How do feel about Canada, USA, and Mexico forming a union (similar to the European Union)?

The John Birch Society feels "less government, more individual responsibility". Of course, there has to be an element of government, such as government protecting us against the bad elements of society, such as you mentioned. However, people now consider government as an employment office. We've become a "welfare country", in reality a socialist/communist country. This is what a socialist/communist country leaders want, a dependent nation....one that they can control. Give people gratutities through grants, tax breaks, etc...and you then own them. ...it comes in all forms.

As far as taxes, it's a joke. To really make taxes equitable, there should be a straight FLAT TAX period, no breaks, no write offs. I don't believe in the "extortionist withholding" income tax. It's pure robbery. Inflation is a giant tax on people. Before 1900 there were no such taxes. The government should not spend more than it takes in....we both know what that does.

> The John Birch Society feels "less government,
> more individual responsibility". Of course, there
> has to be an element of government, such as government
> protecting us against the bad elements of society,
> such as you mentioned. However, people now consider
> government as an employment office. We've become
> a "welfare country", in reality a socialist/communist
> country. This is what a socialist/communist
> country leaders want, a dependent nation....one
> that they can control. Give people gratutities
> through grants, tax breaks, etc...and you then
> own them. ...it comes in all forms.
>
> As far as taxes, it's a joke. To really make
> taxes equitable, there should be a straight FLAT
> TAX period, no breaks, no write offs.

In what fantasy land will this work?

> I don't
> believe in the "extortionist withholding" income
> tax. It's pure robbery. Inflation is a giant
> tax on people. Before 1900 there were no such
> taxes. The government should not spend more than
> it takes in....we both know what that does.

Yeah, it creates more people like you who think that government is an entity out to destroy everyone. Government is not a sentient being, it is not out to get you. Who is out to get is are the people currently in CHARGE OF government, who HATE government, and who were able to come to power by scaring people like you by telling you there's a commie under every bed and all the Mexicans want to rape you.

Dont care. Unless this would benefit the poor of Mexico, in which case, good idea. I dont know anything about this to be honest.

'White suprematists' wouldn't happen because the one rule I ask for is that anyone be free to join or leave. Well, I suppose it could. A KKK community could technically invite minorities, knowing none would be fool enough o join them. If the eduaction is poor in your community, you join one better. We hardly have that now. The cost of admission to good public schools now is paying property taxes in high end districts.

The Islamic countries are already more like my system, more clannish than centralized federal authority. Little change would be required of them except except open immigraion and expatriation policies.

For this to really work in such climates, my plans for global disarmament (making anything above a blade or bludgeon weapon glabally illegal except guns for UN inspector peace keepers) would probably be required. There's economic and trade war to consider too though. But there would be one check&balance already in place, if you were invaded by a nation raiding your resources, you could simply become a full citizen of that nation. It somewhat defeats the leveraging incentive of wars in the first place.

If there were a (unlikely) growing movement to spread Amish life, why prevent it? Better to have growing pockets of Amish leave us alone than democratically force more Amish values on everyone at the federal or global equality level. Why shouldn't people have a right to be Amish?

You seem to wish that others' laws and values not be forced upon you, but seem to have no problem doing the reverse.

A good deal of the McVeigh and KKK complaints are that aren't free now to live as they please, within the shared values of their own social groups. In my system, their cause for complaint would be greatly reduced. It would be harder for some group of voudons in the everglades to make a case for imposing their values on mystic lutherans in Northern France, knowing that the people in Fr. chose that way of life, and are free to move to the everglades if wish to become voudons.

Until we find another fuel source, I'm not so sure visiting Mississippi or Texas frequently is a good idea. Local materials are the way to go, when possible. If your intent is a cultural vacation, you wouldn't have to travel nearly as far to evade McDonalds and find people with another language and set of customs.

My system wouldn't dispense with the need for higher (state, fed, global) governmental structures. They would in fact be required to enforce open immigration/expatriation, and settle potential geography/military/resource/economic/trade disputes between communities. The difference is that it would be a bottom-up democratic confederacy, not a top-down centralized hierachical republic. The top would exist to preserve diversity of individual rights, rather than coerce everyone to the same standard. The only standards would be freedom to live as you choose (wherever like-minded persons could be found), and not impeding on others who live as they choose elsewhere.

Town charters would be quite like what I am proposing. I'm just saying, in Xth ammendment style that they supercede state and federal law. If a town votes to be grass smoking hippie nudists, and outlaw commercial advertisng, let them, as long as it doesn't other towns (like crapping upstream in the river).

For the most part, it has always been, and continues to be global business which has done away with local diversity, though missionary types always played a role too. Sometimes this change took place by voluntary adoption of what was exchanged between local elite leadership and foreign elite emmisaries. Often though communities were simply overpowered. Aborigines and hippies, by virtue of their culture, aren't prepared to defend against national or global military, economic, or cultural predators. I'm suggesting that if a global system existed to defend diversity, that would change. We currently live in world that merely the global elite can concur upon.

I guess we give Grannie grandfather rights, as we do now when people wake up to new building codes. This is a general system of governmental structure, like a confederacy. I don't profess to have the billions of details worked out. I'm trying to convey a system for implementing an ideology, not all the logistics involved. I'm no fan of Mao's ideology, but there's no evidence that his ideology failed; There's a ton of evidence that his logistical implementation failed. Some businesses fail, others succeed, sometimes board meetings are productive, other times they aren't. This is not to say that the premises of business or board meetings are necessarily bound for failure or success. It should be clear that they have great potential for either. Such is the the same wih my premise. What is also clear to me, is that without such a system, there isn't a chance in the first place of offering freedom to live by the laws of ones tribe, as legally enforced global homogenity overtakes all cultures.

If one wishes to preserve or nurture individual rights of diversity, then a mechanism needs to exist which isn't structured towards achieving the very opposite.

For the most part, the mechanism is being refined by global industry (who can afford better lawyers and lobbying than the public), and homogenity is in the interest of their resource and market access. McDonalds and Target have no desire to facilate anything akin to global confederate tribalism. They want the right to buy anything on the globe, and put a store anywhere they choose. The WTO and WMF trap nations in debt then prctically blackmail them into complying with global trade conventions, against the will of their own public sentiment. We pretend to offer Iraq democracy, but we've placed one caveat in their constitution, that ownership and distirbution of their oil is on the open market, not available to social-nationalization. The WTO places similar restrictions agains nations socializing services. In a sense this equates to "You must put being open to exploitation above establishing a secure national public foundation". It's no wonder that Chavez is gathering nations to defeat this entire glabalist raider paradigm.

Flat taxes aren't fair because the power of money itself is not flat. If you 20% flat tax people making $10k/yr, they wont eat and will have holes in their shoes. For the people making $400M/yr, that 20% is only cutting into their invesment budget. They might not be able to buy as many investment businesses as they hoped. Of course that would be a write-off anyhow, the 20% would only affect how many personal homes they could buy.

The fairest tax I've ever heard of is one that only taxes profits (minus losses). Labor, being a fair exchange, wouldn't be considered a profit at all, and therefore nontaxable. For the common person, you'd have your pre-1910 system.

Profit is almost always the leveraging of capital, and thus almost always comes at someone elses equivalent expense. Since profiteering is the cause of the poverty which social-systems attempt to remedy, it makes good sense that these are the sources of tax revenue. For instance, if your profit comes from credit lending of a sort which drives people to bankruptcy, that profit is taxed to support the unemployment insurance and welfare which your profit caused a need for.

Flat taxes are supported by two types of people, those too simple to recognize the exponential power money has, and those who do recognize this and stand to gain from from the limited affect a flat tax would have on their monetarily empowered niche.

A flat tax may sound equitable at first glance, but in practice it equates to furthering robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Even the rich, who have more lobbying power, seem to have left this one alone, apparently realizing that they would fall too if they totally bankrupted the poor. In the current system, instead of outright stomping against the unempowered poor, they compete against their economic peers to determine which of their league stomps against the poor most. It's a vile system, encouraging unethical pursuits, but it's still more fair than a flat tax would be. It minimizes the damages of their practices to more within their own economic strata, those who can afford to invest.

To any degree that proportional taxation is actually implemented, it further reduces their harm and realm of competion to within their own economic strata, and not those below.

If you are feeling some economic pinch, it's because those in the stratum above you are not being more exponentially taxed.

Flat taxation would benefit Gates, Murdoch, and Walton at your expense. Gates has already profited $200 per american citizen. If you had a flat tax, had the lower middle class instead of him paying taxes, that might be more like $1000 profit he gained from each citizen, as if directly from them to him.

I really think you haven't looked at the big picture of what flat taxes imply, and must be thinking of it terms of a by-gone farmer society (where 10% church tithes were practical), not our current global-investors reality.

I'm curious about this 'illegal gift' thing too.

I think a flat tax is the epitome of fair. It doesn't discriminate based on social class or wealth. It's also much easier to administer (would we even need an IRS?) and thus it's much more efficient to collect it. And, it's much harder to cheat and find loopholes in, because it's so simple. The reason the rich are against a flat tax is that they are usually exploiting loopholes. As I understand it, the rich generally pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. I think this is mainly because capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income, but also because they exploit loopholes in our complicated tax system.

I'd actually like to seriously consider getting rid of all income taxes. To tax people for their work just seems wrong, like we're discouraging the very thing that benefits society. Sales tax seems better in that respect, though I realize it's also regressive and may be hurting the poor much more than the rich. Also, that it discourages the use of income, so it's not really so different from income tax.

As for helping the poor. It would be easy to simply have a lower limit for the flat tax, below which, no tax is collected. That limit could be the poverty line income. Though, the more I think about this, the less I like it. I think it would tend to discourage the poor from trying to earning more because once they got past that lower limit, they'd have to give some of it to the government. Eliminating income tax for reasons like this remains appealing to me.

I actually think that the system you describe is very much like the system we have today. Income taxes are progressive, poor people generally don't have to pay much tax. Business or investment profit is taxed, much like you said. But, I think it has done very little to help poor people. I think using the tax system to try to help poor people doesn't really work. It's a nice idea and you can come up with all kinds of reasons why it's fair or better, but in the end, it doesn't help. So, I'm back to thinking that perhaps a flat tax is best. Though, again, perhaps getting rid of income tax and having a flat sales tax would be even better.

I'm a little rusty on this debate, but there's also something called the Land Value Tax (or something like that, and I know there are variations on it). I've seen some compelling arguments for using LVT instead of income/sales tax. I think in part because it doesn't discourage production/work (like income tax and sales tax) because it's not taxing the cycle of money flow (work, income, spend). Also, poor people and lower middle class don't tend to own land, so they pay nothing.

I'm quite sure that Gates, Murdoch, and Walton have paid more tax than you and all your neighbors and relatives combined. Yet, you still pick on them as examples of how unfair the system is? Those 3 people have worked very hard and provided incredible benefit to our society. Sure, you can scoff at what they have produced, but bias aside, they have made things that millions have benefited from and employed thousands in the process.

Rich people pay something like 90% of the tax in this country and you want to increase this? I'm sure you've seen this sort of response before. I meant these questions rhetorically, no need to respond. But, I think it does get at a kind of truth of the matter. A flat tax means rich people pay more. That's how percentages work. I don't know if I buy all the rubbish about the actual value of money, the rationale for progressive taxes. The cause of poverty is much more complex and likely has very little to do with taxation. I do agree that for the most part, the rich people pay for all the social programs designed to help the poor. But, from my perspective, those programs do very little to reduce poverty. In some cases, they may make poverty worse. Perhaps the best way we can help poor people is by reducing government spending and eliminating all these failed social programs.

When the government gets in the business of redistribution of wealth, I think things often go astray. We end up with an incredibly complicated tax system, that most poor/uneducated people have no hope of understanding. Instead, the rich/educated learn ways to get around it. Progressive taxation may actually discourage people from working their way out of poverty because the more they work, the higher their tax rate. This doesn't just affect poor people, but middle class and rich too. Why work harder if the government is just going to take more of it away from you?

What you're saying sounds similar to socialism or communism, but from my perspective examples of these forms of government have usually failed or resulted in wide-spread poverty and corruption. I'll admit that laissez-faire capitalism is not perfect, but I think it shows the most promise for giving people a system that works: rewarding the hard workers, while providing the most personal freedom and least corruption.

Did you read and consider my argument before giving your opinion?

That we actually have inverse proportional taxation between the middle and upper classes is not an argument against exponentially proportional taxation. The capital gains loophole is the very opposite of what I suggested later in my post, where I suggest not taxing people for 'work' income.

A lower limit is no different than proportional taxation, just one with a very crude chunky curve. The concept is the same. It's not like a curved table is all that much more math to deal with. If the concept is valid that some people can't afford taxes, it's equally valid that some people can't afford as much tax. A solid line would have people trying to remain below the tax bracket unless they were certain of greater success above it, not unlike the way most people are trapped on welfare now, with no incremental path/means of self-improvement available.

It is regressive. The rich aren't buying 10,000 times more shoes, loaves of bread, or bicycles than the poor.

For the most part, until I got on about only having a capital gains tax, I was merely defending the system we already theoretically have, and not creating some new system as I typically do. As you realize though, a good chunk of the problem is that, at tiers above poverty, progressive taxation only exists in theory, not in practice. This is due in cause to another underlying problem (one certainly deserving of a seperate topic thread), that the U.S. has been a 'Champion system' of law since it's inception. Like jousting knights, the victories in legal precedent typically favor those who can afford better lawyers, thus eventually the laws favor businesses over citizens, and corporations over businesses.

You say what we have now doesn't help because you have no reference of comparison, and see poverty still exists. Take a look at non-socialist, non-progressive-taxation, 3rd world countries and you'd get an idea how worse we could look like here.

Masses in poverty is the inevitable conclusion of the combination of industrialisation and monopoly building. Like in a game of Monopoly, eventually everyone owes the person who owns all the production and resources. Sure people can invent new cottage industries, but the power at the top to buy out any of any consequence increases at an even faster rate. Look how many mom&pop businesses there are now compared even to the 70's.

I wish it weren't true, but an LVT tax sounds fair to given who can typically afford land in practice. Even that should be progressive I think though. Or, at least in this instance, your poverty barrier could apply. One personal home could be exempt.

Land though is only one of several channels of leveraging wealth aginst the masses, and not necessarily one every mogul chooses at all.

'Perhaps' Gates has worked harder than me, but not six million times harder. I'm guessing Mother Theresa has worked harder on behalf of the public good than he has. I'm all for a system which nurures people working hard to support society, not compete within or against it. I have recently adopted the notion of becoming a Bill Gates myself, but I don't like it. It just seems to be the only effective available means (for those with mental gifts like Gates) of achieving powerful good in this modern economic structure. The employment and products Gates offers are indeed virtues, but from what I gather, they are unintended side effects of his means to his motives of power and wealth. He set out with the goal of making $1Million/minute, and achieved it. I'd be alright with him having 100x my wealth, but I find a problem with someone other than Jesus or Moses (who wouldn't care or be corrupt anyhow) having 60Million x more wealth than anyone else working, no matter what they do.

In spite of this 90% of tax coming from the rich, they could still afford in an instant to buy out the life's work of an independent shoe maker.

Did you get my argument on how it is the wealthy who create the poor in the first place? Investors don't profit off of each others corporations, they profit off of the masses. If you can afford to own stock in cable television, you profit off of all those who can only afford to watch cable tv. In this manner, the widening division beween the wealthy and poor is self perpetuating, and progressive redistribution of wealth is the only known working system thus far for even remotely keeping that in check.

Hard work means very little in our society. Money goes to those who have skills in making money, not working hard or benefitting others. Though it is true that those latter ingredients may be required for making money on some paths. For instance, people creating their own business typically have to start off putting in much dedication. Their economic success still depends on their market-leveraging business plan logistics though, and not upon working as hard as the person with two grueling labor jobs. Big business has captured the seat at the white house. I think capitalism has finally come close to demonstrating the depth of it's corruption. The next step of course is when corporations hire their own mercenary armies to control the populace. Oh wait, isn't Haliburton and the oilgarchy already doing that in Iraq. Ah well, it will probably be few more years before corporations have their police control the streets here.

I went to an IT mgmt panel recently with accomplished reps from diverse IT sectors like dot-com start-ups and civil-service. Defense and IBM sectors alike alike have no problem hiring$3/hr vietnamese programmers. I saw the CEO of Google on Charlie Rose put something succinctly, (slightly paraphrased) "You have two types of people, the people who come up with stuff, and the people who make money off of it". I would think he's in a position to not just be speculating on what happens here in the US.

Like Kaleb (I wonder what became of him?) you have this fantasy that success in capitalism is proportional to effort. From what little I know of your personal situation, I would guess that you base that on some personal experience, though it sounds like you've hit your wall too the way you promote flat taxes. I seem to recall you mentioning investment income. That puts you in an entirely different league than anyone of poverty class. I don't know how much money you've made directly with your softwre, or how you put yourself through college, but even that sounds like some startup luxuries most people don't have. I'm a genius, and have been doing college part time for 27 years now, and finally appear to be on the verge of higher economic potential, but until then I still get by making my furnishings from things people leave in the alley.

Even to do what I'm doing, starting the most 'shoe-string' digital instrument business, has required putting $1000's on a credit card, something most impoverished persons would be fool-hardy to attempt even if they were allowed that luxury. I expect to be able to compete because my ideas are way out there and require my particular set of DaVinci skills and education, and even then, the competiton is close at my heels. To do something more mundane, and succeed would require substantial investment resources to be competitive.

No, I think any model of economic competition will disfavor the success of the poor. Without a cultural and educational background, they wouldn't stand a chance even starting off on the same economic footing as those in the investor class. Without either, I see no option but socialism of some sort for them to secure any remotely equitable position for their efforts.

I don't think the make-up of human nature has ever changed. There will likely always be a mainstream and a ruling class. I don't think corporate globalism is substantially different from the serfdom of centuries past. The two things I'd like to see are: A) That people at least have a chance to fullfill their merits within the system, and B) I believe in Noblesse Obligé, which is to say I believe that modern corporations should bear the burden of sustaining the masses they profit from, just as the Barons and their Stewarts held that responsibility in the past. As is, the non-geographic nature of corporations makes it easy for them to stick the sustainable responsibility side of the bargain upon geographic entities like gov't welfare. If you're going to keep slaves, you should at least be responsible for feeding them. - and that, in today's world, would be enforced progressive taxes, or capital-gains taxes for those who profit upon the masses.

> Did you read and consider my argument before giving your opinion?

I did... sorry if it seems I skipped over some of it. I get a little overwhelmed by the verbosity. I disagree with a number of your points, but much of my disagreement is a gut-feeling or based on something I read a while ago. It's hard to track down links/quotes to back up my point of view, though I'm sure it's out there. But, this can cause me to not respond, though I disagree, because I can't easily back up what I'm saying.

For this response, I just pulled out some of what you said that I wanted to respond to... (though I dislike this point-for-point style of reply, I'm going to try it anyway) Hopefully, this wont be too confusion, many of the quotes are pulled out of context and I may be responding to the context more than the specific quote or vice-versa.


> Take a look at non-socialist, non-progressive-taxation, 3rd world countries and you'd get an idea how worse we could look like here.

From my perspective, much of the 3rd world is socialist. Or, has at least toyed with the idea on some level. But, I think this point is largely moot. We can both sit here and point fingers, blaming this or that for the 3rd world's problems. Their main problem is likely corruption, which undermines both capitalist and socialist governments.


> Look how many mom&pop businesses there are now compared even to the 70's.

I assume you meant to imply there are less, but I think there are more. I did some quick searches, but I didn't find anything that would back this up, though. In general, I think there's been a trend toward people moving away from working for big companies and instead working for themselves, either as a contractor or by running some sort of small business.


> Gates has worked harder ...

I may have worded my last comment about him poorly. It's not so much about how hard someone works but how much their work benefits others. Gates's work has benefited millions and thus he has been rewarded for it. Alternately, there may be people who have worked very hard at something that didn't benefit many and they likely have not benefited from it.


> working hard to support society, not compete within or against it

The product of Gates's work supported society tremendously.
Competition is essential as a kind of reality check for the real value of someone's work. Clearly, it's not perfect, but the socialist alternative seems to be some sort of centralized authority for determining what is valuable or not, and that seems broken from the start to me.

I think that hits upon the essential flaw in the socialist paradigm, that some sort of centralized authority is assumed to know best and thus is given the power to force all others to conform to its will. But, this seems like a recipe for disaster to me. I think markets are a better model, there's more of an evolutionary reality to them, not a single source of intelligence, but a group gestalt. Markets are more flexible over the long term too.


> In spite of this 90% of tax coming from the rich, they could still afford in an instant to buy out the life's work of an independent shoe maker.

The market reveals to us that the product of a shoe-maker's labor has less value. Yes, this may feel kind of wrong, but I think there's a truth to it. In the past, shoe-makers had more value. But, with mechanized production, and use of cheap labor, shoes have become less valuable. Asserting from a centralized government that shoe makers must be compensated as well as people who make products that have higher market value is madness in my opinion.


> Did you get my argument on how it is the wealthy who create the poor in the first place?

Yeah, I don't agree. I don't think it's that simple. I think society since the rise of capitalism has less poor people and our poor people are better off than the poor people of the past. I think poverty is a complex issue with many causative factors. I think that no one truly knows what causes it in all cases.


> profit off of all those who can only afford to watch cable tv.

If someone can afford to pay for cable TV, they can afford to make investments. That they don't choose to do this is interesting and perhaps reveals some of the real cause of poverty. Perhaps, they don't realize how powerful investing can be and thus education is a barrier. Perhaps, there is some sort of emotional barrier, they are scared of the investment world or class-related, investors are not their people. I don't really know. But, as far as I know, it's quite easy to make investments and anyone can do it and over time (admittedly, it takes many years and thus a long-term commitment) investments would clearly be able to pull some people out of poverty. I'm sure there are some people who are too poor to invest, but cable TV customers don't seem to be that group to me. ...or cell-phone user, or ipod owners, or...


> Money goes to those who have skills in making money, not working hard or benefitting others.

Money is the measure of how much our efforts benefit others. I guess that's an unpopular notion, but I think there's more truth to that than not. Sure, it's not so direct and there are some bad examples, but in most cases the capitalist market-based system will reward people who provide goods and services that are wanted by others. The more a person's goods and services are wanted, the more money they will make.


> success still depends on their market-leveraging business plan logistics though, and not upon working as hard

I don't think it's accurate to imply these things are mutually exclusive. Cleverness (e.g. the cleverness of leveraging the market) provides value to others and may well be hard work. In modern times, intellectual work has become more valuable, probably because we use machines to do more of the manual labor ("hard work").


> There will likely always be a mainstream and a ruling class.

Perhaps, though I don't think this is an absolute. I don't see any requirement for it within a capitalist system.


> That people at least have a chance to fullfill their merits within the system,

I agree. Though, I think our system already has this characteristic. I think everyone has a chance. Presumably, the wealthy have a better chance, though. But, I'm not sure this is always true. I've seen many examples of the offspring of very wealthy people squandering that wealth within a generation or two. Having money removes motivations. Lacking money provides motivation.


