuition is karmic, then the larger elements of society are intuitional. That being said, what can c-space distribution do? Not everything. There are guidelines for how often a particle must be in phase.
The non-existence of a God, for me, seems inherent in imperfection. There cannot possibly be an omniscient with our shitty world (that's the simple way of putting it).
-----
Karmic quantum distribution?
Unstable quantum particles?
c-space distributions?
intuitional society?
This makes very little sense. You appear to be throwing buzzwords at the screen in the hope some will stick.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 09:20:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, this is actually an old, forgotten UberUser named ColonBowell.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 09:17:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Couldn't agree more.
+2 for you
Submitted by earth_collapse (user info) at 2004-10-17 09:16:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If the Human race lasts long enough, Government will no longer exist, instead it will be rolled-over to a higher cause. Instead of Personal and social gain, we will be driven to love, explore, procreate and learn. There will be no need for Government when we cherish these values and throw away the rest. It'll just take millions of years to get rid of our primitave instincts.
I can only see a Utopian future...
Or so I believe.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:39:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In 2050 world oil production will peak.
Plastic is an extremely important substance.
Plastic is made from petroleum.
What do we do? We have to act.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:37:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thank you, Jimiss.
Democracy can be bought and sold in a Capitalist society. That's just the way it goes.
And conservatism keeps people from believing they can ever change anything. To give up is to surrender yourself to a machine formed for the few who have the means to control it.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:34:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's the argument I put forth for my personal beliefs:
I see harmonic and chaotic principles in the world.
Harmony is resonance of being, the property governing a ideally holistic existence.
A holistic existence is good.
Chaos, although destructive in a temporal manner, leads to greater harmony (see EVOLUTION).
Chaos is derived from the quantum.
I feel I am sentient.
I have no reason to believe that I have a separate "soul" from the universe.
A bunch of connecting logic.
-------------------------------------------------
I mean, what else can I say in a timely manner?
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:33:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Democratic capitalism is a controlled illusion to appease the citizens. Modern media is the super weapon in todays propaganda war. Some of the best and brightest minds of our generation are being employed to immerse us in a cloud of beguiling images. Those that can see beyond the cloud find themselves few and far between. Always remember the governments primary function: To keep everything the same. Always the same, never change. Preserve the status quo.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:27:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Soviets were authoritarian assholes, RJ.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:24:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
iddqd, wtf?!
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-17 08:23:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Didn't the Soviets give that a shot? Wonder what happeed to them...
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:23:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I do not will the imposition of my PERSONAL beliefs about c-space phasing onto others. That's not my place. I am not a theocrat.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:21:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A person possibly can become better, by mechanics.(strict science)
A person, if favored karmically, is likely to have intuitional alteration of their thought processes.(personal belief)
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:17:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't think it makes anymore sense to let quantum physics be considered the source for "intuition" that we should use as our guiding principal as either individuals or as a society than it does to take the sheer number of possible DNA combinations and environmental surroundings a person has as free will.
I don't know if there is or is not a god, and I don't care one way or the other. I do agree with the philosophy that today's world is proof that there can not be a god that is both omniscient and omnibenevolent (if that's a word). However, I don't think that lack of said god should be used to take away each person's right to decide for themselves based on their own free will, even if it's only the illusion of free will. And, even if we did go so far as to say that it really is only an illusion, it still doesn't mean the society itself has any real free will. In fact, it's proof that it doesn't. And if your argument that without any true free will a person has no chance to better themselves is correct, then society as a whole can't better itself without free will either.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:16:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
btw, my reply was directed at your last paragraph
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:13:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this was all basically said, without the internet hyperbole, about 230 years ago by adam smith; and more in line with your reasoning, particularly your summation, about 150 years ago by a dude called samuel smiles his paper entitled "self help" - check it out.
basically, it isnt as cut and dried as you make out. yeah, a nation of good people makes a good nation, and itd be great if were were all just left alone to make decsions for ourselves, by ourselves, but a government apparatus is necessary. the fact of the matter is, most people are ignorant of economic issues and a group of people who know the esoterics is necessary to efficiently run the show, so to speak. so too with many other issues at a national level. i personally dont give a fuck about a huge amount of the small decisions that government makes on my behalf every single day, thats why i pay taxes so some dude who couldnt cut it in the private sector can shuffle papers inefficiently and make the piddly decisions for me.
as far as the big issues, i agree that 'the people' should have a greater say, and in this age of global communications, i dont see why it cant or shouldnt happen. almost everyone in my country, australia, has acess in one way or another to a computer with internet access. we could hold public referendums via the web on all the big issues...
however, no matter what technologies that are put in place, a government is still necessary, not only to manage the mundane day-to-day runnings of the state, but also to at least attempt to make sure the resources of the state are distibuted in a vaguely fair manner.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:13:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bring friends!!
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Speaking of evolution, if evolution entails all elements of science, then your argument is flawed twice.
Evolution is but the arbitrary system that results from a mixture of harmonic and chaotic principles.
And I could be part of evolution. How do you arbitrate evolution if there is no free will?
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:09:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, if the quantum distribution of intuition is karmic, then the larger elements of society are intuitional. That being said, what can c-space distribution do? Not everything. There are guidelines for how often a particle must be in phase.
The non-existence of a God, for me, seems inherent in imperfection. There cannot possibly be an omniscient with our shitty world (that's the simple way of putting it).
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-17 08:03:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:47:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, justice.
Punishment of a criminal is good for society. And for my personal beliefs, a criminal of sufficient immorality wouldn't likely be a very intuitional being.
----------
So you're saying that how we judge a person should be based on their intuition, instead of allowing nature to judge them on how well they manage to keep themselves alive? You sound like someone who thinks that religion is absurd, but now you want to give up on millions of years of evolution. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
How do we know that society's intuition isn't flawed collectively? Are we to assume that it isn't? What if society's joint decisions just lead us into the eventual destruction of the entire race? This planet's been here a long time based on the principal that whatever is best fit for survival moves on. And the environment and species that are alive, including ours, adjusts themselves based on that process. What's so special about humans, if there really is no god or intentional creation to give us purpose, that we as a group should change that to a situation where we decide which members of the group should be helped and which ones punished? Why change the system that produced us?
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:59:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*percentage of the time
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:58:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me explain.
Particle x has to be in area v of the field a given amount of time, but there is no rules governing instantaneous position.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:56:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I personally believe that intuition is the result of the distribution of instantaneous positions of unstable quantum particles in c-space. Quantum reality allows for the intuition to seep into the neuron activity in the brain.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:54:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who here disagrees that decisions are made by the psychology?
Who here disagrees that the psychology is the sum of one's circumstances?
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:53:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:44:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
I personally believe the latter school of thought concerning intuition. But it is more of a manifest of the universe trying to move forward and build itself. We Neo-Animist-Taoists (is that a sufficient label?) don't profess to know everything, but I have a general sense of what I believe. And for me to write this is part of the universe's continuing creation, then. And for you to listen would be for the good of the universe. Does your intuition call?
Haha. I need to sleep.
----------
You: <gibberish>
Me: I came here for an argument!
You: Oh, sorry. This is ridiculous philosophical crap with no point.
Me: Oh, good day then.
Man...I love Monty Pyton.
After you sleep, how about we have an intelligent discussion on the matter and skip the stunning revelation that you don't know everything?
By the way. intuition can't call. It doesn't know how to use the phone. I'm sure it could write a 15 page paper on the impacts the phone and other modern inventions have had on modern society, though. Except it can't use a typewrite either. As it turns out, intuition is pretty much useless without logic and reason.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:47:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Basically, maximize the justice.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, justice.
Punishment of a criminal is good for society. And for my personal beliefs, a criminal of sufficient immorality wouldn't likely be a very intuitional being.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:44:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I personally believe the latter school of thought concerning intuition. But it is more of a manifest of the universe trying to move forward and build itself. We Neo-Animist-Taoists (is that a sufficient label?) don't profess to know everything, but I have a general sense of what I believe. And for me to write this is part of the universe's continuing creation, then. And for you to listen would be for the good of the universe. Does your intuition call?
Haha. I need to sleep.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:43:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I forgot to add something else here. Based on your own argument here, how would you justify punishing criminals? After all, they had no choice but to become criminals, based on their DNA and their environment. Would you just let them go? If it's wrong to let someone starve to death because their DNA and environment made it so that they didn't have the skills necessary to feed themselves, isn't it just as unjust to imprison someone for a crime they had no choice but to commit?
Submitted by earth_collapse (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:38:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
When do we begin the movement?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:37:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Clearly the above psychological bullshit justifies a communist system.
Sorry, but I couldn't really follow this - it was all over the place.
But cannot -2 intelligent writing. Have a neutral zero.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-17 07:20:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How the hell did you jump from "religion is absurd" to "Capitalism is bad"? At least I think that's what you said. Next time, don't post after an all night bongfest. Free will, in a philosophical sense, is irrelevant to the argument.
However, for arguments sake, let's that one doesn't have true free will. We'll argue that there is no "extrapsychological phenomenon" such as a soul, and every person's thoughts and actions are governed solely by a combination of their DNA and the situation they're born into. Doesn't that same concept then apply to the society as a whole? If no individual has free will, then neither does all of society combined. All of the society's actions are predetermined, since they would just be based on whatever the predetermined observations of the majority are at any given time.
If society as a whole has no free will either, then how can we expect it to collectively better itself and excel?
+2 for having lots of big words and making fun of religious superstitions.