> and I believe in Noblesse Obligé ...

I think it's a nice idea too. But, I think it's something that (rich) people need to get to on their own. Forcing them (via progressive taxes and whatnot) throws a psychological wrench into the works, antagonizing them, motivating them to find loopholes, etc. I'm generally against forcing people to do anything, because doing so almost always results in backlash/repercussions. And, again, there's a kind of "we know better" aspect to it. We know better, so we're going to force you to pay for these social programs, etc. I think if we didn't force the rich to pay via taxes, they would donate on their own, perhaps with better results (and some worse) because it would be done without a centralized agenda. The robber-barons of the past are known more as philanthropists in our times.

A good deal of the McVeigh and KKK complaints are that aren't free now to live as they please, within the shared values of their own social groups.

So in other words appeasement.


The Islamic countries are already more like my system, more clannish than centralized federal authority. Little change would be required of them except except open immigraion and expatriation policies.

Exactly.

Even if you convince them on that point, why don't you set up a small commune in an Islamic country and tell us how that works out for you.



If there were a (unlikely) growing movement to spread Amish life, why prevent it? Better to have growing pockets of Amish leave us alone than democratically force more Amish values on everyone at the federal or global equality level. Why shouldn't people have a right to be Amish?

I am not sure how unlikely that would be given their disproportionate birth rates. Whats probably keeping them in check is people either leaving the community or higher death rates because they don't have enough land. Under your model, they would keep on expanding into other communities because of their population even though they don't have money to buy the land as people need right now. And yes, people should have the right to be Amish, but they shouldn't have the right to not follow the laws. They're violation child labor laws and mandatory school laws as well as cruelty to animals laws. Besides, the way they treat women is pretty bad, and they have somewhat high rape and child molestation rates, and their society usually punished the woman for reporting it. Oh yeah, and did I forget to mention, the Amish are US CITIZENS. So yeah, I can understand the argument against forcing Saudi Arabia to change their laws because they go against OUR values, but I don't get your live and let live attitude towards the Amish.

Policing the world and telling everyone else how to live is one thing, arguably wrong for the US to do, but telling YOUR OWN citizens who live INSIDE YOUR OWN BORDER how to live is not imperialism--- its called ENFORCING THE LAW.



You seem to wish that others' laws and values not be forced upon you, but seem to have no problem doing the reverse.

You're right. I am an imperialist. You got me. You realize that just about EVERY MAJOR CIVILIZATION in the history of the world was imperialist. The ancient Greeks, the ancient Romans, all imperialists spreading their values onto others by force-- arguably for the better. Then the British and French, ditto. Whether it was for the better or the worse is kinda a toss up. Islam. Yep, You do realize that if radical Islam had its way you'd be wearing a veil right now. The only thing stopping them is resistance from other countries. Seems a bit of a double standard, its ok for them to be imperialistic but not ok for us. Had the situation been reversed, their people wouldn't be so resistant to telling us how to live because Islam doesn't have its KrisalRoses. Exactly why radical Islam is winning, because the secular West will tolerate just about anything and let others walk all over them but radical Islam won't recipitate. Look at what is happening in France and British, with radical Islam taking over refusing to assimilate but you and me couldn't move to Saudi Arabia for instance and live how we want to. Radical Islam is walking all over us and moderate Muslims because we keep second guessing ourselves with statements like "but its their culture, we have to respect other people's cultures."

Would you also have been against fighting the Civil War, forcing your imperialistic values of emancipation against the confederate south?



Town charters would be quite like what I am proposing. I'm just saying, in Xth ammendment style that they supercede state and federal law. If a town votes to be grass smoking hippie nudists, and outlaw commercial advertisng, let them, as long as it doesn't other towns (like crapping upstream in the river).

Although I am in favor of legalizing weed and prostitution (its legal in Nevada) and nudist colonies, I really do think you are throwing out the baby out with the bath water. Yeah, there are retarded federal laws imposed upon the states (eg: FDA, the war on drugs) but then there are also laws that I am glad the feds imposed on the states, like gee, I don't know, desegregation. You right, those imperialist federal bastards shoving down desegregation on the poor states walking all over states rights.

Overall, the feds are more beneficial than harmful.



I guess we give Grannie grandfather rights, as we do now when people wake up to new building codes. This is a general system of governmental structure, like a confederacy. I don't profess to have the billions of details worked out.

The devil is in the details. You don't have the details worked and your system will fail. "Minor" details like making it workable is what is keeping your system from taking hold. You've already contradicted yourself by conceding the need for federal enforcement of free movement between towns and extradition laws.

While I don't agree with flat taxes (I am not THAT libertarian/republican), I don't get what KristalRose wants. We already have a progressive tax system, what else would a communist want?

I believe in checks and balances, along with a mixed economy being the ideal form of economic government. So think of the progressive tax system of forcing the rich to give to charity with centralized government burocrates redistributing as a necessarily evil, a reasonable trade off between a pure capitalist system that respects individual rights above everything else and some sense of the common good. The current system isn't even that "bad", 37% verses 24% isn't too horrible.

PS: You are aware of the fact that corporations have to pay corporate taxes which are higher than the income tax and THEN the dividend tax on top of that. So they're getting taxed twice for the same income, for for LLC's. So looking at it from that perspective, the capital gains tax rate isn't that unfair.

I rarely ever want quotes or links to back up an argument anyhow. Sound wisdom should speak for itself, to anyone who familiar with the envionment it is to be applied to.

How do you define corruption? It seems to me capitalism is roughly defined as wanting something someone else has. Socialisms can become corrupted (and may infringe on shooting stars). Capitalism takes one definition of corruption as it's foundation. The only reason it's not considered corrupt is that people openly agree those are the fair rules. More specifically the concept is "I mant more from you that you'll get from me".

Capital gains taxes are a direct counter-measure to those who operate in such a fashion. I'm not saying quash enterprise or any economic incentive at all (well, sometimes I do, but not in our immediate world context). I believe Gates would have still built microsoft even if his take home was only $400k/yr. Other motives, some good, some bad, were involved, I'm sure.

In all fairness, we can't use 3rd world countries to demonstrate anything, because there's no assuring even thatthey had the same value goals to fail at in the first place. I think we can agree on some human nature though, that those who are in the business of milking others will generally go as far as they can within civil accepted legality. The closer to slaves at the cocoa bean farms, the better for chocolate mfgrs. Why pay for worker's education if you don't have to. I think that's what it would look like here too if not for union history, public democracy, and consequent progressive taxes.

I was considering mentioning the private business trend. It would be tougher now than in tho 70's to own a convenience store now that would entail competing with major chains. People find new industry niches, but those too get engulfed by larger fish. I think the private business trend isn't because doing so got easier, but because holding a 30 year company job got harder, and people have a more independent mind set now in some respects. Contracting arose as a means for big business to evade employee overhead before catching on as something people migh choose. In the early 80's the IRS watched contractors carefully to ensure they really were independent.

Credit companies make most of their money now charging $40 late fees. 'Some' companies may profit in proportion in proportion to benefits they offer, but it's surely not the only guage or mechanism of profit.

I agee with you on competitive concepts to some extent. That's where China and the USSR failed. Too much competition may be inefficient in the large picture, but quashing creative diversity is no good either. Efficiency isn't really a good thing though in an economic model where individuals depend on labor income. When one person owns the magic box which makes everything for free, where do peoples' pay checks come from? Since I see the magic box as ultimately inevitable, my plan is to create and share the magic box.

My elaborate plans for communism-socialism are based on independent contractors and grass-roots democracy, not a centralized hierarchy. ..Not to get into that deeper, just to say I'm not defending te China/USSR model.

You make a good point, one I often keep myself in check with, and that is that we are better off than in times past. My arguments are theoretical, looking at society like a zero-sum game of monopoly. The model is incomplete, no accounting for things like new resource production to spread around. Also, I came long ago upon the realization that money, besides being a general fiction, issued only with interestfrom the very start, and thus always implying debt rather than wealth (which gets passed off to the poor in a game of musical chairs capitalist leveraging), it is also even less tangible at the level of billionaires, indicating not bread and bicycles, but more indicative simply of who runs the worlds physical andhuman resources, things they will nver personally touch. In that realm of relative power, I believe the Monopoly game model holds true, but people operating at a level to buy and sell countries probably aren't interested in taking away your daughters bicycle. In fact, like with the barons of ages past, the wealth of your populace is your wealth. You would imagine for instance that credit companies would be happier if all their clients had a million dollars of assets and paid interest on a half million dollar debt, rather than $20k/$10k. You have to wonder though then why they charge the poor much higher interest.

Sure, one can claim that credit debt is voluntary, but I still see it as taxation without representation. When I was on about the musical chairs game issued by the Federal Reserve, I think the termination points of that cycle are who pays the credit cards. I think the average american is in debt some $20k. People might see that as indication of some tragedy, imagining that we should all be solvent, but the fact of the matter is that as long as the Fed.Reserve issues all it's money with debt, someone gets stuck with it, whethar here or abroad. It's theoretically impossible for our nation's populace to be debt free except to any extent we capitalize on other nations. The design of our nation, so eloquently depicted on our dollar with the Horus pyramid, is that we are slaves to money. It sounds loathsome, but the fact of the matter is that we still have bread and bicycles. Of course, in the bargain, others can buy and sell nations.

Given this sysem, divorcing ones self from concern with accounting is mandatory in estimating what society could become. For instance, to build a new infrastructure of jet-stream wind turbines and intercontinental aerial railways, to ask 'where will the money come from' is truly absurd. The consequential question is 'Do we have those mineral and human resources to build such a thing?' In this age of video game authors, security guards, lawyers, and telemarketers, the answer is certainly yes, provided we can train people, and that we can do too. {You might correctly get the notion that I'm all for a new WPA program.}

I can afford neither cable, cell phone, iPod, nor investing. Being a programmer, I've certainly justified my DSL though. Did you personally do without cable to invest? I think of investing as something one does after they've taken care of school, a car, credit debt, and a level of dining, entertainment, and communications which doesn't leave them feeling left out of society. While I'd call $4000 trips to Europe a luxury, I'd even think annual $800 camping trips or holiday family visits to be something that came before investing.

I'm really fairly ignorant of investing (and curious), in spite of briefly having had a step dad as a young teen who invested in building in entire cities. At this same time, were the boat, the luxury racing plane, the Bahamas gambling trips, so I never gathered a picture of scrimping on tv service to invest.

I don't think any of my relatives have investments except my step-dad (maybe?). The paradigm amongst my shepard relatives seems to be: Get a good college education, build a home, and serve society like Moses, play a good folk guitar at gatherings, and have no truc with the corrupt values and means of the wealthy. Most of my relatives are artists and engineers. - Come to think of it, family culture probably has a huge bearing on where I'm at. I consider myself fortunate to not have been raised with ghetto values of being stuck. The pardigm of DaVinci style physical collectively-minded ranch self-sufficiency is a bit obsolete, I suppose, but makes for an interesting perspective and role in life.

I can't imagine anything but a ruling class (those with more power) as the product of a capitalist system. Capitalism does not at all imply an equitable labor based economy.

I'm not against restricting criminals. Forcing people to not be criminal seems reasonable. Hopefully we don't let people profit by creating factories which poison rivers. To any extent that capitalist leveraging creates an unfair burden on others, it makes sense that they also be responsible for remedying such burdens. If we were talking about genuine philanthropy, I would agree with you that that must be voluntary.

"They would donate on their own". That's hilarious. (Ok, some do.) Perhaps he's doing better now, but I recall a time when they made a big deal of Gates giving a $5 million charity from amongst his $60 billion (and charities that indirectly resupport him). That's like 0.008%. A person handing out 35˘ weekly towards a hamburger is relatively thrice more generous.

'We know better' is the foundation of criminal law. Effect and ideology are both game in that realm. It is difficult to discern cause and effect in the entire economic eco-sphere though. I imagine few people even see the connection between the Federal Reserve and national private debts and think instead in fictional terms like 'Where would the money come from to do that?'.

"The robber-barons of the past are known more as philanthropists in our times." What do you mean here? If you mean those who ran ancient serfdoms, I could make a case for that. If you mean early american carpet-baggers, I haven't a clue what you're on about.

Liberty, not appeasement, is the point. Liberty in fact was the essence of McVeigh's manifesto. I gather, though I've not directly read his material, that he actually had ideas similar to the ones I am arguing here, the right of communities to define themselves without federal interference.

To be sure, the UN would have quite a job enforcing 'Live and let live' between communities. 1980's Lebanon is an example of the flaw of my system. It's one thing to 'Live and let live' when one can start a new colony in remote Africa, and another when several regional religious factions are overly compressed within a metropolis and make boulevards of skyscrapers the shifting front lines of their turf wars.

On the other hand, america has generally succeeded in keeping personal homes safe from neighboring predators. A global police capable of maintining the peace between communities is no less probable a possibility, if that's the structure people wanted to exist.

Not following the laws IS being amish, just as being a grass smoking hippie nudists would be only following community, not federal laws.

Amish, native tribes, it's all the same to me. You seem to have missed one quality of my proposal. I would dispense with national identity except to the extent it serves globally democratic UN style peace-keeping and inter-community trade laws. Basically each community would be it's own nation.

Again, the natives didn't choose to abandon their tribe nations to become U.S. citizens. They were overpowered. I don't believe might makes right. They should still be allowed to operate as sovereign nations, even if they are currently surrounded by the U.S.

Well, there's the crux of our debate. I'm an anti-imperialist. I think it's morally wrong to subject anyone to anything they didn't informatively choose to adopt, without so much as relative external economic pressures.

Radical Islam isn't living by 'Live and let live', is it? You aren't simply an imperialist, you are an imperialist as long as your side is winning. If you truly believed in imperialism, you should be equally ok with radical Islam overtaking our nation and enforcing veils. I am not, so by the golden rule, if I don't want them imposing on me, I must not impose upon them.

While Islam has had a conquering history, for the most part it had settled down and just wanted to be left alone (except for the UAE culture). If we hadn't invaded their culture with our cultural corporate imperialism, and had just left them alone, I think very few of them would have concerned themselves with the affairs of america, at least in Afghanistan. Iraq was already importing american television and would have eventually evolved to join us had we not aggravated them instead and insisted upon their speeding up the process.

When did I ever say it's ok for them to be imperialistic? Theirs a difference between adopting a neighbors culture, and them indoctrinating you with theirs.

China is opening itself to wealthy capitalists. Wealth has become a priority over ideology there. They are open by invitation though, not simply surrendering to outside imperialism.

The idea with my communes is that they be of whatever size fits those who share the values. If all of Saudi Arabia wants to behave a certain way, then theres no point in wedging in some alternative community. If though, the Shiite and Suni of Iraq want seperate regional systems, or even if pockets of christians or voudons form there, as long as their borders grow by choice, not force, I think it's fair to globally enforce these communities as sovereign nations.

As has often been the course of world history, the Civil War was mostly an economic war posing as an ideological one (though I'm sure it was the latter for many). The war only expedited what would have been natural evolution. The south needed slaves to compete with the North, but soon they would have found that industrialisation grew exponentially, where slave labor did not. They would have adopted the cotton gin and other industrialisation, and eventually considered slavery to be more of a liability than an asset. The war was a suicidal waste of human and other resources. We look back upon it as an evolutional moral victory, but that would not have been the case if the South had won. If the world had not discovered industrialisation, we would probably look upon slavery as part of the natural order of life, just as people now barely question that some people have great wealth while others are forced to work their way up through hamburger-flipping or military service. The scope of personal liberty is radically different, but the nature of the predicament is not considerably different. The South would have become an example of an independent community that would have become obsolete and evolved on it's own, inviting industrialists amongst it's ranks, as well as accepting emerging pockets within it's awn ranks who felt that the time for slavery had come and gone.

Let people evolve as they choose in their own time. Evolution indicates a naturally superior adaptation, therefore, if it is truly superior, it will eventually be adopted by others and does not need to be forced upon anyone. Social evolution requires synthesis of a diverse emerging dilectic. It would be stifled if global legal cultural homogenity prevailed.

I believe the world is actually rapidly approaching an end to it's social evolution. Sure, the synergism will exist to rapidly evolve technically, and society may in turn have to adapt to that, if for instance we started living 300 years or ordered our children on the internet. For the most part though, we increasingly have to look back to lost cultures in the movies, and not forward to homogenity to experience any diversity. Thanks to this synergy we now have much free time to devote to preserving cultures. The world is in essence evolving to become a museum of itself, because we demand more diversity than a future of 20 billion clones, each eating at McDonalds, watching the same movies, and studying the exact same school in school.

I'm not necessarily convinced that any society in Earth's history is unquestionably better than others. It's all relative. I do believe that people should have freedom of choice, if they believe that an agrarian, capitalist, or philosphical culture
best suits their temperament.

Desegreggation would have happened eventually anyhow. It could not have happened if a majority hadn't already adopted the concept. That wasn't the majority at one time, or things would have been different to start with. If a view grew from a minority to a majority view, I think it's safe to say that eventually it would have become a grand majority, even if the issue wasn't forced upon a minority. Even if no law was ever created, people who kept slaves now would at the minimum be called creeps, probably get media attention, and the public would refuse to interact with them. Few people care to behave in manners which cause society at large to perceive them as abominations.

Sure, the feds are more beneficial that harmful: there's still some majority democracy in operation. If you lived by choice in a small community which only abided by local majority democracy, you find it's effect even more beneficial. Perhaps most everyone in the community is annoyed by the wearing of hats indoors. If you were a product of that community, you would find their law against wearing hats indoors to be a comfort, and resent any federal imposition on the matter. Even if you didn't care for the hat law, overall you'd find the majority of laws there more to your liking than those found elsewhere.

I have contradicted myself no more than police being required to protect the rights of individuals from each other in america is a contradiction. Instead of individuals, a UN democracy of communities would vote upon what the rights of communities amongst each other were. For it to work, you basically have a constituion and bill of rights defining the rights of communities: freedom of gov't, freedom of unrestricted trade, freedom of assy, etc etc. Pacifist communities wouldn't like the idea, but to get a workable concensus, they'd have to conceed to things like supporting the UN peacekeepers which automatically come to the aid of any community transgressed upon, without taking sides.

The latter is how I think we should handle things now. No more national armies. One UN army obliged to come to the defense of ANY nation which is invaded. If this worked out, all the world's nations could stop wasting resources on defense. The only nations which wouldn't agree to such a thing are ones with agressive intent in the first place, or a lack of faith in such a peace keeper force.

What I want? I was just initially responding on why I didn't think flat taxes were as fair as they sound at a glance. I did go on to mention that capital gains would be even better than a progressive tax, but I'm happy with the progressive tax system (when it's actually implemented, and not loop-holed into unrecognizability).

No, I'm unfamiliar with that. Are you saying that profits (after losses, expansion investments, salaries, and operating expenditures) are taxed once as a corporation, distribued as dividends, then taxed again at each dividend recipient depending on the role that dividend makes in the recipients income bracket?

In a sense, since the salaries are tax exempt expenses from the corporations perspective, I don't see that it matters too much. I suppose the stockholders vote on what goes to them as dividends vs. what goes to the CEO's salary. I don't really know much about how much say stockholders have in such matters. I can't imagine they go voting on what brand of tissue the corporation buys for it's restrooms, or if they even have a say in what clients and industries the corporation works with.

I gather that profit must be distributed as dividends, but that doesn't entirely make sense to me either as surely many corporations would need to save for grand expansion opportunities and projects further down the road.

I don't even know if dividends must be cashed when issued (and taxed to recipients as dividend income) or could be withdrawn at a later time, and not taxed, except to any extent there is any interest income from while the uncashed dividends are being utilized as if operating revenue.

I'd appreciate any knowledge you have on the matter.

I think I already told you my notion of forming a 51%me / 49% co-owners business (voluntarily treating my share as if we were all equal co-owners voting on investments or charities), the idea being to form a wealthy tax exempt factory commune with many amenities. I'm not sure if the IRS would be kosher with lavish shared business expenses like swimming pools or not.

Alas, it suddenly dawns on me that even though no particular individual owns the pool or restaurounts, that they would use the same guidelines as they use for sole-proprietorships to distinguish business expenses from personal expenses, and probaly tax a swimming pool as an employee gift/benefit, in proportion to their co-ownership of the enterprise.

> It seems to me capitalism is roughly
> defined as wanting something someone else has.

What an "interesting" definition of capitalism. I'd define it more as the system that results when free people interact. When people control themselves, own the products they produce, and are free from coercion in trading with others, the result is called capitalism.

The word means the doctrine of turning into capital or cash. If you could sell rocks found in your yard for $50 each that would be pure capitalism. In this world someone owns all the resources. Others can add value to a resource with their labor, capitalizing their labor, but I think people these days generally don't look at it as capitalism unless its profitism, adding more than your labor, adding perceived value, or simply getting whatever you can. What I would refer to as the current epitome of modern capitalism would be reselling something at a profit, be it inventory, stock, or real-estate. That method of capilasm, which is one of the most prevalent, is certainly of the zero-sum variety, meaning that if you are making more profit, it's because someone else is now paying more than they otherwise would have had to. The idea is to make the most money with the least effort. We're generally not talking about creative labor when we're talking about capitalism, we're talking about cutting costs (firing labor, paying less to resource suppliers) while keeping the prices the same.

I freely interact with people, control myself, own the pancakes I produce for dinner, and aren't coerced to trade with specific others, though my stomach coerces me to trade with someone at least for food every couple of weeks. I wouldn't particularly call any of that at all capitalism though.

I can't think of any ways to capitalize, writing software or whatever, that wouldn't result in more money in my pocket, and less money in the pockets of others. (well, maybe my software could free their time for making more money elsewhere.)(most products and services out there aren't really aimed at saving people money though.) The more I'd charge for my services, the more this would be so.

I might gripe about capitalists, but at least I'm not hypocritical. I've never felt comfortable with the notion of selling something that I could give away. I never asked for raises, and tended to get them when one of the clients or co-workers insisted upon it to management. I suppose I'm somewhat of the 'The lord is my shepard, I shalt not want' school of thought, which I've always figured would work great if everyone dedicated their labors to generosity. Don't get me wrong, I still want things, but I do a fair job of making myself content with whatever's in reach and don't worry about what's beyond that for now.

Alas, I do want to DO everything eventually, and I can detect age cutting into those possibilities.

> It seems to me capitalism is roughly defined as wanting something someone else has.

Is that bias I see dripping from you gaping mouth? My goodness, what a dark view you have! I resist the urge to define capitalism more properly, since you can clearly look it up for yourself and must have, though clearly you dismissed that definition and replaced it with this pseudo-Marxist viewpoint.


> I believe Gates would have still built microsoft even if his take home was only $400k/yr.

While I can see the logic of this, the implementation implies more that makes your belief flawed in my opinion.
If Gates knew all along there was a limit, his entire source of motivation would have been undermined.


> The closer to slaves at the cocoa bean farms, the better for chocolate mfgrs.
> Why pay for worker's education if you don't have to.

As a counter-example, I offer Japanese-style manufacturing. They educate and empower every worker in the hierarchy and have been so successful with this technique it's now foolish to suggest doing manufacturing any other way.

The basis for worker exploitation doesn't come from capitalism, it more likely comes from pre-existing societal norms. There's evidence that educating your workers actually leads to more profit.


> When one person owns the magic box which makes everything for free, where do peoples' pay checks come from?

I really thought you had more imagination than this implies. Someone needs to service the magic box. Someone needs to sell it. Someone needs to improve it. Someone needs to provide programming for it. Someone needs to write articles about how we were better off before we had it. Someone needs to teach us how to use it more effectively. etc.


> Monopoly

Have you read about the history of this game? It's more interesting than you might thing. The original game ("The Landlord's Game") was created by someone who was trying to show people the evils of landlords. The creator believed in the Land Value Tax.


> You have to wonder though then why they charge the poor much higher interest.

This is a result of the market. There is some justification for it. The poor are more likely to not pay back the money loaned on credit. They are a higher risk, thus due to market forces, they pay more. But, also the poor are not as well informed/educated about finances, this leaves them more vulnerable to exploitation.


> we are slaves to money

There's that dark view again! Money is the shining symbol of the achievements of mankind! Cheer up! We have done great things, built huge shining cities! Our population surges because of our great successes! Try not to focus too much on the shadow.


> I'd even think annual $800 camping trips or holiday family visits to be something that came before investing.

Clearly, you've failed to fully grasp The Miracle of Compound Returns. It's like your magic box, only it prints money.


> I can't imagine anything but a ruling class (those with more power) as the product of a capitalist system.

Again, I'm disappointed in your imagination. Have you changed? I had been assuming you were more imaginative and creative!

From my readings, socialist (and especially communist) systems tend to be more corrupt and lead to more class separation (e.g. you're in the party or you're not). Though, this is likely due mostly to centralization, which is arguably implied by socialism, that leads to corruption. Given what you've said, you seem to disagree. For me, decentralized socialism does not seem maintainable. Though, I think kibbutzs are cool. I wouldn't actually want to live on one.


> [Gates] Perhaps he's doing better now

You make my point, he's investing billions in Africa... Warren Buffet is also giving most of his wealth away.


> "The robber-barons of the past are known more as philanthropists in our times." What do you mean here?

For example the names Rockefeller and Carnegie. In the past, sometimes seen as ruthless businessmen. Today, their names are most often associated with charitable causes. I see and hear their names at the end of many PBS/NPR programs.

I'm all for capitalism, what I'm against is the so-called "free market" ideology of the neo-cons. Capitlaism works with rules. I define the Liberal and Right Wing versions of Capitalism thusly.;

Liberal Capitalism (or regulated capitalism): Nuclear power plant
Right Wing Capitalism (that Leo Strauss bullcrap): Nuclear bomb

Are you saying that profits (after losses, expansion investments, salaries, and operating expenditures) are taxed once as a corporation, distribued as dividends, then taxed again at each dividend recipient depending on the role that dividend makes in the recipients income bracket?

yes



In a sense, since the salaries are tax exempt expenses from the corporations perspective, I don't see that it matters too much.

Salaries get treated like regular income, and get taxed on the progressive income tax that we are familiar with today. Dividends, on the other hand, get taxed twice, since they're considered corporate profits but then get taxed again on the dividend scale.



I don't really know much about how much say stockholders have in such matters. I can't imagine they go voting on what brand of tissue the corporation buys for it's restrooms, or if they even have a say in what clients and industries the corporation works with.

Stock holders elect the board of directors. The board of directors elect the CEO. The CEO hires / promotes the middle managers, human resources staff, etc. I am guessing that managers and/or human resources make all the everyday decisions, including trivial stuff like bathroom tissue paper. For something that trivial, they might just form committees. I am sure its a bit more complicated than that, but more or less thats how it works. Off course they can always collude to pay themselves more, but then the stock holders can get pissed off and sell their stock. Theres also regulations in place so that the stockholders can sue the corporation in civil court if they really push it.


I gather that profit must be distributed as dividends, but that doesn't entirely make sense to me either as surely many corporations would need to save for grand expansion opportunities and projects further down the road.

They do. They have option: a) invest their profits, b) pay the dividens, c) some combination of the two. Investing more means the value of the stock grows, paying dividens means the value stays the same but you get your cut of the profits directly (eg immediate gratification).



I'm not sure if the IRS would be kosher with lavish shared business expenses like swimming pools or not.

Probably not. You would have to put the property under the corporation's name, and then you would be fine. Its the very concept behind a "company car", its owned by the corporation on paper but for pragmatic purposes its owned by the possessor. Its also a great way to dodge lawsuits and divorce splits, since they can't sue you for something you don't own, eg you accidentally run over your neigbor's kid and they sue you for everything you own, but can't touch things owned by the corporation--- this also the preferred method of laundering money by drug dealers everywhere.

Off course the downside, you are at the mercy of the corporation's owners so theres a high level of trust you would need for this to work, unless off course you ARE the owner.



Alas, it suddenly dawns on me that even though no particular individual owns the pool or restaurounts, that they would use the same guidelines as they use for sole-proprietorships to distinguish business expenses from personal expenses,

Intuitively one would think that, but no. You can own a corporation and be its only employee and treat all of its purchases as corporate property instead of your own to dodge taxes, with some limits off course. The only disadvantage of corporations is that its books are required to be open to the public and independent auditors, as opposed to sole proprietorships which is private, IRS audits notwithstanding. And they even help you dodge a lot of lawsuits. Theres even a structure called the LLC which helps you get best of both worlds.


Believe

That was actually meant to be a reply to bill.

I meant that even though we already have progressive taxes, welfare, workers rights, free public education and tons of subsidies, you're still complaining as if that wasn't enough.

How much more more that $400k/yr does someone need? ..Especially if all their business expenses are untethered to expand around the world. If capitalism is indeed evidence of creating something beneficial, then that motivation of generosity still exists. If it's power, I haven't curtailed that aspect of motivation in my plan either until you work in my concept of democratizing corporations, which, like the office of presidents means great power as long as you have public support. Unfortunately, instead of corporations becominglike the presidency, the presidency is becoming like corporations, where it is wealth and power tha buys your way in.

I explain in a post above to Dab my actual sentiments on capitalism, coming from Irish rancher co-op ideology. I've mentioned my intent to become a capitalist. My three motives, in sequence, reluctantly, are power (to achieve..), public benefit, and a wee bit of personal gain (nice property, cosmetic surgery). Essentially I'm going in with the intent to demonstrate that capitalism can be done 'primarily' as a public benefit, to get to the level of power of building the sort of sustainable public infrastructure that gov't reps and profiteers have failed to provide us. I'm going out to be Robin Hood, realizing that in todays world, if I want socialism for others, I'll have to buy it myself.

That Japanese model does sound a bit closer to my intended co-ownership model. Every position including that of janitors is thought to be vital (I think you can expect a top notch comitted janitor, when their equal co-ownership membership is voted upon to free engineers' time for their more lucrative specialties). While I envisioned creating an efficient at work commune, where one could take a swim, play guitar, share the sewing, welding, or astronomy faciliios, or have a fine international meal on breaks, I can imagine the employee-owners voting instead to live less efficiently and take home their profits instead.

My inspiration came from living in a homeless shelter and attending college, where I recognized the social and economic benefits of sharing such facilities rather than each person trying to recreate all of them they were interested in at home. That's somewhat the arrangement I have now, equipped with tools and materials for most art and engineering forms, but only on a shoe-string. I don't have access to a nice $4000 programmable embroidery machine to use one week per year, as I would in the factory co-op I've imagined. My torches are meagar (no Migs/Tigs), the 40Hz stroboscope is ackward, the studio amps are only mono, etc etc.

So you are telling me that industrialization technical evolution is a delusion? That we can't actually create something which produces more goods and utility services while employing fewer human resources?

I don't buy that. Rather I see people scrambling for trivial unnecessary support services to the magic box, like telemarketing it. Of course it's known these support services are unneeded, and real needed jobs are hard to come by, so people are stuck taking on three useless full time jobs to pay the rent, trying to work cheaper than a robot.

Yes, we invent work where none is required. It seems to me to make more sense though to play at the beach and just share the magic box production, than to polish and adore it in the manner suiting one's class hierarchy.

I also think those trivial workers should do something more useful like build reactors on the moon, museums on the street corners, intercontinental jet trains, and other things which you would think the capitalist heavyweights might attempt, but don't. Part of that problem, at both the private and global level, is that people don't wish to compete against themselves when they don't have to. No sense offering eternally free electricity when you make more profit from selling increasingly scarce hydrocarbons.

I may have browsed Darrow's history. I was a huge Monopoly player as a kid, knowing all the ROI's, dice odds, and property landing frequencies. Unless they've changed the laws yet again, Monopoly and Mickey Mouses copyright expired last year. (Monopoly may have been '33, not '28). The game has inspired me to create variants sometime, like Cosmic Encounters, with a variety of economic concepts, and a goal of arriving at a system where everyone keeps surviving. I've been able to use the game to illustrate may concepts by tweaking the setup and suggesting what would result, like for instance some players starting with 1/10th the money.

What is this 'Miracle of Compound Returns'. The closest I've gotten is a virtual test of the stock market. After three months with my chosen companies, I merely broke even, which a stock investor told me was good, it being during the dot-com bust, and my having chosen some tech co.s like Sun. It sounds to me like gambling, which one should only do when they can afford to maintain a resaonably comfortable life wile doing so. I imagine,like with credit and savings rates, that the odds get safer the more you have to invest.

I think most everything from scratch, learn things by reinventing the wheel. Sometimes I come up with something new, but at other times I just end up with a deeper understanding of why things are as they are. For instance, in creating that co-ownership model, it occurred to me that I might intermingle co-owner staff with hired-contractor staff. I realized that contractors would probably be seen as a less respectful drone class to be pushed around by the co-owners. ..and if the goal were to join the more lucrative co-owner circle, a contractor would have to demonstrate that they were more interested in the welfare of the company above their personal interests (though those should equate if one sees the big picture. Still one might hope to personally slide while others created the shared profit). Essentially 'the party' would come into existence. Either you're dedicated to the cause, or frittering away company resources, which affects other co-owners.

I have a huge debate going on with SouthernYankee on decentralization, giving communities self-governing rights which supercede state, fed, and global laws, excepting a global peace keeping force akin to our constitiution and bill of rights, which defends communities rights, and defends them from each other. My decentralization scheme is not a communist-socialist system, rather it gives like-minded communites the right to adopt any system they choose. I don't wish to impose socialism on those happier with capitalism, but neither do I see communism possible as long as capitalism reigns across the nation.

I had a step-sister live in a kibbutz when i was young teen. That's probably one more influence in my views I had forgotten.

Good for Gates. Perhaps he recently realized you can't take it with you.

They [Rockefeller and Carnegie] were ruthless business men! Fortunately apparently their offspring are not. I venture to suggest though that their generosity is not so extreme as to jeopardize their economic class stature. Fortunately, having reached such an aristocratic position, and not really having anything to prove about economic power, it's nice that there are cultural pockets where their cultural standing (relative boasting rights) is determined by their public philanthropy.

Back in my United Way days I developed a sense for who those people were. There were some large anonymous donors, but for the most part this crowd was buying prominent public recognition.

I would imagine that even PBS sponsorship can equate to "We're doing well enough to be charitable. You might consider investing in us."

Fortunately greed and charity often cause the same behavior in our society. I don't think we would have made it this far if society had evolved in some other fashion.

Thanks for the 'company car' example. That will make this easier to explain in the future.

"Off course the downside, you are at the mercy of the corporation's owners so theres a high level of trust you would need for this to work, unless off course you ARE the owner." - This is why I would own 51%. I'd behave like an economically equal owner, but pull in the authority reigns if I didn't like the common direction.

Thank you. This sounds very promising. Next I need to learn how one forms a corporation such that they own 51% while the other 49% grows in the quantity of co-owners. There is some gray area in my mind between private partnerships (of many members) (where I figure those 'company car' rules wont apply), an LLC of shareholders, and a public offering (a place I wouldn't even want to be, if it jeopardizes my or the co-owner-employees control).

I figure partnerships, like marriages, require no accounting of initial share of investment. I don't know if unequal percentage of ownership are allowable terms or not. I'd thought so though. With an LLC, I'd think more formal rules for share of ownership exist. The public model seems most clear cut, simply buying and selling shares. That too can get complicated, as I understand that it's somehow possible to create new shares out of thin air.

Liberty, not appeasement, is the point. Liberty in fact was the essence of McVeigh's manifesto. I gather, though I've not directly read his material, that he actually had ideas similar to the ones I am arguing here, the right of communities to define themselves without federal interference.

"Liberty" is a very loose term. You've previously admitted that people should have the "liberty" to keep slaves and force their women to wear beekeeper suits and that the feds were wrong to forcefully desegregate Topeka, Kansas. Yeah, those evil oppressive feds, shoving down their equality laws down people's throats like that. I take it that you view liberty more in terms of group rights rather than individual rights, am I correct?


To be sure, the UN would have quite a job enforcing 'Live and let live' between communities.

And you expect the UN to actually be competent enough to handle such a large task? Given your highly romanticized view of local control, you don't strike me as a pro-UN kind of person, but thats just me.



Not following the laws IS being amish, just as being a grass smoking hippie nudists would be only following community, not federal laws.

At least the hippies to their credit didn't blatantly violate anyone's rights.



Again, the natives didn't choose to abandon their tribe nations to become U.S. citizens. They were overpowered. I don't believe might makes right. They should still be allowed to operate as sovereign nations, even if they are currently surrounded by the U.S.

FACT: Indian tribes fought amongst each other and even were imperialistic to a certain extent even before the arrival of the white man, many of which have merged. So which tribe's laws do you go by, the ones that were existing when the white man came or the ones that existed right after the Ice Age. Thats a bit like calling Sir Francis Drake a thief for robbing the Spaniards when the Spaniards robbed the Incas of their gold, who before that had slave labor dig the gold for them. The latest update was that the Spanish government was suing some Florida based US company who found sunken gold in the Atlantic. Go figure.

ps: no, I don't believe that might makes right, however, I do believe that if you are mighty and see someone doing something wrong it is your moral obligation to intervene if you can stop them. "The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." No, I won't apologize for Bill Clinton's decision of taking out Milosivic (although he probably had selfish motives in doing so (cough cough Monica cough cough)). Even Bush, although misguided and using questionable reasoning had a point in removing Saddam. Granted there probably are better uses of our tax dollars and better conflicts to fight, but lets not ignore all the Kurds who are cursing us for not intervening sooner.




The south needed slaves to compete with the North, but soon they would have found that industrialisation grew exponentially, where slave labor did not. They would have adopted the cotton gin and other industrialisation, and eventually considered slavery to be more of a liability than an asset. The war was a suicidal waste of human and other resources. We look back upon it as an evolutional moral victory, but that would not have been the case if the South had won.

In a way you're right. If the confederates had won, slavery would probably be outlawed by now anyway. Thats completely missing the point though. Imagine if anyone could willy nilly secede from the Union simply because they didn't like their countries laws. Its largely human nature to build governments upwards (villages merging into city-states, city-states merging to form nations, nations merging to form international governing bodies; not the other way around). My point, I wasn't even trying to bait you; I was asking you honest philosophical questions and you by your own admission said that slave-owning societies and regressive societies are morally equivalently to the way we live. I gotta hand it to you, at least you're consistent.



Let people evolve as they choose in their own time. Evolution indicates a naturally superior adaptation, therefore, if it is truly superior, it will eventually be adopted by others and does not need to be forced upon anyone.

Isn't that how civilization was built in the first place. Local villages lived how they wished and then they voluntarily merged with other villages and drew up boundaries and finally evolved into nation-states. So the current system is what we natrually evolved into, not some pipe dream world that you invented and the rest of the world is just too dumb to realize its the way to live. You wish to somehow undo thousands of years worth of human evolution.



I'm not necessarily convinced that any society in Earth's history is unquestionably better than others. It's all relative. I do believe that people should have freedom of choice, if they believe that an agrarian, capitalist, or philosphical culture
best suits their temperament.

The biggest weakness in your argument is how to set up the boundaries to begin with. Thats exactly how the world got started (if you were a big city person you moved to a big city, otherwise you stayed where you were). There isn't enough surface area on earth to accommodate every crack pot idealist who wants to start their own cult/commune. Sure, people have a right to join cults, but you don't have to right to take over land that isn't yours to begin with and violate the laws of the area. People have previously already agreed on a set of values and laws to live by in their area. So you basically want to build your own town within a town. But then what happens when your own people revolt and decide to form their own communities within your community. Say your town is 1000 people and you hold election on some law. 600 people think one way and 400 people think another way. The 400 people got outvoted and don't like it so they form their own town within your town were now all 400 people believe something else. Your argument is that democracy is in your favor but the opposition says that its in their favor. Now suppose that your little cult belongs to some larger town which holds 20,000 people, of which 11,000 is on the opposition's side and 9,000 on your side. Who should the UN favor in case of conflict if their job is to enforce Democracy? Clearly you need some pre-agreed upon set of boundaries for your system to be workable.




The latter is how I think we should handle things now. No more national armies. One UN army obliged to come to the defense of ANY nation which is invaded. If this worked out, all the world's nations could stop wasting resources on defense. The only nations which wouldn't agree to such a thing are ones with agressive intent in the first place, or a lack of faith in such a peace keeper force.

VERY unworkable. But lets assume it wasn't. So you admit that you don't care about human rights at all and only intercommunity peace.

I know.

Aside from the seperate community rights debate, I don't really have a strong complaint. I do wish for a bit more empowered access from the lower rungs. Mostly though I'm arguing for the sake of beautiful theoretical design. A myriad of forces have evolved to keep things in balance, but it would seem nicer if a simple elegant less corruptable system could take it's place, which was designed at it's core to take care of such issues. I suppose no such system could exist though. Democracy, as simple as it sounds, has evolved into a mess of monetary bandwagons to endorse particular public media pursuasions. Why these days, even congress-persons claim to not always be certain what is they voted for. We've come a long way from the 'informed popular opinion' that democracy was originally intended to provide. Thus, I must imagine any system I imagine of similar simple elegance, would likewise be subject unanticipated complex distortions. At least democracy at it's core is workable underlying theory. Often the forces which keep things in balance now have no underlying foundation, and are nothing but unanticipated complex distortions applied to other sytems as neccessary - a system of bandaids compensating for lack of an integral foundation. NGO's lobbying representatives, for instance, are indicative that no internal structure exists to effectively promote their concerns. I'd like to see a system which the public controls from the inside, rather than having to apply adaptive pressure from the outside. I'd also like it to be simple when seen from the big picture, as compared to current systems which appear simpler at the core, but are actually vastly more complex when the whole external affecting system is considered.

I guess, since I'm raving more philosophically here now anyhow, that what I'm arguing for is a working world system in which one can wrap their head around all the details which affect it.

Thank you. This sounds very promising. Next I need to learn how one forms a corporation such that they own 51% while the other 49% grows in the quantity of co-owners.

Look up your state's laws. Go to your local city hall and fill out the paperwork to form your own corporation. Theres like a $60 filling fee, or whatever. Write your corporation's constitution and elect yourself the primary board member, and then elect yourself CEO, and then sell off 49% of the stock that you own to whomever you trust for whatever price. Put that $ in your corporate bank account and start looking for lenders.



I figure partnerships, like marriages, require no accounting of initial share of investment. I don't know if unequal percentage of ownership are allowable terms or not. I'd thought so though. With an LLC, I'd think more formal rules for share of ownership exist. The public model seems most clear cut, simply buying and selling shares. That too can get complicated, as I understand that it's somehow possible to create new shares out of thin air.

Look up your state's laws. Partnerships are very risky and a royal pain in the ass. Stick with corporations. Note, your corporation can buy its own its own stock as well as other corporation's stock. You can also put limitations on whom can vote on corporate matters and other stuff. There is a thing called splitting stock, where stock holders lose half their ownership, and the corporation has more stock to sell. They then auction it off or sell to good friends, which is actually how corporations raise revenue.

Also, contrary to popular belief, money doesn't come from thin air. The value of your company is whatever people are willing to pay for, but its not a real dollar you own. Its sort of what happens when someone builds a car from scratch and sells it for whatever. You're not actually putting more money in circulation. The "real" value of your stock is your corporations assets divided by the number of stock the corporation produced but people would pay a premium if they think it has potential sort of like some people might offer you $100 for a silver dollar even if Uncle Sam says its worth $1.

To learn more http://money.howstuffworks.com/stock.htm


For someone as knowledgeable as you, you seem to have slept through your high school civics and general business classes. I am not really in a mood to do your homework for you and you probably be better off hiring a lawyer to handle your business dealings, whom probably is much more knowledgeable than me about this.

Actually, when stocks split, stock owners own more shares, but they are worth less. So if you have 50 shares that are worth $75.00 each and it splits 3 ways, you end up with 150 shares that are worth $25.00 each.

Life is complicated. What a shocker!



I guess, since I'm raving more philosophically here now anyhow, that what I'm arguing for is a working world system in which one can wrap their head around all the details which affect it.

Society had thousands of years to evolve, before you were even born. I somehow doubt that your philosophy on how the world should run will be taken too seriously. Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Thousands before you have tried, and most of them failed.

Even though you're a super-liberal, you seem to have your feet somewhat planted in reality.

This was originally meant to be a reply to you:


While I don't agree with flat taxes (I am not THAT libertarian/republican), I don't get what KristalRose wants. We already have a progressive tax system, what else would a communist want?

I believe in checks and balances, along with a mixed economy being the ideal form of economic government. So think of the progressive tax system of forcing the rich to give to charity with centralized government burocrates redistributing as a necessarily evil, a reasonable trade off between a pure capitalist system that respects individual rights above everything else and some sense of the common good. The current system isn't even that "bad", 37% verses 24% isn't too horrible.

Stock splitting is the only thing I don't understand too well. That and corporations owning their own stock and other companies as well as mergers. Loose ends like that.

"I take it that you view liberty more in terms of group rights rather than individual rights, am I correct?"

I can't answer that simply. I believe it's possible to fully express individualism, while still doing so with the motive of securing the common good. My goal is mutually supporting individualism. It seems to me that the smaller the self-govering body, the greater chance of tailoring customs to creative individualism. I'm also going on the concept that the smaller the group, the less likely it is that they would impose upon themselves unsuitable restrictions. My system is meant to be thoroughly bottom-up in nature, meaning the rights of a family to have it's own customs at home would likewise even supercede those of the community. The Amish choose for themselves what rules to abide by. The smaller the community, the more likely I believe that would be the case.

A few years ago I shared your views on national equality, and was working instead on systems of national popular voting back then. I've since come to understand that this does more to impede personal freedom than to nurture it. ..That people are being stuck with the lowest common denominator of liberties, even when something less (or more) restrictive (or at least different) better suits the make-up of their local community.

The UN certainly botches things up, and is ineffective, but there are reasons for that. It was never an equitable body, nor particularly empowered, nor very democratic (we don't even elect our UN reps) in the first place. The WTO and WMF are examples of where the global muscle lies, and alas, for all their power, they aren't democratized in the slightest.
The U.S. federal government effectively handles things. The UN's ineffectiveness is merely an implementation problem, not a conceptual foundation problem.

I'm a big fan of 'some' aspects of traditional native culture. This is a bit of an aside, but no, I don't see the point in restoring any dead governments (nor do I believe in reparations). What we have now is what we have to work with. What I do believe in is the right for those who wish to adopt traditional native practices to be allowed space and self governace to do so. However, as I said on the global immigration/expatriation caveat, it couldn't be by bloodlines or race. Anyone should be free to partake in sweat lodges and rain dances, and share grand hall tents. As long as natives merely compete as capitalists without a seperate set of values, I see no reason for them to have their own lands. To their credit though, the natives are finally reemerging, coming to terms with the modern world, and applying native values (like thinking ahead 7 generations) to it. They are working on getting in to the wind-power industry in a big way for instance.

Evolution, though generally merging larger, required a complementary body of creativity outside itself in order to evolve. We are running out of 'outside' with which to evolve. There need to be independent breeding grounds of creativity, some of which will be adopted by other entities, and some of which will ultimately gladly be dismissed as unproductive cultism, and will die out on their own.

"The biggest weakness in your argument is how to set up the boundaries to begin with."
Undoubtedly. Centuries ago there was free land, now, as I've mentioned before, everything is now owned by individuals or insitutions, and governed by jurisdictions. If town were allowed to adjust their borders, that could be a start. Owned property could trade hands. I hear that the Japanese own a great deal of west coast land, thus it's almost surprising that such a movement hasn't come in to play already.

There's at least as much room for crack-pot cults as there is now. It's just a matter of moving people around so that they're neighbors with their like-minded crack-pots. Becoming a native tribe living off the land would be an entirely different matter. As a concession to reality, I would suggest that native tribes with land holdings sell out membership to those who wish to become natives, allowing other natives to expatriate with some funds to try their hand at capitalism or other collectives. Alas, the reserves natives have now couldn't support living off the land if they wanted to. They'd have to in turn buy out better property for collective ownership which could support such a lifestyle, and hopefully, this time, have it protected by the UN.

Communites breaking off within communities was the intended consequence. It would be bottom-up, everything, ie democratic control, concentrically flowing outward from individuals' spheres of common influence. Ideally only that which was common and unanimous to the myriad of components in a region could trickle back down. The UN peace keepers would be an example of the highest common consent which then trickled back top-down to all involved. Regional river management would be an issue for all within that sphere of affectation. That stuff is messy, and I'd rather not waste my time thinking about it, as this sytem is so far from implemenation, but it's no messier than the mechanisms in place now for dealing with such matters.

Back on the border issue, the implication of my system is that the world become borderless. Global corporations are already at home with that concept. Conceptual borders would exist, but they would easily be amorphous because they would be defined from the inside out, not the outside in. One declares their household to be a citizen of Amishylvania, or nearby Hippieburg. This works hand in hand in with my concept of governmental member bodies in the forms of borderless global corporations.

As absurd as I'm sure you see my notion as, I expect a trend in which aspects of it will naturally occur without my intervention, particularly citizenship more resembling subscribership to global borderless corporate entities like credit and media institutions. You should check out the 1980's series Max Headroom. It had some foresight on a nation where corporate citizenship, not regional democracy, prevailed.

I think it's the duty of those who can see what's coming down the pipeline, to steer it on behalf of the larger public interest. If Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington had seen the WTO coming down the pipeline, they would have democratized it before it had a chance of escaping their control in the matter. I'm certain some form of arbitrary global borderless citizenship will prevail unless a severe revolution dismantles most every system now existing. Rtaher than giving people no choices in the matter, I believe it behooves us to be prepared to insist upon democratization of such entities, or at least have a viable alternative option, the creation of competing public corporate collectives, capable of withstanding their intended dominance.

You may believe you are secure in the culmination of a millenia of cultural evolution towards national or global democracy, but the evidence is out there that the lives of the populations of entire nations, from what they produce to what they may buy, are being influenced by the WTO. Americans have a lot more power and liberty than these 3rd world countries, but it already appears that even that is undergoing intentional disassembly. Americans may be last on the list to follow WTO demands, but we are on the list. There will come a day when the WTO dismantles things like minimum wage globally. We would be forced to comply if we wished to continue operating in the realm of currency and foreign trade. That is the mechanism of their global enforcement elsewhere now.

I have presented my system as an alternative to such an eventuality. Of course my system is a pipe dream, excepting to any extent I can at least form my own corporate commune, and hope the trend catches on. Forgive my gloom, but I also see it as a pipedream that existing U.S. democracy could withstand such a thing either. In fact, in drafting some provisions of recent patriot acts, they specifically made mention of preventing any further revolts against the WTO.

As much as I disdain using violence to get one's message heard (didn't seem to work anyhow), I suspect McVeigh was ahead of us in identifying a strong potential threat to global public liberty.

As always though, my taoist nature kicks in and suggests that even in the greatest of evils, some good might be found. Like he Federal Reserve, the WTO would control every individual on the globe to personally tap their wealth. For them to do that, their needs to be wealth to tap, so while we may lose liberty of personal choice, in likelihood we would still materially prosper.

On the other hand, Hitler had no equitable sense of noblesse obligé. He had no interest in the Jews of his nation prospering.

"So you admit that you don't care about human rights at all and only intercommunity peace."
After all this explanation, you still don't seem to get that individual rights superceding all else is my goal here. Currently I have only the right to live as is nationally agreed upon. I can't live as a native, hippie, Amish, or Muslim in a like-minded culture if I wanted to. The option is not available to me. Nor can I go forming my own micro community where people are allowed to play loud musical instruments till dawn. I say, as long as I'm not bothering someone with different values, why not? I am after more granularity of individuality, not less. I propose that if one wishes to live as they do in Amsterdam, that they merely have to move five miles up the road, and not to Europe.

Another way of phrasing this is 'Don't impose anything on anybody. Let them each choose which conditions they wish to live in'. It does mean that everybody who desired a lifestyle alternative to the mainstream would have to move somewhere else, but at least they wouldn't have to move to another continent. As the globalization trend continues, eventually that wouldn't even be an option.

I kind of figured it worked that way. They must have some system in which someone's 40 1947 share certificates locked in a trunk are now known to represent 40,000 millishares.

Wow, that easy? Thanks. I've had a DBA sole-proprietorship (Conceptual Design Synthesis) for some 20 years now, but no need till now to get more complex.

"Note, your corporation can buy its own its own stock as well as other corporation's stock." - Fascinating.

Ah yes, it was that 'stock-splitting' which I had recalled.

I did at least, eventually, learn about stock valuation. It kind of killed my romanticisation of investing, coming to realize that it was perception management, and not just virtue of a corps actual assets, efforts, and genuine potential which affected stock values.

Never in my education has anyone taught so much as how to balance a checkbook. I found that sorely lacking and often proposed that a class should exist in HS which explained things like credit, mortgages, inveseting, and such.

I did once take a summer college course on writing small business plans, but it mostly consisted of ledger items, like 40 forms of insurance, which might go into writing a business plan. It seemed so irrelevant that I dropped it. Consequently, minus the financing and legal concerns, at least I know, from a more COO process-engineering/marketing/sales standpoint, how to put together a comprehensive business plan.

Civics was not a requirement for my college degrees in art or computer science. I don't even recall seeing such a course in the catalog covering things like corporate law, though one probably exists {hmm, let me take a look.. Well, economics and plolitical science courses don't seem to cover that turf, there are no 'civics' courses, but it does appear that the business courses cover financing and law}. I guess that first business course I took scared me off to imagine that they didn't have anything to teach that I couldn't figure out on my own.

Actually my son nearly has his bachelors in business, and reports that it seems to be a waste, not covering much he couldn't have figured out on his own, and offering nothing as intriguing as the concerns and insights on matters I've brought up with him. Granted, he's in interior Alaska, and they may treat the whole subject of business there as an irrelevant theoretical system concern. I've asked him some of the questions I've asked you to no avail, though I'm sure he has good grades.

I more slipped through the cracks than ever slept through anything. The only subjects I've intentionally dismissed are law, insurance, and medical care, and even then I often find myself more knowledgeable than my doctors on medical matters. Biology however is a closed engineering system. When one knows it's components, the nature of it's meta-components and networks can be extrapolated with some sensible micro-physics. In business however, it has been an evolution of compound arbitrary human decisions. No amount of genius can be applied to certainly deduce what system has come into existence. One can only take educated guesses based on knowledge of human nature, or resort to looking up the facts. The subject matter simple hasn't been greatly compatable with my engineering system model of understanding reality.

In retrospect, I suppose I could have taken it on as an engineering system too. Had I known all the tools of finance and corporate law to begin with, I suppose I could have then moved on to at least understanding the rest of it through extrapolation.

So yeah, imagine that, 27 years of part-time college attendance, and not a single entire civics or business course. Most of what I know on the matter comes from 4 am shows on the education channel. Until you came along with a plain English answer, I've had to surmise how stock-holders relate to a board.

This link helps, further absorbing the distinction between share prices and asset values. The rate of return is new concept for me too (hough I would have arrived at it with further thought on the matter).

As much as I dislike Bush, I commend him for the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Given most of his other related activities, it seems out of character.

I'm all for reinventing the wheel. Amongst the thousands that have tried and failed before me, some of them, like Buckminster Fuller have had some really promising ideas. Occasionally you get someone like FDR whom not only has promising ideas, but manages to turn the world sideways and implement them. At the minimum, the published new conceptions of those wheel reinventors can be taken into account by those wielding the reigns of power. As I've said, the creative material for evolution has to come from somewhere outside the box. - I may be the voice of a zeitgeist emerging all over the place, shaped by similar new realizations to common experiences. Evidence indicates that I am, as the radio station I listen to generally seems to mirror my thoughts within a few months of my concocting them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_rights

Which are what I tend to consider bullcrap. Add to the fact that how do you define a "group" to begin with.



The Amish choose for themselves what rules to abide by. The smaller the community, the more likely I believe that would be the case.

But then what about splinter groups within the Amish and splinter groups within that. There will be fights about land ownership and what if the majority town wishes to banish the splinter group from their kingdom. Basically, you want the "UN" to police the world that is anarchist with the only rule of free movement. I only wish it were that simple, since free movement is very contradictory to certain cultures. For instance, in Islamic and Hindu countries, it is a violation of their cultural norms to get married without parental approval. For your system of free movement to work, anyone can freely leave their society but then the Islamists will see that as a violation of their "rights". So free movement directly contradicts certain cultures. Sorry, but you won't convince certain countries and groups of people to voluntarily give up their sovernity, and if anything it would be YOU who is imperialist, not me.

Your free movement has another flaw. How to deal with teenage runaways. On the one hand, free movement means that anyone can move freely, so theoretically a colony of runaways can form who are ok with preteens having sex with full adults. On the other hand, countries and societies can form their own laws what constitutes an adult. So one country will say that you need to be 45 to be a legal adult and another will say that you need to be only 15. So technically a 44 year old under your system would be considered a minor if you go by international law and be subject to extradition the same way a 14 year old runaway today would. You would need to set up complex treaties on how to treat movement just because of such simple caveats. It gets more complicated if anyone can start their own government at any time. So if I am married I can declare myself a government and impose that my wife is a minor and can't "runaway" or declare her a criminal so there goes your free movement theory. Sorry, but your system is painfully unworkable.



If town were allowed to adjust their borders, that could be a start. Owned property could trade hands. I hear that the Japanese own a great deal of west coast land, thus it's almost surprising that such a movement hasn't come in to play already.

Surprising to whom? Speak for yourself. It may be surprising to like yourself who has a very poor grasp of reality and is astonished why 99.999999999% of the world doesn't act the way you predict them to act, but to anyone who can see why your ideas are blatantly retarded there very little surprise as to why towns aren't merging all the time. Here is how your utopia would work out in the real world. One town is a capitalist town and another a socialist. The socialist one wants to negotiate borders with the other but the other has its property own by individuals. Suppose some disgruntled socialist citizens want to give up the retarded idea and move to a capitalist town, but would be rendered broke. How does that person transfer their share of the ownership if the socialist town has no way of dealing with individuals. Ignoring the obvious fact that socialism is bound to fail, disgruntled/banished individuals will have a tough time adjusting moving to free market towns since their property would be seized from them and they would basically have to start over again.

Should the fact that something doesn't happen the way you predicted under your model and you see it as "surprising" tell you something? The world doesn't work the way you think it does, NOT EVEN CLOSE, hellloooooooooooo!




Back on the border issue, the implication of my system is that the world become borderless. Global corporations are already at home with that concept. Conceptual borders would exist, but they would easily be amorphous because they would be defined from the inside out, not the outside in. One declares their household to be a citizen of Amishylvania, or nearby Hippieburg. This works hand in hand in with my concept of governmental member bodies in the forms of borderless global corporations.


I think it be very unworkable when democratically elected societies decide to declare socialism in an area but there are dissidents whom don't wish their land to be seized. The dissident will say that they are forming their own capitalism government run by their household. People in communes will undoubtedly change their minds but will have a tough time selling their shares if its collectively owned. And how do you go about enforcing collective property rights AND individual rights AT THE SAME TIME.



I am after more granularity of individuality, not less. I propose that if one wishes to live as they do in Amsterdam, that they merely have to move five miles up the road, and not to Europe.

A very wrapped world view, since people won't voluntarily move to a certain area just for their law of choice. Constantly moving would be a ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS.

Buckminster Fuller, although bright thinker, had failed miserably at his attempt of setting up a commune. Look, I get it. Most innovation originally came from "crack pots" and other odd balls. Its one thing to be an odd ball with a novel idea that may one day take over, but its another to come up with an idea that was proven to be a bad idea, again and again. For example, communism--- which comes in two flavors, dictatorships and decentralized societies. The former fell just like the Soviet Union, the latter failed over and over and over again. Many have attempted at their own communistic societies with no leadership and they've all failed. Read your history. Failure after failure. They all tried the same idea again and again, with small variances. It just doesn't work because of how human nature works. Now, you could try to screen out for freeloaders, but that would require some authority. And please stop pitching me your retarded idea of calling people's usefulness on cell phones, ignoring for a second that there's still leadership involved that receives the calls.

Perhaps you should read an article on how Karl Marx thought when he came up with his crack pot theories, namely how Lemarkian model of evolution worked (as opposed to Darwin's). Knowing what we know now, we know why his model was flawed. Your very understanding of human nature is horribly wrapped and so far all your models that you've been working on takes as premise your very wrapped understanding of reality.


Another thing, whats with the "I've been working on my model". Are you some government worker or something whose job is to come up with models for government because you've been vested with the power to decide how the world should run.

Your first link has no similarity to my scheme. It describes disimilar group rights emanating from a single governing body. In Apratheid, non-whites did not determine their own rights. That wasn't my proposal at all.

That system of three generations of rights is worth further study. It dawned on me that my system has shifted too far towards anarchy without socialism. I'm all for Eleanors' Universal Human Rights. I need to redraft my system, but I'm not sure how yet. One way might be to make demands at the global level that all communities have some workable mechanism for providing minimum rights. I considered at a glance having two parallel systems (like the congress and senate). While both would be bottom-up then top-down in implementation (as an elected centarl authority congress and senate are now), one branch would somehow concern itself with top-down impositions, while the other would somehow concern itself with preserving bottom-up rights. It's not simple to envision yet, as the two systems would clearly be in opposition, and I haven't figured a balance mechanism for who prevails. It might involve a third court branch dedicated to settling disputes or making exceptions.

An example might be where the top-down system has decreed that all communities must feed their homeless, while many bottom-up communities have different plans for that matter. Aside from systems to establish local laws in the first place, an alternative system might be to establish various confederacy charters. Communities which won't adhere to homeless-feeding might lose membership in various charters like state-of-emergency bail-outs, assisted defense, or even trade and currency rights. If they can do without those services, fine. The world would be better I think if our UN was stronger in some limited regards. For instance, wars of agression are illegal. Only wars in self defense or sanctioned by the security council are permitted. If that were truly enforced indiscriminately, skirmishes in Israel/Palestine, Iraq/Iran, etc would come to an end. Instead of building up arms, and sending rockets over on occasion, they would dispute borders in international courts, because otherwise, the whole UN army would pummel them for acts of agression. That would include pumelling the US for invading Iraq.

If you skip the country to get married, you are no longer part of the countries who's right to arranged marriages is defended. The rights of a community do not extend to imposition upon their citizens who wish to leave.

I already suggested that extradition would not exist. Communities could however decline immigrants who were either charged of crimes elsewhere, or had earlier expatriated from the community they wished to return to. Teens would have the same rights of free movement as anyone else. Abductions would be another matter, but let's not overcomplicate this theoretical debate.

People move all the time for such reasons. I'd go so far as to say that that's primarily why they move. They move for better jobs, better schools, a pleasant geography, and local culture, mostly the sort of things that communal law would increase the diversity of. I wouldn't move to nearyby Orange County because it's heavily right-wing conservative culture, which affects everything which happens in the city-council, as well as the type of party conversations you'd be having. On the other hand, I'd love to move back to progressive Santa Cruz. Only problem with that is that they were invaded by wealthy silicon valley types, and the cost of living went sky high.

Just this Thanksgiving (about the only social exposure I've had lately) I was surrounded by people who just uproot to some place like Zurich when they don't care for what's happening here.

Look at all our freakin immigrants from all corners of the globe, and tell me people don't move for political-economic-culture reasons. Get real. You may not wish to join those who move as means of seeking greener pastures, but don't tell me people don't do it. My system would make it easier to do so than it is now, less travel, more cause, easier repatriation.

I think a world that was a hotbed of social experimention would be more interesting to live in.

I'm a consistent example of my belief that people should volunteer with whatever they wish to invest their thought-time in. B. Fuller wasn't paid to write manifestos, nor are unelected people running for office. The ideas have to come from somewhere.

I do the same thing in several oher fields besides politics. I wrote several papers on repositioning our college computer science department to regain falling enrollement by promoting new reasons for and means of implementing programming skills in our culture; and have had some influence on redirecting the art and theology departments as well. I was a peace activist consultant, and joined many spiritual groups as a teacher/consultant as well. I also write in to scientists when I have ideas to further their work.

Sometimes my influence is direct, at other times it's simply a parallel spiritual zeitgeist, sometimes it's both. Just a couple days ago I've heard on the radio about an anarchist convention happening soon. Because I unintentionally prepared by discussing the subject with you, I now have idea material I can email to them in advance of their lectures (I'd attend, but have holiday plans). That's how I operate.

I have in fact considered running for offices ranging from LA Board of Supervisors to President. I spoke with Kucinich's campaign manager last election to hand him several pages of platform concepts (nothing like our discussion though, things a majority could see as practical). It's easier for me to be a consultant than be directly responsible for leadership. I allow people to adopt what they like that way, rather than impose it.

Your first link has no similarity to my scheme. It describes disimilar group rights emanating from a single governing body. In Apratheid, non-whites did not determine their own rights. That wasn't my proposal at all.

Probably a bad example of group rights and collective rights, but thats the best definition I came up with (serves me right for over-relying on wikipedia).

A better example would be a subgroup of people living inside their country wanting to preserve their "group rights", eg Muslims in Europe, the Amish or LDS in the US. The problem is that not everyone wants to be in that group but the countries don't always enforce their individual rights laws because they're spineless cowards afraid of offending the group rights, eg allowing honor killings in their countries even though their own laws prohibit it. I know these are extreme examples and you claim to allow people to opt out of their cultural heritage, but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way.




That system of three generations of rights is worth further study.

Its a very striaght forward concept. Negative rights-- first generation. Positive rights-- second generation. A bunch of incoherent babbling by some utopians --- 3rd generation.




It dawned on me that my system has shifted too far towards anarchy without socialism. I'm all for Eleanors' Universal Human Rights. I need to redraft my system, but I'm not sure how yet.

A lot of these so called "universal" "rights" are mere entitlements pushed by do-gooders as their pet projects. As much as I don't agree with moral relativism, pushing for some universal gold standard of rights in a very culturally diverse seems impractical at this moment. Wow, I can't believe I actually agree on something with the Islamofashists. I don't believe in moral relativism, but the Eleanor's Universal Human Rights isn't the answer. And I certainly don't want any positive rights to be on there on that list.



One way might be to make demands at the global level that all communities have some workable mechanism for providing minimum rights.

And yet you are ok with countries that force women to wear beekeeper suits and cut off hands for stealing.



An example might be where the top-down system has decreed that all communities must feed their homeless, while many bottom-up communities have different plans for that matter. Aside from systems to establish local laws in the first place, an alternative system might be to establish various confederacy charters. Communities which won't adhere to homeless-feeding might lose membership in various charters like state-of-emergency bail-outs, assisted defense, or even trade and currency rights.

So now whose the imperialist?

So let me get this straight, you think that food and shelter, a positive right, should be universal; but something with much larger precedent, negative rights, is something you're willing to blow off. This is either a glaring inconsistency on your part, or as I said earlier, you care more about group rights and positive rights than negative rights. I would take major issue with a UN with these priorities.



Instead of building up arms, and sending rockets over on occasion, they would dispute borders in international courts, because otherwise, the whole UN army would pummel them for acts of agression. That would include pumelling the US for invading Iraq.

But that UN probably wouldn't lift a finger to protect the Kurds.



If you skip the country to get married, you are no longer part of the countries who's right to arranged marriages is defended. The rights of a community do not extend to imposition upon their citizens who wish to leave.

But then on the flip side you will have legitimate criminals committing theft and murder fleeing community to avoid punishment. So you still would need to differentiate between right and wrong on some level. Opps, there went your moral relativity theory.

Also, this is assuming that your attempt to flee is successful.





I already suggested that extradition would not exist. Communities could however decline immigrants who were either charged of crimes elsewhere, or had earlier expatriated from the community they wished to return to. Teens would have the same rights of free movement as anyone else.


Well, there goes your free movement theory. As for teens having the same rights of movement, you got to be fudging kidding me. But ok, I'll play along. So what about 5 year olds who don't like being forced to eat peas. Just hop on the bus and move somewhere else, some paradise where adults are nice and let you eat anything you want, eg candy. And that paradise will become known as nablaville. And thanks to your freedom loving philosophy, there won't be any of those pesky nosy oppressive federal agents meddling into the private business of local governments.




Abductions would be another matter, but let's not overcomplicate this theoretical debate.

I disagree. Lets. Abductions are a geninue concern and if you really are serious about your system I would start looking at those pesky details now. The devil is in the details. Its those gross oversimplications that make your government models seem so workable.





Look at all our freakin immigrants from all corners of the globe, and tell me people don't move for political-economic-culture reasons. Get real. You may not wish to join those who move as means of seeking greener pastures, but don't tell me people don't do it. My system would make it easier to do so than it is now, less travel, more cause, easier repatriation.

Way to twist my words. I never said that people don't migrate from city to city and nation to nation. I merely said that moving is a royal pain in the ass. The reasons are the following: 1) you need to pay off your realestate agent, 2) you need to find a seller, 3) you need to find a buyer, 4) you need to do a lot of paperwork with the banks and mortgages, 5) you need to hire a U-hall, 6) you need to take off maybe even a week from work to get settled, etc etc. Then on top of that, if your system ever becomes reality (me knocks on wood it doesn't), things would get even more complicated. Sorry if I don't think that moving from New Orleans to Atlanta should be an Act of Congress. Your system seems to require the relocation of a lot of people. If hypothetically a socialist system takes over a town, all the people who disagree will start to flee to avoid having their property seized. Your ideas of borders "natrually" organically shifting and communities evolving seem to borderline eminent domain. Its also based on a very illogical premise. Suppose you have two neighboring towns with opposing ideologies. And then one ideology starts to get more popular and the other one less, so naturally one would expand and the other one would shrink a little. Well, it doesn't follow that if you are a neighbor near the border that you would shift your ideology in the expansion just because you are located geographically next to the town. Trading places with your towns folks to accommodate your paradigm would require constant moving.

Besides everything that I've just said, keep in mind that people are generally lazy. Good luck pitching your idea that people should constantly move back and forth across town.

I think a world that was a hotbed of social experimention would be more interesting to live in.

Well, I certainly won't argue that point.



I'm a consistent example of my belief that people should volunteer with whatever they wish to invest their thought-time in. B. Fuller wasn't paid to write manifestos, nor are unelected people running for office. The ideas have to come from somewhere.

Well, neither of us gets paid to spend our free time making posts over here and maybe one day hosting our own blog. Certainly bloggers don't generally get compensated for their posts they contribute to the world. That doesn't make them / us volunteers. I wouldn't exactly consider SC as volunteer work.




I do the same thing in several oher fields besides politics. I wrote several papers on repositioning our college computer science department to regain falling enrollement by promoting new reasons for and means of implementing programming skills in our culture; and have had some influence on redirecting the art and theology departments as well.

Not to be cynical but I think video games serve that purpose. Through programming your own video college students will take interest in computer science. Its the only way to make it interesting. Also not to be cynical, but a lot of students couldn't write a program to add two variables if their life dependent on it. Trust me I know, one of my friends would work in tutoring incoming freshmen and it was a royal pain in the ass. Seriously, some people just wouldn't make it as programmers.



Sometimes my influence is direct, at other times it's simply a parallel spiritual zeitgeist, sometimes it's both.

I have in fact considered running for offices ranging from LA Board of Supervisors to President. I spoke with Kucinich's campaign manager last election to hand him several pages of platform concepts (nothing like our discussion though, things a majority could see as practical).

Ok. I got you. So you actually pitch your ideas to semi-influential people and they actually listen. You don't just ramble aimlessly a lot of Utopian ideas without actually making any difference. Thats way more credit than I initially gave you. Perhaps it was just your writing style, but some of your statements do inadvertently come off a bit arrogant. For instance statements like "I've been working on my model" "I need to retweak my model" etc come off as "I am some consultant to the government or a town president who makes decisions that affect people".



Just a couple days ago I've heard on the radio about an anarchist convention happening soon. Because I unintentionally prepared by discussing the subject with you, I now have idea material I can email to them in advance of their lectures (I'd attend, but have holiday plans). That's how I operate.

Feel free to use any of my caveats in your discussions. "Permission" granted. That should give you guys a challenge and actually something to do over the holidays.

I'm all for global weapons inspections. It wouldn't be an outrageous extension of that idea to throw in global spy police (perhaps the same crew even) charged with making sure citizens weren't held captive and were aware of options ...

That's another sticky issue. Undoubtedly many communities would prefer their citizens never even hear of such things as capitalism or evolution. It's about to be a problem here too, if the homegrown terrorism act passes. The concept there is tracking and preparedness to curtail avenues of thought on the internet, the thought police, essentially.

"And yet you are ok with countries that force women to wear beekeeper suits and cut off hands for stealing."
I'm not for all sorts of things which go on here either, like three-strikes laws or capital punishment, or abortion. They seem quite as barabaric to me. Since other people seem to think these things are good idea, and I'm not the moral voice of God, I have no business interfering with them living amongst their convictions. On the other hand, since I also know full well that they aren't the moral voice of God either, I see no reason that I and others should have to put up with their barabary either. If you're making opium-poppy honey, a bee-keeper suit is probably a good idea. My great aunt used to wear one.

How is confederate community exclusion imperialism? (well, ok, it's the same sort of blackmail the WTO does, which I certainly do consider to be imperialism. At least it would be more democratic.)

Not sure what you mean. That UN hardly lifts a finger to protect anyone now. Wherever it's clear that a long standing geographical community is being attacked, without having done something severe to provoke it (like diverting a river a nation/community relied on) (which is the main dispute Iraq and Iran had in the first place), the UN should come to it's full defense. Zero tolerance for acts of global military agression, by or to any party.

I already gave you my answer for fleeing criminals. They would be punished by the rules of a nation they joined, for instance serving jail time instead of getting their hands cut off. Nations could refuse to accept them though. Possibly some criminal community would form, but I would rarely expect any of the global communities to be fully self-sufficient, especially one populated with criminals, and no intelligent community would trade with them, so such a criminal may just as well have expatriated to a penal colony. ..neither am I anticipating the globe to revert to sticks and stones. Rather I expect most communities would share internet, cell-photo, sattelite, traffic camera image-recognition and gene system data.

The reason five year olds are not running away from home now has nothing now to do with systems of expatriation over their heads, nor would it in my system.

The latter example of shifting borders was a bit foggy, as I was really trying to explain two seperate systems at once. One was the shifting geographic community model, the other was the borderless corporate membership model, where people of all persuasions could be randomly checkerboarded. The latter system though is more economics and democracy within that borderless collective entity, and nothing to do with geographical laws like public attire and noise laws. It may be useful to in fact seperate those two sytems almost entirely, Local geographic law affects public physical services, and has it's own systems of governance, probably the existing infrastructure of city councils and congress, but everything that can be privatised is a personal household decision. It may be costly though to enroll in a private system to cover your usage of private schools, home-security, and such, while living in a town which provides the same public socialised services like school, police, and libraries. That debate rages on already as such sytems are already coming into conflict. I have some compromises for that sort of thing too {seperate topic}, liking doing school vouchers, but treating public schools as if they were private (if not actually privatising them, leasing building wings and sharing cafeteria and grounds maintenance costs with private contractors, teaching dance and rocket science). The manner in which it's a compromise is that capitalist privatisation and freedom of choice exist, but it's still socialised by mandating that those who accept any vouchers must accept anyone by lottery, and are not permitted to charge in excess of the vouchers. Everyone's educational opportunity would be equitable unless they chose to forsake their vouchers and go for a purely private school. (Which really is no different than the sacrifice they make now, paying taxes for a school they don't attend). I believe the capitalist mind-set has it's virtues, when it comes to the 'potential' of offering diversity. While some capitalize upon socialism with a primarily profit motive, I would socialise capitalism with a primarily diversification motive.

You're right of course, that it would be a huge pain to move between a communist and capitalist community. I doubt any 1950's expatriating USSR farmers got to cash in their tractor before leaving (if they could at all). But I see two other considerations at work here. For one, what alternative is their except to have only one global system available, which not everyone may care for. And for the other, unless a community was run by robots, and a citizenry was seen as a liability, as long as people were free to move, it would seem likely that communities would evolve such that no one was really interested in moving in the first place. "Hey, that brain interlink system has been well received in some 1400 other communities without problem, perhaps we should adopt here before everyone wants to move out and use it." Thus you now get a community which has adopted the mind interlink, but who's majority still prefers that thieves get a hand cut off - no need to move. There might be a lot of moving to start with, but I think community evolution would quickly thereafter become the preferred method of change. People would only move if they were curious about living in an entirely different paradigm.

I'm fortunate, I do live as a 'lazy' angelic sorcerer (Well, I'm a work-a-holic, but too lazy to move). When I moved here, this part of town was a wasteland. Three months after, I got the shopping center in biking distance I wanted, I'm an art major, and now have 12 art galleries across the street where there were none. I believe in trains, and they're working now on cutting one of those through here. I've requested the almighty for apartment neighbors I can play guitar with, and now have a few of them too. I get my india spice restauraunts, my nearby block sized GuitarCenter, I don't really need this system I describe, because I get it anyhow without saying a word. I'm just trying to return the favor down to those who aren't so well connected with the creator.

You're my volunteer Beta-Tester. I would imagine that you are motivated by some sense of responsibility of getting your opinion out on behalf of you and others like you, and not speaking here 100% recreationally.

I can and my ideas out to presidential candidates and college department heads (where more document formatting effort is required) whom have more direct implemenation potential, or I can pass them along blog avenues like SC to percolate amongst the general public for a few years while the public has time to make a subconscious shift. Some of my instructors immeditly rejected the suggestions I later found them to have adopted. Clinton publicly banned human cloning (thus mostly putting an end to the public debate of the horror) while making human tissue cloning one of the largest funded quiet industries ever, while people got used to the idea.

Most everything fiction authors envision, positive or negative, comes to pass eventually. Creative authoring is an endeavor, usually more voluntary than paid. Such creatives could spend their time making money, fine dining, and playing piano instead, and the world would never change. The ideas come from somewhere.

I'm not for all sorts of things which go on here either, like three-strikes laws or capital punishment, or abortion. They seem quite as barabaric to me. Since other people seem to think these things are good idea, and I'm not the moral voice of God, I have no business interfering with them living amongst their convictions. On the other hand, since I also know full well that they aren't the moral voice of God either, I see no reason that I and others should have to put up with their barabary either.

While I am against the three strikes law, the other two don't seem that bad to me. I mean its not like you can get the death penalty for robbing a bank or anything. And yes we have laws regulating abortion too. Look, take any country at random and you're bound to have stupid and unfair laws on their books if you look hard enough. The purpose of the UN is to only go after flagrant human rights abuses, where you have to pick your battles. One of my biggest issues with your way of thinking is your criteria for ranking the abuses, namely not taking something being a negative right verses a positive right (the former should have been given greater weight).



How is confederate community exclusion imperialism? (well, ok, it's the same sort of blackmail the WTO does, which I certainly do consider to be imperialism. At least it would be more democratic.)

Countries getting together colluding to not to business with countries they don't like and punishing countries that do trade with them is still a form of imperialism.




I already gave you my answer for fleeing criminals. They would be punished by the rules of a nation they joined, for instance serving jail time instead of getting their hands cut off. Nations could refuse to accept them though. Possibly some criminal community would form, but I would rarely expect any of the global communities to be fully self-sufficient, especially one populated with criminals, and no intelligent community would trade with them, so such a criminal may just as well have expatriated to a penal colony. ..neither am I anticipating the globe to revert to sticks and stones.

Thats really not the point. The thing it, you're thinking of it in black and white terms. Its either a criminal community or its not. It does work that way. Most likely, what criminals will do is escape to the community with the most lenient laws. So a bank robber would escape to somewhere where the maximum crime for their actions would be just a small fine, although still not a criminal community that could function well as long as a critical mass of criminals didn't occupy it. Theres also the issue of just because you're accused of a crime doesn't mean you did it. Theoretically if you are accused of a crime you could still win in court had you not fled from justice so the new nation would have to assume that you were actually guilty. Then you would have to assume that the thing that you did was a crime in the new country in the first place, eg sexual consent being only 13 years old in one country and 17 in most other. It would be pointless for other countries to even bother enacting their age consent laws since the maximum punishment would be the lowest common denominator. Yet arguably a country with age consent of 13 could still function and survive. Your system is a bit like asking the criminal what their punishment should be. Gee, I can't think of any flaws with that scheme?

But it's not about what you or I want, the purpose of this debate (as I see it) is figuring out what could best serve society.

I'm not sure why you imagine I slight negative rights. Perhaps because I take them for granted, and being a system engineer, address the more absent positive systems. There's not much to discuss about individual rights of liberty. I'm not preferential towards or discriminating against either. No society except being shipwrecked alone on a desert island even has absolute individual liberty. Every society must choose it's own comprimises. The right to change societies on a whim guarantees all rights, positive or negative, as long as you're not living amongst instantaneous capital punishment, and as long as those rights even exist somewhere.

Well of course criminals would esecape to the most lenient society. I'm saying that that alone would amount to a punishment, as such a society would have no trade and resources help from other communiities, and would be constantly unsafe to live in. 'However', it's also conceivable that some community could form which doesn't punish incoming criminals, but rather turns them into farmers who must join prayer circles hourly, until they are voted in as prayer leaders themselves. For this to work though, they'd probably also require a town pitchfork mode for those not complying.

I see nothing wrong with criminals joining a lenient, yet still self sufficient society. Sounds like that society may have found the appropriate balance.

You and I have a vastly different mindset. I do not frame life in terms of punishment and reward. While the objective of my system is to nurture all sorts of societies and the individuals which appropriately fit them, I personally consider a society that genearlly and frequently has to use punishment as a deterrent to crime to be a morally failed society in the first place. Granted, in no society could you expect every single member to have the same perspective, but to generalize what I mean by example, consider a catholic model, where people are still given to petty crimes (and in fact petty crimes have to exist to instill indoctrination). In this model, everyone has learned to frame their own thoughts within a context of guilt. People don't do crimes so they won't have to live with the guilt until they are pardoned after some pennance. I don't think that's that an upbeat model either. I'm not for punitive models at all, the compromise exception being chastisement - if you don't have a life which offers society something, society will dismiss you.

I brought up the likelhood of surveillance records and integrated IT in the intended context of expatriated prosecution. I think it's understood that that systems of prosecution in communities are not all necessarily just. Even within the US we acknowledge that some people need tried elsewhere to get a fair hearing.

You seem to imagine that everyone would run to the most lenient community, particularly if guilty of a crime in one not so lenient. I don't think this would be true. Someone may put up with a couple years of weekend service for eating pork rather than having to relinquish the severe jewish culture they generally believe in. Presumably communities would form because they represent the values of the majority there. You don't see people moving to Ireland just because the consent ages are lower there. Community values come as a package. The age of consent may be lower, but you'd still be expected to pitch in with the barn-raising type events, and be considered wierd by neighbors if you gardened your home.

You can bet that if I had the option, I'd move to a place where growing cannabis at home had the most lenient prosecution of all. Not only do I not see a problem with that, it makes the most sense to me. Culture should fit peoples beliefs. Societies are unlikely to prosper when they allow crime to run rampant, so the likelihood of finding a desirable yet quite lenient society would be rare, rather that spread like wild-fire as you suggest. What community would really want to take in criminal immigrants? You're forgetting that half of the equation. It would be a pretty screwy, foolhardy, and unlikely community in the first place indeed that had tolerance for theft, no drug prosecution, and an age of consent of 12, knowing that their standards would invite in herds of immigants that came for those reasons. Just as our nation as a whole now has standards, microcommunities would likely have their own high standards, lower in some respects, but likely higher in some others, in such a manner that still created an overall air of civility.

Take for instance a hippie free-love commune. While all the objective laws might be immensely lenient, appearing to be total anarchy, such communities only thrive when they have an accompanying subjective model of policing temperament. Sure you can sleep with anyone, smoke a joint while painting a house, and such, but such a system only works where everyone comes to it with good communal will. Anyone out to exploit the community for personal gain would be removed, if the community is to prosper.

I know I mentioned that communities must be open to immigration, but on the other hand, banishment is one of the most effective means of preserving community integrity ever invented on this planet. Sure, it can lead to banishing entire cultures or races, and although misfortunate I don't necessarily see this as a crucial problem, as long as the banished can form their own communities with no material resource losses.

I really love all the cultural districts in LA. I can bicycle a mile to India, Ethiopia, Israel, or dozens of other cultures, like the realms at Disneyland. We also have some really interesting hybrids here. For instance Silverlake is full of shops each containing a combo of punk-rock paraphernalia, catholic-hispanic spiritual accessories, and modern folk sculpture. I can't begin to imagine what laws they would set for themselves if they could. Clearly in my own neighborhood, push cart vendors would be legal, since people already patronize these vendors who are currently illegal. Alas, public dumping laws would probably be dispensed with too. I don't mind, and am really part of the goodwill system here, where the dumping of useful things is involved. There are spots which the community recognizes to be dumping locations for marginally good furnishings and appliances. I have let go of unneeded excess there, and brought in many things as well.

I think to some large extent communities already operate with discretionary enforcement. The laws exist on the books, but are not enforced because they are not in line with how the community operates to sustain itself. I'd rather we not have to resort to discretionary enforcement though because it can be abused. Drug enforcement between the rich and poor is such an example; If you are affluent, you are mostly left alone unless you become a political problem to the administration. It's not a just system. Our enforcement of white-collar vs. blue-collar crime is rather lacking in justice too, I feel. It seems people get off scott-free if their crimes are indirect in the harm they cause others. That this system has evolved though is no surprise, given that people tend to watch out most for their own hide. Fortunately class-action lawsuits have come into existence to somewhat remedy this predicament.

But it's not about what you or I want, the purpose of this debate (as I see it) is figuring out what could best serve society.

True, but that still doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't want to live in a world that would operate based on how someone like you thinks. Although fortunately, its not likely to happen but thats besides the point.




I'm not sure why you imagine I slight negative rights. Perhaps because I take them for granted, and being a system engineer, address the more absent positive systems. There's not much to discuss about individual rights of liberty. I'm not preferential towards or discriminating against either. No society except being shipwrecked alone on a desert island even has absolute individual liberty. Every society must choose it's own comprimises. The right to change societies on a whim guarantees all rights, positive or negative, as long as you're not living amongst instantaneous capital punishment,

You're not dismissing negative rights. Thats not the issue. The issue is that you aren't acknowledging the distinction between the two, or at least severely downplaying their distinctions. The reality there is a HUGE difference. For instance the right to keep someone from killing you or stealing from you ranks a lot higher than ensuring that you don't die from starvation or have access to income in my book. Ensuring that everyone eats means you are forcing others to pay for it, ensuring that no one gets murdered means forcing others from committing murder. There is a world of difference between the two, unless maybe in your world. Not that the government should never step in and feed the homeless even by taxing others (sacrificing some amount of a negative right for a positive right). Afterall the "right to eat" tends to rank higher than the "right to a 60 in plasma TV verses 48 in plasma TV". HOWEVER, all things being equal, a negative right ranks higher than a positive right. You can't solely look at the end result of polices while ignoring in what ways was their rights violated.

More to the point, any UN-like organization (eg UN, NATO, EU, etc) that is operate must balance more or less 4 things. #1) national sovereignty, #2) how "countries" treat one another, #3) the negative rights of individuals residing in them, and #4) positive rights of individuals and "groups" residing in them.

In a way, you want to police the world for human "rights" violations, but at the same time acknowledge that not everyone shares the same idea of what a "right" is. Moreover, notice I put "countries" and "groups" in quotes. Thats mainly because of the question "what constitutes a country." This is a very important question which I will go revert back to later in the post. A very pragmatic example of China-Tibet or China-Taiwan. China sees both Tibet and Taiwan as part of itself, but the people residing in there don't. To take T&T's side, you are violation "China's" sovereignty but to take China's side you are violating T&T's sovereignty. Lets not even get into the debate of Sealand right now. But if you think that the UN has enough on its plate, just imagine your system becoming reality where just about "anyone" can declare its own country. Wait, don't tell me. Your default position is to take Tibet's and Taiwan's side simply because of your bottom-up philosophy. But its not quite simple.

Theres also the issues of human rights WITHIN countries. Thats where it really gets sticky. In that regard I would prioritize basic human rights first and only police the most flagrant abuses and ignore the lessor because of a) lack of resources and b) to avoid the accusations of being imperialist. In other words, picking your battles wisely so as to balance human rights and sovereignty of "countries". You're familiar with the Colin Powell Doctrine I am assuming?

In any case there needs to be a way to prioritize rights violations and that is one large headache. Sticking to what works best, precedent-- the concept of negative rights has a relatively long historical precedent while positive rights are a fairly new and illusive goal. Not everyone agrees that we should feed and shelter the homeless and not everyone agrees with the progressive tax system. Most everyone agrees that people have the right not to be murdered and stolen from and most industrialized countries at least agree that free speech is sacred for example.

Yet, you wish to enforce positive rights which already broken the plate.



You and I have a vastly different mindset.

I think its more like you and the vast majority of Western Civilization has a vastly different mindsets, but I digress. See below.





I do not frame life in terms of punishment and reward. While the objective of my system is to nurture all sorts of societies and the individuals which appropriately fit them, I personally consider a society that genearlly and frequently has to use punishment as a deterrent to crime to be a morally failed society in the first place. Granted, in no society could you expect every single member to have the same perspective, but to generalize what I mean by example, consider a catholic model, where people are still given to petty crimes (and in fact petty crimes have to exist to instill indoctrination). In this model, everyone has learned to frame their own thoughts within a context of guilt. People don't do crimes so they won't have to live with the guilt until they are pardoned after some pennance. I don't think that's that an upbeat model either. I'm not for punitive models at all, the compromise exception being chastisement - if you don't have a life which offers society something, society will dismiss you.

So you're a Confucian. Not to be contrarian about it, but I can probably write volumes as to why the Confucian way of thinking is horribly flawed and by no means a substitute for our criminal justice system.





You seem to imagine that everyone would run to the most lenient community, particularly if guilty of a crime in one not so lenient. I don't think this would be true.

Well, no not completely. I probably wasn't too clear. People would run to the most lenient FUNCTIONAL community. I don't think that anyone would run to an Amish community just to dodge 40 hours of community service, but they would jump across state lines to avoid prison. It also ignores the fact that someone who is into 15 year old girls might also be an otherwise a good citizen, meaning productive and doesn't steal wouldn't be a burden. A community where the age of consent is 15 would still survive because only a small percentage of people would fit that category, but it would screw up a lot of young people. Yes, thats kinda the current system, but taking it a step further imagine a society with the age consent of 8, but otherwise normal in every other way. Sure, they wouldn't be a society of criminals and be quite functional (because of the few people who fit that description) but those few young children will have their entire lives ruined because of it.





Take for instance a hippie free-love commune. While all the objective laws might be immensely lenient, appearing to be total anarchy, such communities only thrive when they have an accompanying subjective model of policing temperament. Sure you can sleep with anyone, smoke a joint while painting a house, and such, but such a system only works where everyone comes to it with good communal will. Anyone out to exploit the community for personal gain would be removed, if the community is to prosper.

caveat number 1: You would need a fair way to determine who is the exploiter / free loader and who isn't. (I mean besides your retarded idea of calling a cell phone)
caveat number 2: You would need to first secure land rights from some body of government (the UN?) in order to be able to kick people out of it you don't like.
caveat number 3: Gee Kristal, whatever happened to that whole utopia you been peddling of free movement for the past several weeks now.




I know I mentioned that communities must be open to immigration, but on the other hand, banishment is one of the most effective means of preserving community integrity ever invented on this planet.

So which one is it? You can't have it both ways. Come on, tic, tac, tic, tac, ... awaiting for answer.

As promised earlier, the problem of sovereignty. For some "UN" to enforce the rights of communities to banish people they don't like, it needs to recognize those communities in the first place. That can be VERY problematic under your system since you've previously admitted the rights of individuals to secede from their union.




Sure, it can lead to banishing entire cultures or races, and although misfortunate I don't necessarily see this as a crucial problem, as long as the banished can form their own communities with no material resource losses.

You don't? Well that sure explains a lot. Like for instance why I had the feeling all along that you're were a complete moron but I just thought it was my imagination. (don't get me wrong, you know a lot about science and math and all, but logical moral thinking isn't one of those things). Seriously, go read the US Constitution when you have some spare time and read more about the Supreme Court ruling on separate but equal. I think the feds had it right the first time when they came in Topeak, Kansas. But alas, I am ACTUALLY arguing with someone who is ok with legalized segregation in 2007!!!!!

Your whole "community rule" idea is starting to be very reminiscent of several LJD's rants.






I really love all the cultural districts in LA. I can bicycle a mile to India, Ethiopia, Israel, or dozens of other cultures, like the realms at Disneyland. We also have some really interesting hybrids here. For instance Silverlake is full of shops each containing a combo of punk-rock paraphernalia, catholic-hispanic spiritual accessories, and modern folk sculpture.

Caveat #1: You're not really bicycling a mile to India, Ethiopia, or Israel. For that you would need to buy a plane ticket. What you're actually doing is bicycling from one small part of LA, USA to another part in LA, USA which happens to be inhabited by people of India decent, Ethiopian decent, and Israeli decent.

Caveat #2: If this is some attempt to impress it, you're gonna have to do better than that. I've heard punk-rock music before, I've seen spiritual stuff before, among other things. Combining them isn't rocket science and I've seen it all before. The confluence of cultures is nothing new. In fact your system has nothing new to offer that I haven't seen before.



I can't begin to imagine what laws they would set for themselves if they could.

Don't worry. Allow me to spare you the trouble. In order to get married, you will need the approval all 4 parents and the corrupt town priest or Rabbi (Indian), which basically means paying off at least 3 people. Throw in the Catholic system and you'd also have to go through some gay seminar and have to deal with some creepy and annoying douchbag do-gooder (think Robin William's character in License to Wed) or some government official will check the woman's hymen to see if she was a virgin before the marriage (Mexican and other beaners). If you choose to have a kid you'd probably be required to snip him (Jewish) and abort her (India or China) if overpopulation is a problem. In order to open up a small business you would need to go through a large labyrinth of red tape (India) or pay off a couple of goons protection money so as not to have any "accidents" (catholic Italian), and you might need the blessing of the rabbi for it to be Kosher (for a nominal fee off course). And in order to get a loan for said business you either would have to borrow it from somebody that would come break your legs if you don't pay it back, have to borrow it at 30% interest, or sell your daughter to white slavery if you don't succeed (Italian, Jewish, Indian respectively).

A confluence of Indian, Israel, Mexican, and Italian culture will give you just that, more or less. There already are places in this world where Indian people can set their own laws, Israeli people can set their own laws, the RCC can make its own laws and where the Mexican people can make their own Mexican laws. These places are called India, Israel, the Vatican, and Mexico, respectively. You don't need your imagination, they ALREADY exist.




Clearly in my own neighborhood, push cart vendors would be legal, since people already patronize these vendors who are currently illegal.

Don't talk to me like I don't understand the concept of a pushcart. Its nothing innovate that I haven't seen before. Next thing you will try to impress me by explaining to me how flee markets work.




Fortunately class-action lawsuits have come into existence to somewhat remedy this predicament.

Caveat: Your system wouldn't be very conducive to lawsuits, much less class-action lawsuits, unless theres some UN in place to sort them out.



All in all, the more I debate your ideal way for society to run, the more your utopia begins to unravel get expose for what it really is. And you're also beginning to show your true colors as well.

Before going into responses, might I mention that scholars attribute the collapse of the USSR to three primary causes: bankruptcy (lack of faith in a fictional currency which was really much better off than ours is), a large cultural divide heading towards civil war, and an inflexable capacity to adapt to local circumstances with it's centralised management. (There was of course the whole oppressed human spirit and entrepreneurial zeigeist too, but that is more interpretive than tangible fact). Anyhow, fast-food restauraunts on the wharf were required to serve the same burgers and salads that were served in cow country, far from the shellfish. It was the antithesis of local community sovereignty. ..and it failed.

I think we should also keep in mind that we are both capable of adamantly backing up an argument solely for argument's sake. Two years ago our positions were nearly reversed on many of our points, when I was arguing for socialism and you were arguing for capitalism.

I was downplaying the distinctions between positive and negative rights, quite frankly because, until this discussion, I was unaware anyone had thought to distinguish them. I don't really see that it matters anyhow in respects toarguing my system. Communities would choose whatever sorts of rights they wanted. If some parallel system existed which globally ensured a minimum of rights everywhere, then it's imaginable that those might foremost be the negative rights. That's presuming two things, that this global police entity was democratic, and that negative rights are in fact that which the majority of the planet values most. You were raised in the US (as was I) and naturally take that to be so, but I'm not convinced that an overwhelming majority of the planet agrees. Many less developed nations still depend more on positive rights than negative ones to sustain themselves. While negative rights may philosphically seem to be at the core of fundamental rights, I think in practice, in the evolution of society, that they were more of a luxury once after it was first ascertained that the society as a whole was secure.

We all die of something, don't we? The soviet constitution had the positive rights written into it, the idea being that no one dies of anything there. While both priorities may be seen in the light of ultimately protecting the individual, one system of thought is every man for himself, while the other is everyone is a part of the community. It would make sense, I think, if one were to choose between sustaining a society, or merely some individuals within it, that society is the clearer choice. It also makes some sense that if one's administrative priority is to preserve society, that the laws should be written foremost to preserve collective society, rather than just the individuals and hope that society prospers as a by-product. This is not unlike the argument against the notion that in a free economy people will prosper and become charitable. While they certainly could, there is nothing built into such a system which demands or even implies that they will. If one insists on charitability (if one could still call it that under duress) then it has to be written into the system.

They do punish parents for not feeding their children. While you seem to be all for standardising rights across the globe to whatever degree practically possible, you clearly don't hold the view that you are responsible for your fellow man, or that they are responsible for you. Systems ranging from church charity to national disastor relief have contributed greatly to society's survival, not just on a large detached abstract economic level, but also with every piece of advice you offer a child or stranger. We would not be here, or at least surely there wouldn't be 7 billion of us if every man for himself is what actually went on here (whethar we pretend that to be the case or not). The more we are crammed together and forced to share resources in large numbers, the more we must systemize our identity as community members above that of individuals. We aren't pioneers in the wilderness, even though our national ideology was once built upon that notion.

I certainly do take Tibets and Taiwans position. That should be obvious. These requirements you say of UN type orgs are purely optional. They could merely be trade orgs, although for my purposes your guidelines do indeed apply.
I have been waiting a few years for something to occur which is finally happening, the formation of regional currencies like the Euro. For South America, Africa, or the Mid-East to be free of WTO/IMF control, they have to have their own banking within large enough regions to support trade of dispersed resources like oil, minerals, and agriculture. While this represents greater collectivization, at the same time it also represents further global anti-monopolization.

It of course makes more sense to concentrate on handling that most important. That's just my personal view though that one should be firm in wahtever they do believe in. One might also declare an ideology, but it's important to show that when you say you mean business, you really do mean business, and aren't wishy-washy or unjustly discretionary on the matter. If I've heard Powell's doctrine, I do not know it by name.

As I described earlier, I believe it's actually the negative personal rights which are relatively new within the span of civilizations.

Amongst other things, I am a Confucian as well.

It seems to be human nature that peoples lives are going to be screwed up one way or another anyhow. While I may not agree with a state having no age laws, I respect that if you have enough people together, that they will develop for themselves something that works. Not only do I not believe that you or I are not in a position to impose morals and culture on entire other societies, I don't even believe that the tyranny of the majority has such a right. For a time German citizens were with Hitler on ousting the local Jews. To safeguard society I think there must always be an escape availble from the dominant paradigm. My system strives to ensure that. - A good deal of why I argue this communal rights system, and not the democratized socialism I argued for in times past, is a direct response to all the recent legislation procuring police-state style governance. Perhaps if our system really had been an open democracy to start with, and not a republic, it wouldn't have come to this, but in a sense, even a truly informed and democratic system could become a tyranny in respect to minorities. Communalism is the only prevention of this I currently see as remotely workable.

"Gee Kristal, whatever happened to that whole utopia you been peddling of free movement for the past several weeks now. " to some extent, I'm thinking out loud and bouncing ideas off of you. I have a great many existing and theoretical tools of society management in mind, and subjective goals. Not all of the tools are entirely complementary though, and each has tendencies towards different structural outcomes. As we've agreed, life is not simple. No single mechanism will likely achieve what I'd like for the world. Until then I sculpt with my tinkertoys in my head, trying to figure out exactly what to promote.

Still, It's not like I'm responding entirely off the top of my head either. Some time back I recall playing with the idea of a trial period for immigrants, like perhaps a year or two, after which they were free to banish the person. It would be easiest to just banish people because they comitted a crime, but that wouldn't work for a community who's enforced values were merely subjective. I suppose that even then though (here's a case where I am suggesting off the top of my head), for purposes of banishment expatriation, that they could try the person in a subjective court, find them guilty of something like 'selfishness', and the person could gladly be allowed to escape to some community that has utmost leniency regarding the crime of 'selfishness'.

I rather had come to terms with LJD though I was hostile to her position to start with. There ultimately was some common ground to be revealed. I had no problem with her securing her community of sovereigns, just so long as she did not impede on my community of creative misfits, have any leverage against us, or prevent her neighbors from coming to our side. Her ideological values are at the far end of the spectrum from my liberal values, but we both agreed on the mechanism of communal rights. Come to think of it, it was in trying to conceive of a system which could keep both her people and my people happy, that I conceived of this system in the first place.

I would hope you have seen confluences of cultures before. I 'm using the traditional and novel quirky districts of LA as an example of what I wish to promote. I'm just saying it needs to go a step further, because the law currently impedes a full implemention of those traditional and experimental (or at least evolutionary) cultures. Many of them would probably legalize grass, for instance. Some might illegalize alcohol. Currently I'm bicycling to place in LA,CA,USA which shares some culture of India, but why not be able to bike to a place which is almost entirely like India except for climate and available resources?

When I lived in Santa Cruz, billboards were made illegal. I agreed with that decision. I think most people there did. That was a couple of decades ago though. The xth amendmend and principles like it have considerably eroded since then, and I would not be surprised, if that decision were to made now, if corporations, with national economic backing, sued the city for infringing on it's first amendment rights.

Holy cow, you were calling me discriminatory? It appears to me now that the motive behind your side of this argument is that the culture you live in now is one of the very few, if not the only one you even have any respect for.

For what it's worth, the culture you have come to prefer is the result of a melting pot of cultures. While my system would increase the cultural disparity at a local level, it would accelerate the extent to which the entire nation was a melting pot. On a graph, it would be like replacing the smooth mountains and valleys with broken rocks everywhere.

I have no idea what you're going off about, imagining I don't think you know what a push-cart is. Of course I expect you to know what a push-cart is or I wouldn't have used it as an illustration without some explanation. The point is that it's an example of local culture which the Los Angeles laws do not accomodate. For purposes of argument it could have just as well have been a federal mandate against push-carts. My point is that if the district of New Hamsterdam unanimously wishes to exclude push-carts, fine, but neither LA, CA, nor the US should have the right to prevent them in the West Palms district of LA. It's what the locals want. Really, this is pretty typical of the primary (first things first) thing I am arguing for, althouhh I would ultimately like to extend it to voluntary membership in economic and democracy systems as well. The primary principle at stake is rights of the locals to define their community above rights of larger collective bodies. This is the principle of the xth amendment, which appears to be becoming a forgotten memory as authority continually transfers to the federal level in matters of every conceptual domain, not just interstate commerce.

I was most fond of a board game which you'd probably hate, called Cosmic Encounters. At it's core it was pretty much like Risk, but with solar systems instead. What made it interesting was that everyone was passed out different rules with sci-fi descriptions of 'the mind-reader', 'golum', 'macron', 'amoeba' and some 80 others. For instance one player might have rule in which they multiplied their armies and attack card instead of adding them as everyone else did. Another player might get to choose which card his opponent selected. Yet another player could spontaneously relocate their armies. Still, it worked out fairly balance and the game typically lasted many hours. It was particularly interesting when people had multiple rules with synergistic effects, and every game was bound to expose several new twists when rules came up against each other in permutations previously unseen. This is the sort of activity I like to see in life. in classrooms, in business, in theology debates, in fashion shows, flux, with as much diversity as possible. It seems perhaps that this does not interest you as well.

OK, the past two day's worth of postings aren't showing up for, and I'm also getting a weird large gray box right in the midle of SoYa's Dec 15th 11:50 AM post, and it continues into his next one where I get a large white area with no text.

Be patient, there is a different post loading mechanism these days (xml-http requests) which isn't so immediate. It allows the head of the page to load and display instantly while the tail end loads in the background, rather than having to wait for the entire page to load before seeing anything. Sometimes a refresh is still required though.

You're still dodging my question. And haven't answered it yet. First you are in favor of free movement but then you flipped flopped against it. So which is it. You said that there needs to be some international body to enforce individual movement rights but then you said that the rights of communities to deport people should be respected, and these two directly contradict one another. You contradict yourself often or at best aren't clear on what your positions are and you shift them all the time, often without warming. Seriously, you make John Kerry look like a broken record player.


[me talking to myself, note yourself: you're arguing with a person who believes in the validity of Tarot Cards whose ok with legalized segregation in the US and has some vaguely formed idea about using cell phones to call in that someone is being useful or not---- relax, count to 10, and try not to give her too much credit]




Before going into responses, might I mention that scholars attribute the collapse of the USSR to three primary causes: bankruptcy (lack of faith in a fictional currency which was really much better off than ours * --- an OPINION shared by KristalRose and a few others, not based on any objective facts] ), a large cultural divide heading towards civil war [citation please, name the cultures at least], and an inflexable capacity to adapt to local circumstances with it's centralised management. (There was of course the whole oppressed human spirit and entrepreneurial zeigeist too, but that is more interpretive than tangible fact). Anyhow, fast-food restauraunts on the wharf were required to serve the same burgers and salads that were served in cow country, far from the shellfish. It was the antithesis of local community sovereignty. ..and it failed.


Scholars? Which ones? The ones that you cheery picked who happen to agree with you? The MAIN reason why the Soviet Union collapsed is because of how inefficient it ran and because of how unhappy their citizens were because they didn't have access to Western goods. Also, the government dictated what everybody's job should be so the right people didn't run things and there was always shortage of goods. Not to mention everybody was guaranteed to a job, meaning no incentive to do it right because you couldn't get fired. Imagine all your consumer goods being produced by such system. Yep, that probably had a lot to do with it. I doubt it had anything to do with "fictional currency". Granted inflation is a problem, I don't think the fact that our money is "virtual" will make us collapse any time soon.




I think we should also keep in mind that we are both capable of adamantly backing up an argument solely for argument's sake. Two years ago our positions were nearly reversed on many of our points, when I was arguing for socialism and you were arguing for capitalism.

I wasn't aware that my position has shifted that much, and I highly doubt it. Yours maybe, but I find it difficult to even decipher what you are trying to get at half the time. At least when I argue with others at least I know where they stand because of how clearly they speak. Perhaps you should take a communications course.




I was downplaying the distinctions between positive and negative rights, quite frankly because, until this discussion, I was unaware anyone had thought to distinguish them.

Anyone? Lets see here, only the US forefathers who only wrote the US constitution, most of the Enlightenment thinkers, including John Locke I am sure, the people who wrote the Magma Carta, and most social ethics philosophy professors. That seems to be a lot of people in my opinion. You glossing over such a major distinction leaves me with very little confidence in anything new you present me with.




While both priorities may be seen in the light of ultimately protecting the individual, one system of thought is every man for himself, while the other is everyone is a part of the community.

What a way to oversimplify things, surprisingly coming from someone who at least gives the illusion of being all deep and philosophical and stuff. Man, talk about a strawman. If you're familiar with what the strawman fallacy is, you've just did it right now.

your system: one where people aren't greedy in
strawman's system: one where people are greedy and its everyone out for themselves.

you say: that a system where everyone out for themselves is bad.
strawman says: that we should have a system where everyone in fact IS out for themselves.

The strawman is wrong, so you win the argument, therefore US capitalism is a bad system that promotes greed and is all oppressive and stuff. Your debating skills match those of intellectual giants such as LJD.



Meanwhile in the world of pragmatism, the best working system is one that balances protecting individual rights but at the same time protecting the collective society from invasion and redistributes wealth to a certain extent, but lets not the details get in the way.




I certainly do take Tibets and Taiwans position. That should be obvious. These requirements you say of UN type orgs are purely optional. They could merely be trade orgs, although for my purposes your guidelines do indeed apply.

I would take Tibet's side too, but not for the same reasons you do, but moreso for pragmatic reasons. Tibet is the lessor of the two-evils as far as I am concerned. Its only by luck and coinstance that they captured the soft spot of most ignorant bleeding heart Westerners like ourselves. Had not been for their invasion by the Chinese we wouldn't have romanticized them so much. If anything the Chinese oppressing them was probably the best thing that could have happened to them. They are an ancient feudalist state whose values are very anti-Western and anti-Democratic but most Westerners who romanticize them are unaware of what they're even supporting. They are what Stalin would have called "useful idiots", except on the other side.

My larger point is what constitutes a nation/community in the eyes of the UN, which you still haven't answered? Taking your position at face value that the more local group should take precedent over the more federal, with no lower bound what constitutes "a nation" I can theoretically declare myself my own nation and then not follow ANY community laws, provided I can find people willing to trade with me. You said it yourself, states should be able to secede from the union, cities should be able to secede from the state, districts and precincts should be able to secede from the city government, ad infinitum. How is that not the very system you claim to be against, one where its everyone for themselves.

So which is it, either you are an anarchist who believes in local control at all costs or a socialist who believes that people should ban together. You can't have it both ways which is what you're trying to have.



"Gee Kristal, whatever happened to that whole utopia you been peddling of free movement for the past several weeks now. " to some extent, I'm thinking out loud and bouncing ideas off of you. I have a great many existing and theoretical tools of society management in mind, and subjective goals. Not all of the tools are entirely complementary though, and each has tendencies towards different structural outcomes.

Ok, from now on how about this. Warn me ahead of time that some idea you have is something theoretical and not something you wholeheartedly believe. Otherwise its very confusing.




It seems to be human nature that peoples lives are going to be screwed up one way or another anyhow. While I may not agree with a state having no age laws, I respect that if you have enough people together, that they will develop for themselves something that works. Not only do I not believe that you or I are not in a position to impose morals and culture on entire other societies, I don't even believe that the tyranny of the majority has such a right. For a time German citizens were with Hitler on ousting the local Jews. To safeguard society I think there must always be an escape availble from the dominant paradigm. My system strives to ensure that. - A good deal of why I argue this communal rights system, and not the democratized socialism I argued for in times past, is a direct response to all the recent legislation procuring police-state style governance.

Not to sound like Frostband or anything, but Godwin's Law. Heelllllooooooooooooooo!!!!!! When in doubt, invoke the NAZIS to bolster your argument.

Again, the biggest flaw in your communalism argument is that you failed to provide some criteria as to what constitutes a community. Until you get past that point, everything you say is pretty much moot and worthless.



Still, It's not like I'm responding entirely off the top of my head either. Some time back I recall playing with the idea of a trial period for immigrants, like perhaps a year or two, after which they were free to banish the person.

Two years is a long time. One person can do a lot of damage in such a short span of time, and then just move on. Even with the time limit, you're still violating your free movement idea. Whether the limit is 30 days, 2 years, or 100 years, you're still allowing the "community" to make a distinction between people they like and people they don't like, and hence in order to empower them with the right to deport misfits, your UN needs to recognize those communities in the first place, and with legalizing indefinite rights to secede from the Union, the problems with your system are pretty obvious--- with the assumption that you have at least half a brain.

You're forgetting the fact that in real world theres theft, not just through force but also identity theft, among other things. So EVEN if your little utopia of punishments not existing worked, you would still have to deal with your world equivalent of civil suits, not just criminal cases. Theres the case of communities setting up speed traps but people just passing through wouldn't have to pay them since they're you know, just passing through. You would still need a mechanism to sue people and your utopia doesn't take jurisdiction into account.

Theoretically, under your system, anyone and everyone can be their own nation hence we would all be kings with diplomatic immunity. So good luck dealing parking tickets and towing cars.



I rather had come to terms with LJD though I was hostile to her position to start with.

You two aren't that drastically different. For starters, you're both segregationists, only you call it using a different word. You both also have a very warped view of reality and yet seem to find everyone else as being misguided.



I would hope you have seen confluences of cultures before. I 'm using the traditional and novel quirky districts of LA as an example of what I wish to promote.

By your description LA is a very fudgeed up place way out of touch with the US and the rest of the world and on top of that your way of thinking is pretty out of touch even for LA. I am rather hopeful that whatever it is you are trying to promote doesn't succeed.



Many of them would probably legalize grass, for instance. Some might illegalize alcohol.

You seriously need to stop milking the fact that I happen to agree that grass should be legal. Its getting old and its also completely besides the point. Yes, I get it, the feds are wrong on this particular issue and it be better they let states decides for themselves if pot should be legal. Providing me with ONE example of a law that I disagree with won't convince me that the entire system is broken.



Currently I'm bicycling to place in LA,CA,USA which shares some culture of India, but why not be able to bike to a place which is almost entirely like India except for climate and available resources?

If people seriously want to live in a place that is just like India except for the climate, including all their customs and local laws, including arranged marriages, then I suggest they fking go back to India. (or just "to" without the "back" if their ancestors are not originally from there). There ALREADY is a place that is just like India, its fking called India. Your system of communities deciding how to live already exists in the form of nation states.

Does the concept of assimilation not register with you? We all know what happened to that British teacher who got kicked out of Sudan because she inadvertently named a teddy bear Mohammad. So its ok for Sudan to force incoming Westerners to assimilate to their local customs but Western countries need to make special accommodations for others. Or do you wish to one day give up your right to free speech because somebody will riot over a stupid cartoon. As nobal as your system of doing away with all nations and letting communities form, since its not going to happen everywhere, it won't happen anywhere.




When I lived in Santa Cruz, billboards were made illegal. I agreed with that decision. I think most people there did.

Remind me to avoid Santa Cruz, CA if I ever get a chance to live there. Ok, seriously, I am all for local control up to some point. The feds don't even have the energy and will to enforce all their federal laws anyway, just the most flagrant violations. So yeah, this seems like an example where local control is a good thing. HOWEVER, free speech is something I generally see as sacred, so I would be creeped out by such a law. It isn't just hippies though, HOA do it too, and they also tell you how many bottles of shampoos you can have in your windows. I say no thanks. I don't need some douchbag telling me they don't like this and that on my house because it affects its "property values". If you're (not you directly) such a narcissistic control freak dickwad who would rather pay a premium because you don't like dealing with billboards and houses painted the "wrong" color you should have that right. I do however draw the line at housing discrimination and your "right" to not live near beaners.




For what it's worth, the culture you have come to prefer is the result of a melting pot of cultures. While my system would increase the cultural disparity at a local level, it would accelerate the extent to which the entire nation was a melting pot.

The melting pot is a GOOD thing. What YOU are promoting is multi-culturalism, which is something else, in fact the polar opposite of a melting pot. Don't get me wrong, I like multi-culturalism---- but UP TO A POINT. Indian and Mexican food, yes. Indian and Mexican music, yes. Indian marriage customs and the Mexican idea of a girl's older brother lecturing her on who she dates, no thanks.

Having a mix of cultures to pick and choose from as to how to live our lives makes our lives richer, no doubt about that. In fact I've attended several international night events which I found to be fun. Hell, if everyone was the same, we wouldn't be able to make fun of each other for being different, and hence there would be no Carlos Mencia, arguably the funniest comedian in my lifetime. But with all that you still need to follow the state and federal laws of whatever country that you are in, which tend to be the minimum requirement. So that whole thing with honer killings, that crap needs to be left back at the old country. Look, I know that Western Europe are a bit spineless when it comes to standing up for their Western values (no offense to any outside readers) but the US won't allow that. For one thing, we have way too many rednecks who tolerate very little; which quite sad, along with the Russians and some Pakistani military dictator are the world's last front-line against radical Islam. Does that not concern you?

What, are you stalking me to win an argument by finding some inconsistent flaw in my plan. I'm presenting some thoughts of a potential social system for inspirational consideration. Even if it were implemented and seeming proving itself through self-sustainment, of course it will have flaws and inconsistencies. Every government ever out there always has, as well as typically having a shadow side to match it's virtues.

I may have to bookmark this for later. Tonight/tomorrow is all I have left to begin and finish my christmas present factory for 20 family members I'll be visiting this holiday gathering. If I'm not addressing any responses, that's probably why.

Like the cell phones, I proposed for next semesters embedded computing course that the students have two graded assignments, the final project (as is now the primary criteria) and contribute to an encyclopedia on how to do this sort of programming. These two projects would be graded by the students with a form of various criteria. Early in the semester less capable groups would be identified and others, instead of the almanac assignment, would become consultants for other projects or almanac research. Their consulting grade would come from the grade students gave the project or almanac entry, unless they wished to be graded on a report of the assistance they offered. The instructor plans to adopt this model, which is far more structured than the 'everyone teach each other model' he experimented with for us.

Our fictitious national debt is now in the trillions, way above theirs. Unlike the soviet citizens however, we haven't considered this to indicate that we are bankrupt and our money has become meaningless. Humorous Wikipedia there.

Do you think our lives are happier because of access to western goods? Do you imagine that people weren't happy before the invention of video games and programmable blenders?

It's inefficiency was my point, inefficient because it was inflexible.

Perhaps you don't recall, but I'm fairly sure there was time when I was arguing for socialism, and you were arguing for the diversity which capitalism fosters. Now I am arguing for communalism on behalf of liberty and diversity, and you are arguing for standardization. Before you try to accuse me of entirely changing my tune too drastically though, even that system was one designed for capitalist like independent contractor like entrepreneurialism. Honestly though I only recall what I was pushing, and can only speculate as to what your arguments were. My memory of your position is more subjective.

Perhaps you lack skills in abstract thinking and poetic metaphor. People with degrees in art, literature, or mystical experiences have no difficulty understanding me. Enough of that already.

Besides, you seem to have no problem with acknowledging people via payment. In a few years there really won't be much difference between handing someone some coins or pushing a couple buttons on your cell phone. If you've been alert, you've probably noticed that my paradigm has already begun to catch on in the form of eBay feedback and avatar feedback in forums. Come to think of it, I think Bill's even introduced that here.

I was unaware such a distinction existed. Now that I know it exists, I'm not at all surprised that many great minds have thought of it. Believe me, I am sure there are many fields of thought with many historical great minds behind them, in fields like the arts and theology, which I'm sure I have had much exposure to, and was a line of thought which never occurred to you. Aside from my all my independent research experience, and spiritual library, I estimate I've listened to about 5000 hours of lectures from the top modern metaphysicists. It's rediculous to discount someone's knowledge base because it has holes in it. In the software field, everyone employed in it, even the top computer scientists, have huge gaping holes in their expertise which might even surprise a casual user. That doesn't stop them from an expert within their exact specialties.

Are you so negative throughout this post? Missed breakfast?

The exaggerated strawman argument is convenient for discussing theoretical premises. There wouldn't be anything worth a substantially intriguing debate if we merely argued for slight shades of the spectrum to some common compromise model. That line of thought is for city council types forced to deal with the drudgery of ironing out the details. I'm trying to keep this more on the level of what theoretical discussions between Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, and Washington must have been like. I doubt a single one of them bothered much with the level of nit-picky concrete non-abstraction you seem to imagine to be imperative. They figured the system they created would work in the abstract to eventually iron out the details on it's own, and luckily, for the most part, it did. There were indeed some things they hardly saw coming, like the eventual power of corporate monopolies to shift the system above what the general public would otherwise choose, and those shortcomings in their theoretical model are what I believe will eventually lead to the model collapsing or entirely being overtaken. Still, it was quite a good one, considering all the possible things they could not have anticipated, but which it has adapted to withstanding anyhow.

Do you think the public here is unaware that Tibetans are a bunch of non-democratic camel trader and humble superstitious villager types who only recently even allowed nuns to study? I think they know this, and besides admiring the Dalai Lama and the mysterious Tibetan buddhism, are simply coming to the aid of any underdog to defend it's right to maintain it's own backward system. They are acting much like the theoretical UN security I spoke of to defend anyone's community against force, no matter what the nature of the community.

I don't have a firm idea of what size range could form practical communities. I think that would have to be found from actual trial and error.

I'm not against everyone out for themselves. I disdain it, but I also see that it's human nature for half the planet. The intent of my proposal in this regard is twofold: to allow those who prefer a system based on genorousity to live amongst those required to make such a system work, and to allow those who believe foremost in self-interest to be amongst those agree upon such rules; and, to prevent collective bodies of mutual self-interest (like a state or corporation) from being enabled to prey upon an other external collective body. If, for instance, a community wishes to ban interactions with semi-privately held corporations, that would be their perogative.

"So which is it, either you are an anarchist who believes in local control at all costs or a socialist who believes that people should ban together. You can't have it both ways which is what you're trying to have."

And why not? Both systems have existed on this planet, have they not. ..sometimes even at the same time &/or with bordering geography. Perhaps you mean within a single global system. That may be. Until I have some better idea for compromising between houses of a government, I am arguing foremost for the rights of communities to have autonomy, lathough I'v already acknowledged that for the system to have any adpative checks and balances, that there would have to be universally agreed upon communal and individual rights, especially the ones about individual expatriation and defense of any community agressed upon.

"Ok, from now on how about this. Warn me ahead of time that some idea you have is something theoretical and not something you wholeheartedly believe. Otherwise its very confusing."
Good grief. It's all obviously theoretical. I believe in the subjective principles. 'Exactly' which implementation details would work best, I couldn't begin to imagine. I'd have to be the mind of God, knowing the contents of each mind on the planet, and being able to project the outcome for any given subtle shift of configuration. As with the founding fathers of America though, I believe a well thought out adaptable theoretical model can go a long way. I dare suggest that some of the sorts of potential arguments agains which you can creatively bring up would have likely shot down their model as well.

Let me introduce a perspective to you. Recall that game I described to you last post? I mentioned that it lasts a long time in spite of people each having their own rules. Monopoly can last awhile too. The reason these games last so long is not because of the intrinsic structure of the game, but beacuse of the subtle unconscious influence of the players to shift every decision in their hands towards keeping everyone in the game until inevitably the likely outcome is rather evident, upon which expediting the game is more of a shallow formality. I believe all societies operate in this fashion. Immense (I would think) have been the occasions in which cultural geographies have had the opportunity to absolutely overcome their enemies, and yet somehow we almost always mysteriously maintain some balance. Rarely does some Hitler go about breaking those rules of global society. For the most part, I believe everyone is subconsciously interested in preserving the game above the squblles they voice and attend. That is primarily what makes governments work, and not the intrinsic structural benefits. I'm sure Leninism would still be prospering now if that were really the game the USSR populace had wished to preserve. All of it's inefficiencies could have been made up for if people had the will to make it work anyhow, if they believed in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Godwin only suggests refraining from bringing up Hitler when it is not appropriate. You have to admit, it is the most blatant example in our culture of what can go wrong with a government with support of it's citizens. I can think of no better example than the Nazi's to succinctly and blaringly point out the potential danger of the tyranny of the majority.

Since you don't care for the non-objective style of my arguments, why don't you try your hand at arguing my case for me.
Here is the tangible, yet meant to be representationally abstract example I have in mind. Suppose there is a person who found himself homeless in one culture. The reason for this is that he is a totally spontaneous free-spirit, with little capacity to recall what day of the week or month it is. He is extremely gifted and generous with his talents, but his gift comes and goes, the former by the enthusiasm by which it is received, and the latter to the degree to which he feels opressively obligated to perform duties. It is his misfortune to have been born into a society which rigidly adheres to clocks, calendars, rigid benchmark reporting, and has little interpersonal regard for peoples efforts so long as they effectively produce, upon which they are merely rewarded financially. I do not find it difficult to imagine a culture in which he would be a revered contributer, but it certainly is not that one. It is my position that I wish, in creating a theoretical system of society, to offer this man what I consider his natural right to fit in somewhere to the best of is abilities in some place where it is appropriate. The first tenet that comes to mind is that for this to happen, the culture where he would fit in would first need to exist. He's not a bug-eyed martian example, but a sort I commonly see, and have seen prosper in some cultural situations, and fail miserably in others, so it is not improbable that a society could be created in which he fits. The second tenet is that for him to prosper, he must be allowed in to such a society (and of course allowed to leave the one which did not work for him (and for which also, he did not work out for them)). Third, it is unlikely that the first neighboring culture he walks into will be the most suitable fit either. Hopefully he will realize this on his own and move on. It is not my intent to create societies which people do not desire, so it would seem that in order to preserve cultuarl integrity, there would also have to be some mechanism by which they could boot him out, because people live by the clock there too, and his style does not work for them. Eventually I expect him to find a fitting society. I do however have an entirely seperate situation, and that is that of those who are terribly disabled. As they exist everywhere in nature, and I wish to preserve their natural right to fit in best they can somewhere and prosper, it seems to me that they should be accepted anywhere, without the community shirking it's responsibility to cope with nature by booting out such persons. I'd prefer that societies gave such persons equal access to swimming pools and fine dining, but will compromise on them at least offering basic food and shelter somehow. - Now, coming from these tangible ideas of how things should work (and I totally realize what I've suggested here can't pertain to communties as small as households, which I still say should have some peculiar rights within their home which supercede that of the community surrounding them (say spanking kids for instance)), and taking these tangible examples as embodiments of a subjective principle I conceive as being physically possible and wish to promote, how am to put this in terms of an objective system which could satisfy Southern Yankee as having plausable merit?

I somewhat imagine that you have taken the liberty all along of thinking purely in the concrete and objective, and finding flaws within that domain. I, on the other hand, am thinking in the abstract in support of a belief system which I feel could potentially physically exist, though I am uncertain what form it may take, and burdened with communicating it to you in the language of the objective, because unlike most of the people I know, this appears to be the only domain of consideration in which you have a primary facility. If ever I were to discuss tangible implementation of a belief system directly in terms of a belief system, I'm rather certain it would be in your nature to turn the argument into the realm of the purely concrete logistics at first possible chance, almost to the point of losing sight of the overarching subjective belief premise entirely. I don't doubt that you have have some higher refined abstract faculties, as demonstrated for instance in identifying a straw-man argument. but I do believe that there is a model (or frequency, if you will) of thought particular to many renowned theological philosphers, which just so happens to be exactly where I am coming from, and a place you seem to not be familiar with. This is not to suggest one of is better than the other. I suspect that you likewise have some frequency or domain of thought peculiar to renowned cartesian philosphers which forms a rubric of thought sructure I am not familar with operating in. Still, it makes communicating with you difficult, because you are examining my thoughts on a totally different bandwidth than the one in which they were conceived, and for the most part are missing my points entirely in the same manner as a behaviorist is unable to address issues of consciousness.

"Until you get past that point, everything you say is pretty much moot and worthless."
Do you consider all theoretical, metaphoric, abstract, &/or subjective content to be moot and worthless? Does nothing have value until it proves to be of concrete consequence? If so, that pretty much backs up what I was saying in the prior paragraph that we could never come to terms, or really ever in fact discussing the same subject matter. I am discussing principles. You appear to be unable to conceive of and examine the validity of principles unless you can bring them down to the realm of concrete examples. The concrete examples are not my point.

So often though, even your concrete examples point out to me that you're somehow missing out on the concepts I've presented. I thought by now I had illustrated plenty of times by allusion that communities would be like 'When in Rome, live as the Romans', and yet here you are, thinking people passing through would be immune to local traffic laws. To give your presence of mind slight benefit of the doubt, lets say you arrived at this conclusion logically by extending the premise that a person passing through and getting a ticket is consequently expatriating to evade the ticket. I've brought up two concrete examples which pertain to this example. The least significant is that a community from which a person has expatriated has the right to deny them reentry. Lets hope this person has an alternate route home. More significantly, I said that anyone guilty of a crime would still be charged with it wherever they came to call home, so lets hope that for this drivers sake, that driving through red lights is not a crime at home.

As much as you've taken in this post to questioning my intelligence, I'm seeing patterns to your replies which suggest quite a limited faculty in recognizing and applying allusions.

Aside from wishing to foster preservation of cultures when people wish to do so, I am not at all like LJD. She wishes to live with her own race and believes races should be seperated. I have neither that desire nor that belief. I forget what sort of debate term they have for it, but you are the one here trying to pull down my arguments with associations to things they are not. At the remotest possibility that something could occur contrary to my subjective intent, for instance seggregation or pedophilia, you make out as if that were what I were aiming for, even though I have explained how I believe the system would naturally evolve to promote the very opposite, in spite of officially allowing such things to happen. I take this as yet one more example of how you can't seem to see past immediate concrete details, and instead take them as explary of what the system is likely to promote.

By the way, I have received A+'s in all courses I've taken related to communications, and I've been deing college part-time for 27 years now. I am also in the 98th percentile of college students in English placement. There was one question where I knew which answer they expected of students, but answered differently out of principle because a deeper examination of the body of text than the average student was likely to recognize leant a different meaning, which paralleled an answer one might also have arrived at by a more careless reading. My best friend has a Ph.D in English literature and finds me to be the only person really capable of understanding her. If I were you, I'd stop making a fool of myself by questioning others' communication skills. I'd almost wonder if you were drunk in writing this post, but that's not quite the pattern present here, nor is this writing the pattern of any other drug I am familiar with except perhaps coming down from coke.

San Francisco is similar to LA, and I had gathered to some lessor extent that New York was as well. I suppose the West Coast is indeed the heartland of liberal multi-culturalism. 102 languages are found to be spoken in the Los Angeles school district. The products in the grocery stores here are often labeled in several languages, most commonly Spanish of course (besides the obvious English), but I have things in my cabinet in Farsi, Hindi, Sri-lankan, and several Asian languages. Just in my 10 unit apartment building are an Indian, a Cuban, a Japanese couple, a Philipino family, an Englishman, and an old Latvian couple (somwhere in that neighborhood). Usually there are also Hispanics and Blacks here too. We even had this voodoo queen type for awhile.

While it would make good argumentive strategy to bring up grass because you support the idea, I actually bring it up because it's one of my pet peeves. I once had my car taken for entering the US at Alaska during Reagan's zero tolerance because they found a four month old roach the size of a matchhead in my brothers wallet, this in spite of the Alaskan border patrol being welcome at the the time to grow their own plants. Not long ago California passed a medical marijuana initiative but the feds go out of their way to make hell for anyone complying with our laws, if not totally disregarding our state laws altogether. This is one reason I keep bringing up where the xth amendment ever went. I also bring up grass because it does seem to me one of the most blatant immediate changes I think some of these communites would adopt. Fireworks is another for some of them.

Well, nation-states would indeed be another instance of something I'm arguing towards. I never said the system didn't already exist, in fact I've said it has, minus the modern world UN protection component, since there are no longer forests between towns.

Santa Cruz wasn't able to tear down the few existing billboards which had grandfather rights, so it leased them and provided them to the community for free speech art. I went as far as sketching some anti-nuclear billboard concepts myself. Another thing they did there was ban nuclear weapon part production. It turns out though that it was going on under there noses without their knowing it anyhow. I had a friend who did CNC at such a place, and he finally got pissed off and blew their cover when they actually beefed up production just after a Salt treaty was signed.

You seemed to have missed the upper conceptual half of my point on multi-cultural melting pots, the part about the scatterd rocks rather than rocks and valleys. While the US would have more diverse pockets of Indian and African culture, and be more interntional on average than it had been. Likewise though, India would fill with neighborhods that had adopted Japanese, US, and Mexican cultures. A pure large body of India would cease to exist, and so too eventually then would be any supplantation of a pure culture to a continent like ours. Because Mexica and India would be scattered across the globe, in driving distance to anyone, and likewise with other cultures in respect to them, the rate at which everyone assimilated each other would be far more rapid than if you had had to fly to another continent, rather than have an aunt or girlfriend drag you there one afternoon.

Just as I said slavery was on the way out anyhow, the same holds true for things like arranged marriages. With cultures more interspersed, I would expect such evolution to accelerate. I'm not against people arriving at homogenity, and do see it as inevitable. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be forced on anyone in the meantime. I'm also looking to safeguard communities from the tyranny which can arise in collective bodies, that collective body being the whole globe as of late.

I'm sorry to have to use the Hitler example again, but.. Hitlers campaign was put to an end by a league of nations from halfway around the globe. We are heading towards becoming a single global entity. If we do nothing to create some checks and balances, what's to prevent tyranny then. We don't even have to go that far into the future. Suppose the US now became a Nazi-lockdown style police state. By definition, it means US citizens had little power to affect change from within. We would be reliant upon other nations to bail us out and topple our government for us, and quite frankly, I'm not so sure they're up to it, especially if we had WTO/IMF backing us up. And when it does become a borderless globe who bails us out then, Martians? I say that in proportion to increasing global top-down collectivization, we need an equally strong system of bottom-up defense against potential internal system-wide threats. Can you see the principle I'm getting at here without turning it into an argument against some concrete implementation points? It's by no means my primary argument in favor of communalism, but it's surely one of them.

"But with all that you still need to follow the state and federal laws of whatever country that you are in" - Why? I don't mean why follow laws. It's just that you slightly strike me as having a sentiment akin to those who say 'because it's the law', without questioning why it's the law. If that's the case, then my question why not just as well some other law? I hope you wouldn't flavor your preference for one theoretical system of governance over another model simply because one currently exists and the other does not.

International night? Sounds dreadfully superficial. Why would one do such a thing? Do you live in Idaho or Kanasas or something? I guess if that's all you got, it's better than nothing, still though, I feel you can be immersed in the five senses of a culture, and still possibly miss the point as to what the culture actually feels like. Music probably conveys it best. You could possibly check out a lot of Day of the Dead cultural art though and still not get the historical-spiritual-philosphical-cosmological feeling meant to come with it. Until one screams 'Yahoo' with gusto themself, the feeling it represents is missed upon. I yelled 'YeeHaw' once myself when the wind at my back swept up like a stampede of horses and within 40 seconds swept all the sand off of the beach. Till then, I could watch a 100 cowboy movies and still not really get YeeHaw. Likewise with cultures. I think you're missing the most important part if you aren't closely immersed enough in it to think as the culture thinks.

You're asking if I fear being taken over by radical Islam? No, that's absolutely absurd. It never occurred to me for an instant. Why, do you?

And so what if they did? While I just said that different cultures think differently, more over, people are people, things like human kindness are found the world over. I can't imagine me or my neighbors would be substantially different if called us Islam. Remember what I was saying about wars staying miraculously balanced and people not jumping on opportunities of conquest. The same applies here. They don't want to destroy the US, they want to stay there, be left alone, and 'rant' about the US satanic enemy. Such types (most everyone on the planet actually) requires something they are not to define their own egos. Besides, assimilating us would be cultural suicide for them. We'd have a touch more Islamic sentiment and understanding perhaps, and perhaps briefly adopt bee-keeper suits, but very quickly we'd end up being a nation of 'Islamic' capitalists brought up on just slightly Islamic tweaked versions of Ren and Stimpy cartoons and Victoria's Secret catalogues, and all quickly forget the beekeeper phase, if ever we came to understand what it was supposed to mean and feel like in the first place (which I'm imagining you haven't a clue about).

I don't know what sort of media fabrications you must be buying in to to have this concern. For instance, I read many of Saddam's speeches before the war ever started, and he mentioned the US from time to time, but really only because we were militarily backing Israel. That's hardly an ideological concern. No one cares for having someone arm a nearby enemy. I recall watching on tv somewhere around `81 the sky absolutely full of bombs, like a flock of starlings, on their way to Palestine. It's that event which made me do a 180ş from my earlier idea of going to WestPoint.

I have a young friend from the UAE who mentioned honor killings. He described it as quite terrible, and since I think he probably represents his peers sentiments too, I expect the paradigm will mostly be gone by the time his generation runs things. Other cultures aren't out to get you. I think it's a forgone conclusion that some slightly more international flavor of our culture will predominate the world. However, until that time, we'll do nothing but piss off other cultures and delay that process by insisting they adopt our culture rather than waiting for them to adopt it themselves.

I may have just blown getting any Christmas presents made for my kids, family, and friends. I'll get back to you in January. Take care.

Our fictitious national debt is now in the trillions, way above theirs. Unlike the soviet citizens however, we haven't considered this to indicate that we are bankrupt and our money has become meaningless. Humorous Wikipedia there.

One small caveat. National debt isn't what brought down the Soviet Union. In general debt doesn't bring down countries. The worse case scenario is that people would refuse to buy US bonds or hyper-inflation would happen. Although a bad thing in of itself, it wouldn't be the death of a nation. The point is moot anyway because people are still buying US bonds and inflation isn't all that horrible, although the US dollar is losing value with respect to the Euro. On the flip side, if anything, the only valid threat to the US is the trade deficit with China, which ironically is caused by their currency being artificially DEvalued. So if anything, our debt is actually saving us (more debt means weaker dollar means our goods get less expensive). Go figure.



Do you think our lives are happier because of access to western goods? Do you imagine that people weren't happy before the invention of video games and programmable blenders?

I can't honestly answer that question because I wasn't alive 50 years ago so I have no basis to compare things to. My gut reaction is that yes, we are happier today than we were before, but probably not for the reasons you would guess. I think we are happier but its not because we are materially richer, but moreso because we have more freedom and choices than 50 or even 10 years ago. On pretty much every count we have it better. Example: Don't like your gender, change it. The technology today I am sure is better than it was before and with less stigma. Like a particular man or woman that isn't your race or religion and they like you back. Who cares? Don't like the $hit on your TV, change the channel. You now can have over a 200 channels to choose from instead of 3. Now that we have the internet, you can find that rare music no one else listens to. Want to have sex with a total stranger? You got craigslist. Don't want to because it goes against your values, thats fine too. Don't like your town, move to another one. See, more choices on almost every count. Sure, I know what you are going to say; but SY, corporations own all the stores and putting mom and pop stores out of business. Although there is some truth, you still have more choices overall. And no, mom and pop stores aren't disappearing. The ones that do survive just have to be more creative and sell interesting stuff to survive. Besides, with all that money that you are saving from the larger cheaper stores, you have more freedom to do whatever it is you like with that money. True, material wealth might not directly bring happiness, but it pays off indirectly. Example: if you save money from a cheaper store, that means you have to work less hours at your job. You DON'T HAVE TO spend that extra income on material toys (your main argument against capitalism), you have the option to instead quit your higher paying job for a less paying one that makes you happier BECAUSE you don't have to shop at expensive mom and pop stores.



It's inefficiency was my point, inefficient because it was inflexible.

My definition of inefficiency is dead weight loss. Wikipedia has a good article on the concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_weight_loss



Perhaps you lack skills in abstract thinking and poetic metaphor.

I don't actually. Its just that I don't communicate with abstract concepts. I do this for a very good reason. Knowing from experience, arguing with other people, including yourself, using abstract phrases tends to cause miscommunication. It happened here often on both ends. You using some abstract thought I misunderstood you and vice versa. Exactly why I avoid abstract phrases like the plague because everytime I do so you end up somehow misinterpreting what I have said. My thinking is just as abstract as yours, but I need to express those thoughts in concrete examples to avoid being misinterpreted. More on this, see below.




People with degrees in art, literature, or mystical experiences have no difficulty understanding me. Enough of that already.

Thank you. You've just made my point for me. You do in fact have poor communication skills and you just have demonstrated that with the phrase "People with degrees in art, literature, or mystical experiences have no difficulty understanding me." That's just the point. The purpose of effective communication is to be understood by the general population, not just people with degrees in art, literature or "mystic experiences" (whatever that is). The point is, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO have a degree in art to understand what you are trying to convey. The average person should understand it on the fly without spending time trying to decipher what you have just written. Look, about 5 to 10% of the US population has a degree in art or literature (I am being generous). They understand you, which I am happy for you and them. But the remaining 90 to 95% of the population are scratching their heads going wtf when reading your posts (ok, I am assuming what other people are thinking, sue me). I don't know what your profession is or what are your hobbies, but whatever they are I sure hell hope its not being a tutor for intro to language arts.

I am not trying to be mean spirited here either. I am just trying to give you some sound advice (which I could be wrong, I've been wrong before). I am trying to point out to you that the purpose of communication is to be brief, to the point, clear, and precise. As poetic as you may be, you aren't any of those things. Poetry is in fact the antithesis of good and effective communication. I am sure that you are a good poet and a creative writer, among other things, never said you aren't, but an effective writer who can communicate their thoughts well is not one of them. Like I said, you don't have to listen to me.




1) My best friend has a Ph.D in English literature and finds me to be the only person really capable of understanding her. 2) If I were you, I'd stop making a fool of myself by questioning others' communication skills. [numbers added by me]

To reply to the first statement: Me thinks that maybe your best friend with the Ph.D in English literature has poor communications skills as well. The fact that you are the only person who is capable of understanding her should tell you something, and quite frankly is troublesome to me. The whole point of having good communication skills is so that OTHERS WILL UNDERSTAND YOU. If you are the only one who understands her, then she has failed to get her point across. I sincerely feel sorry for her students.

To reply to the second statement: Me making a fool of myself? I disagree but ok. Lets put it this way, my interpretation is that most people here on SC don't know what the hell you are rambling about, but I could be wrong. I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but I take it that most people when they read your posts they are confused and feel like they're reading a foreign language. That by definition is poor commutation so I am accurate in my assessment. But I could be wrong.




By the way, I have received A+'s in all courses I've taken related to communications, and I've been deing college part-time for 27 years now. I am also in the 98th percentile of college students in English placement.

Thats really besides the point. First off, grades in liberal arts are subjective. Second, I don't know what the test is grading. The grade that you receive depends on what the professor is looking for, which could be about anything. For all I know, your English professors have poor communication skills as well but understand each other very well and only interact within their own circle. I am not saying that that is the case, but I wouldn't discount the possibility. The grades that you receive in academia aren't necessarily indicative of your abilities to function in the real world. And 27 years, geez! I am not discounting your brightness and no doubt you must be intelligent in some way. Afteral you were smart enough to pick up the subtle cues what your professors were looking for. While thats a skill no doubt, in no way does it translate into being able to communicate well in writing. I am going more by the "business" definition of communication, not the definition your English departments. In other words I am considering things like being able to write a memo, a set of instructions, or explaining to people who aren't liberal arts majors your thoughts.

When I judge your communication skills, I am going off of your posts you make in SC and by going by that they are bad. Off course I could be wrong for two reasons: 1) I might suck at understanding written communication and other SC get you, or 2) you only write crappy on here but other places you communicate better.

In any case, your best friend only being understood by you should be a hint.




Perhaps you don't recall, but I'm fairly sure there was time when I was arguing for socialism, and you were arguing for the diversity which capitalism fosters. Now I am arguing for communalism on behalf of liberty and diversity, and you are arguing for standardization. Before you try to accuse me of entirely changing my tune too drastically though, even that system was one designed for capitalist like independent contractor like entrepreneurialism. Honestly though I only recall what I was pushing, and can only speculate as to what your arguments were. My memory of your position is more subjective.

Here is an example of what I am talking about, by which I mean a miscommunication caused by me trying to be abstract You are conflating two completely separate issues. 1) One being how people interact with one another and what they value, and 2) the other how their legal system treats them. Example of the former is suppose this situation: You have a job that pays $10 / hr and can work a maximum of 40 hours, meaning a maximum of $400, with no minimum. Then there are things you can spend your money on, eg: plasma TV's, ethnic foods, rent, etc. Orrrr, you can also choose to work less hours. The thing is, if you don't value material toys like plasma TV's and are willing to live in slums because you feel like you don't need that stuff that is fine. You can use that extra money to say, decide to work less. That is what I meant by diversity that capitalism foresters. You have money which you can spend it anyway you want it, and different people will spend it on different things-- hence diversity. Hell, you can even choose to be homeless even if you can afford housing just because you don't feel like its worth spending (eg: being too cheap, have better things than housing to spending money on, don't feel like working). But wait, theres more.

Suppose you had the option of A) work at a homeless shelter that pays $5.15, B) be a programmer for $10 / hr or C) a truck driver for $15 / hr. Job C is more unpleasant than Job B and Job B is more unpleasant than Job A. You see where this is going. You also have the options, a plasma TV, a crappy TV, and no TV-- which can only be afforded depending on the job you take. You prefer the less paying job because you feel that you don't need the extra money. Someone else would disagree and they would rather the unpleasant job of a truck driver because of the money because they really want a plasma TV. Both you and the other person would like to have a plasma TV and both you and the other guy would rather volunteer at the homeless shelter than be a truck driver, but you can't have it both ways. You would rather not have the TV and not have to be a truck driver and that other guy would rather just drive the truck because its more tolerable to do that job than to go without the plasma TV. Then someone like me comes along who decides to take option B because while they would rather make less and not have to drive a truck they would also rather buy a small TV verses no TV at all, even if working the homeless shelter would be more pleasant. See, 3 different people, 3 different choices, hence diversity. Thats what I meant by diversity in that context, but I needed to give a concrete example because its the only way to explain the concept.

And here is the flaw with your pro-communism argument that everyone gets paid the same. If that were the case, no one would want to drive the truck because there would be incentive and everyone would have the same crappy TV, instead of having the option of not having a TV and having a plasma TV. The thing is, I don't want someone else making that choice for me. Sure, you've mentioned something about giving the truck driver less hours to compensate for doing the unlikable job. But what if that person doesn't value leisure time and would rather work the extra hours to earn the extra money. It seems like your system is less flexible. What if a person chooses to be lazy but at the same time chooses not to consume any products. Isn't it better to allow that choice, where you get less money for doing less work because you feel like you don't need the money so whats the point of working as well as the other extreme. Thats certainly better than making sure that everyone has the same wealth. I should be given the option to have less money than other people if I don't feel like working or get more money than my neighbor and buy more stuff because I don't mind suffering a little to work more. When everyone gets paid the same, you are imposing the choice for them, hence less diversity.

Now, the other issue I was talking about, the one with commualism, by diversity we are talking about legal systems. On this point, I am against excessive legal diversity, meaning I don't think people should be allowed to form their own community that makes a law that say forces women to wear the Hjiab-- EVEN IF thats what the majority want in the area. Sure, I am in favor of some local control, but there should be limits. I also believe that you shouldn't be allowed to form a "whites only" or "blacks only" commune, even if thats what the people want. So in that regard, I oppose diversity. You can be a Muslim or a Hindu and have your culture, but you should also have to follow state and federal laws. This view has nothing to do with being for or being against capitalism. This is a separate argument.

Now, you have mentioned the fear of tyranny of the majority. While this is a valid concern of federalism, its also a problem in your model as well. To give you a solid concrete example: Suppose your system gets passed. And suppose your town gets its right to self-rule. Now suppose that out of the blue a whole bunch of religious conservatives move in and pass a law that says "anyone who isn't the same gender that they were born with [or something else that may apply to you] has to leave town and their town gets taken over by the city". Now, federal laws may have existed previously to protect individuals, but thats no longer applicable and your out of luck. This can happen to anybody, for instance the KKK moving and and taking over minority's property and driving them out. So its a two-way street. Sure, the feds may be a tyranny of the majority or oppressive in one sector (eg pot smoking) but on the other hand they also protect individual rights from small towns and states as well. Its a double edged sword. Be careful what you wish for. Remember, once you declare anarchy, all bets are off.




Besides, you seem to have no problem with acknowledging people via payment. In a few years there really won't be much difference between handing someone some coins or pushing a couple buttons on your cell phone. If you've been alert, you've probably noticed that my paradigm has already begun to catch on in the form of eBay feedback and avatar feedback in forums. Come to think of it, I think Bill's even introduced that here.

Ok, fair enough. However, there is still one glaring flaw with this plan. Lack of incentive to be accurate when voting. Think about it. When you pay for a pizza or get a hair cut, and pay money with your credit card plus tip, they get credit but that amount also gets deducted from your account. So if you overtip you lose too much money, if you undertip they will be unhappy and might not do a good job next time. So you have an incentive to get the value of their work right. Your system doesn't put any incentives that I know of.




"Ok, from now on how about this. Warn me ahead of time that some idea you have is something theoretical and not something you wholeheartedly believe. Otherwise its very confusing."
Good grief. It's all obviously theoretical. I believe in the subjective principles. 'Exactly' which implementation details would work best, I couldn't begin to imagine. I'd have to be the mind of God, knowing the contents of each mind on the planet, and being able to project the outcome for any given subtle shift of configuration. As with the founding fathers of America though, I believe a well thought out adaptable theoretical model can go a long way. I dare suggest that some of the sorts of potential arguments agains which you can creatively bring up would have likely shot down their model as well.

You seem to misinterpreted my motive. You think I am trying to poke holes in your abstract model with using concrete thinking just nitpicking everything to death. Not at all. Instead, I have my own abstract thoughts as to why your entire system is completely flawed and I am using concrete examples to show you why, so that you won't misinterpret me like you keep doing. Put it this way. You're an artist right. Well, let me put it in artist terms. You know how you got an idea that has flaws and you make modifications here and there, mostly small, some major. Well, in every artist's life there comes a time when they realize that some idea they have come up with is just so bad and unsalvageable that its time to just scrap it and start over. I am letting you know that this particular idea is in fact so horrible that any time spent defending it is wasteful and it be better to jump the sinking ship. Your time and energy would be better spent working on some new creative idea from scratch. Put it this way, I am not trying to point out flaws in some sculpture that you have been working on for some time and trying to nitpick it to death. I am trying to just take a sledge hammer to it and smash it out of its misery. Every artist needs outside perspective to let them know that their ideas are crap once in a while. Look, you're bright and creative and all, but you seriously need to rethink your views on human nature and see the big picture with where I am going with all my criticisms. Come on, you have a degree in art. You should be able to see my abstract argument by now with all the concrete examples I've given.




Are you so negative throughout this post? Missed breakfast?

Its part of my personality in case you haven't noticed. Just think of me as Simon from American Idol. I call people out on their bullcrap and point out holes in their logic, as well as shabby research. Its one of my hobbies. Me negative, hey, I thought I was on a roll. Also a side benefit of concrete communication is that if you are effective at it, you can use it to make witty remarks which the other person understands immediately.




So often though, even your concrete examples point out to me that you're somehow missing out on the concepts I've presented. I thought by now I had illustrated plenty of times by allusion that communities would be like 'When in Rome, live as the Romans', and yet here you are, thinking people passing through would be immune to local traffic laws.

On the contrary. I understand your abstract system quite well. It is why I know it won't and I am trying to convey to you why its doomed to failure.




I may have just blown getting any Christmas presents made for my kids, family, and friends. I'll get back to you in January. Take care.

Good thing because I need to get some sleep like right now and will get back to you on the other stuff tomorrow. Since you won't be here to reply back, it won't interrupt the flow of the posts being made.

I spent my summers as teen living in a recreation of a 16th century scottish clan, and they were probably the happiest years I ever spent. My next happiest general extended circumstances are family gatherings which have much the same collective structure. I figure people were actually happier way back when except to whatever extent their basic survival needs weren't being met, or at least as happy. I've seen footage of starving India kids smiling and laughing while picking through dumps. I suggest for your own welfare you contemplate the conditions of happiness a bit more.

Perception exists in relative context. Some people have found increased happiness in russian prison camps. My computer insructor was complaining that he was weary of this world; Before you can even really get immersed in something to appreciate it, it changes on you. I can relate.

People work a lot more than they did in the first half of this century. Industrialisation has made labor less required, worth less, so people need three meaningless jobs just to pay the rent. I agree that we 'should' in theory be working less with industrialisation, but thats not going to happen unless the means of production is socialised.

"Poetry is in fact the antithesis of good and effective communication."
I have to disagree with that one. Many, if not a majority believe that poetry exists to convey things which are too sublime to be communicated in concrete language.
However, I also agree with the phrase that a good scientist should be able to explain their work to a bright eight year old. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's necessarily succinct. My CS instructor loved my class lectures and said I was doing Ph.D thesis level work. Another fellow complained that I should dumb down my 1.5 hr lectures into something of only a few minutes. It takes 45 minutes just to explain the basic principles of AI or analog to digital waveform analysis, before even getting on to how I went about it.

My friend mostly works translating esoteric texts on chinese medicine. Her thesis was on the 16th c. Anatomy of Melancholy. In other words she specialises in understanding obscure things most people couldn't get.

By good communication, I suppose I mean here sophisticated eloquence, and not accessability. But since you throw in phrases like 'half a brain', I'm more inclined to point out that I'm versed in genius, college trained sorts of communication.

I don't disagree that I'm probably way above others heads in some subjects. Some things though can't be brought down to a lower level. Take music for instance. While one can actually tangibly quantify some contributing factors like choice of scale or particular rhythms in conveying a message, there comes a point at which the content may still only be described in subjective language, and involve some complex structures like grungestalts (in which higer tiers of melodic compostion ride on the crests of accents interspersed within the primary melody). That might exist not on the primary notes, but on the convergence of the harmonics of notes. To describe a song utilizing such mechanisms is going to be above the heads of those who only understand music in terms of a primary melody with a fixed time signature. In fact it's over the heads of most professional musicians except sitar gurus and Juilliard grads. Still, it has a more more sublime and sophisticated message than most forms of music too. Such forms work well for conveying experiences which are more mystical than emotional in nature, and here too we end up going above most peoples realm of experience and understanding. Thus, for many people I'm speaking a foreign language.

I did actully come to realize by age 18 (I started computer and art college courses when I was still in HS), that art college was to produce art for art college grads, and not for the general public who wouldn't (at least not consciously) understand the language being spoken.

The placement test was mostly done by computer, one of those programs which select further questions depending on where you're at. I don't recall the specifics on that question I intentionally missed (though I think I actully have it written down somewhere, since I meant to complain to the test company). What I recall of it though, it amounted to having some dangling modifier which could either have concrete meaning if one took the grammer loosely, or a figurative meaning referring to another component (say a 'flying' bicycle) if one took the grammer structure more seriously instead. ..and so I picked the poetically figurative, but grammatically more correct interpretation, knowing full well that the figurative interpretation probably hadn't even occurred to those writing the test.

I'm surprised you recall that last system as well as you do. I wouldn't expect that from much of anyone. I don't have time to rehash it now anyhow though.

I'm not fool enough to declare full anarchy unless I were already presented with immanent severe tyranny of the majority.
Like my model of creating socialism though the existing corporate structure, I see no need to tear down moderately working structures, suitable as is for some, when they can be modified for other purposes, or the whole system can benefit from slight evoloutionary tweaks.

True, my system offers no individual defense from shifting majority cultural dispalcement.

You make another good point, peoples ratings would be more accurate if they came at cost. I just had a brainstorm on tipping though, while service should still factor in, like tithing, it could be based on the clients income, and not that of the employee or the meal cost. After all, a waitress at a cheap diner could be putting in more effort than one at a $200 dinner. I actually do this already myself, come to think of it (thus not much of a brainstorm, really). In real world terms, as tips are usually voluntary anyhow, I suppose this concept could be spread though an email campaign.

Well then, not caring for this model, what did you think of my corporate communes? Come to think of it, seems the response was comparatively favorable there. It's all food for thought. I've probably imagined some useful implementation details in all this, or at least arrived closer at what to do by figuring out what not to do (with your assistance).

I don't watch reality or celebrity shows. Perhaps Simon is like Jekyl and Hyde. If you're comfortable and openly cognizant of who you are, then that's fine with me. It's not really my rubric to see anyone as offering bulls__t. Whatever it is they offer, I'm sure their experience has led to it making sense to them at least, even if I'm not in on that experience.

Well I couldn't resist taking a break from packing and such.

I woke up this moring to Gore Vidal during the Reagan years explaining just what the founding fathers actually did have in mind creating, citing some ancilliary documents, as well as simply explaining the ruprcussions of what they originally drafted. Basically a property owners oligarchy, preventing either monarchy or general public democracy. Apparently it was some George Mason dude who later brought in some insistence on the Bill of rights, and it wasn't for nearly a century that Supreme Court thought to take on the power of reviewing congressional acts and declaring them unconstitutional. Of course there's the later executive decree thing too, along with a personal CIA. The president was once merely what the speaker of the house is now. He also explained why it works out in practice that we hardly have a labor party compared to oher democracies.

I had a revelation along these lines of thinking myself, as to why it is that elections are always so close; simply because the two party system is not a true ideological divide, rather which ever side is weakest does whatever it takes to round up more ideology into it's own court, and neither side wishes to invest more than what it takes to have some reasonable assurance of winning.

My idea on how to break the two-party system (if people would go along with it) (it's not as severe a risk as throwing away a vote on a 3rd party now) is to have everyone register as a Republican. Then, every voter and every candidate would be a republican, and we'd have to examine each of them on their own merits as if they were all third parties.

I'm still not getting any text. All I get is just blank white space for the past 4 days. I'm going to just Hide this survey now. Too bad, it was an interesting topic.

I had ta wait quite a few minutes for your post to arrive, then, just as I started typing, the monstrous posts before it appeared.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Also, I haven't read your last post, because I wanted to make it consistent so I am leaving off where I left off.



San Francisco is similar to LA, and I had gathered to some lessor extent that New York was as well. I suppose the West Coast is indeed the heartland of liberal multi-culturalism. 102 languages are found to be spoken in the Los Angeles school district. The products in the grocery stores here are often labeled in several languages, most commonly Spanish of course (besides the obvious English), but I have things in my cabinet in Farsi, Hindi, Sri-lankan, and several Asian languages. Just in my 10 unit apartment building are an Indian, a Cuban, a Japanese couple, a Philipino family, an Englishman, and an old Latvian couple (somwhere in that neighborhood). Usually there are also Hispanics and Blacks here too. We even had this voodoo queen type for awhile.

Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable. I am leaning towards good. That is not the point though. The point is that LA and San Fransisco are a bit "out of touch" with the rest of the country in the regard that people are "social engineered" to some extent in favor of defacto segregation. People having their own culture and not losing it to the mainstream is a good thing, sure. However, you should also mingle with others. Multiculturalism in a way promotes segregation because it encourages for people to stick with their own kind for generations, rather than assimilate to their new country. Sure, you can argue that these communities evolved naturally and that is what the people wanted, but to some extent it was encouraged through city planning. Chicago in that regard is the same way, in fact their city planners deliberately built the city with dividers to keep ethnicities from interacting which are still left over to this day and Chicago is probably the country's most segregated city. San Fransisco to their credit at least has more cultures, not just blacks, whites, hispanics. Oh sure Kristal, its easy for a lilly white middle class woman like yourself to enjoy the diversity because YOU benefit from seeing the world in 5 minutes on your bike but in order for that to happen that requires that a large segment of the population to stick with their own kind so to speak meaning that those individuals end up in a less diverse environment. You won't win me over on this point because I unlike you I don't romanticize people "sticking to their kind". I don't know to what extent the people in SF intermingle but I am guessing not much.

More to the point, no offense but SF also has some of the most dumb zoning laws you can imagine. Sure, they are right to try to legalize weed which I admire even though I am a non-smoker but they sure have a lot of idiot laws that limits how you can build your houses (and encourages some very ugly architectures in some parts of the city) and others. That aside, I wouldn't be too surprised if keeping their residents sticking to their own kind was in the backs on the minds of the city planners at one point (note: I don't live in SF and only been there like maybe once or twice), I don't mean it was overtly done or even on purpose but I wouldn't discount that possibility.



I don't have a firm idea of what size range could form practical communities. I think that would have to be found from actual trial and error.

Couldn't arguably the current world be that size range, with the US being one community, India, being another, France being another, so on. So in a way, we already have what you propose. You just want something smaller, but you don't have an idea the size.




Since you don't care for the non-objective style of my arguments, why don't you try your hand at arguing my case for me.

Alright, I'll play along. I'll bite.

But first I will try to clarify what you might have meant in your scenario.



Here is the tangible, yet meant to be representationally abstract example I have in mind. Suppose there is a person who found himself homeless in one culture. The reason for this is that he is a totally spontaneous free-spirit, with little capacity to recall what day of the week or month it is. He is extremely gifted and generous with his talents, but his gift comes and goes, the former by the enthusiasm by which it is received, and the latter to the degree to which he feels opressively obligated to perform duties. It is his misfortune to have been born into a society which rigidly adheres to clocks, calendars, rigid benchmark reporting, and has little interpersonal regard for peoples efforts so long as they effectively produce, upon which they are merely rewarded financially. I do not find it difficult to imagine a culture in which he would be a revered contributer, but it certainly is not that one.

So the sake of argument, allow me to try to clarify this scenario. Note that since I don't speak Krisalese so I don't know what a "totally spontaneous free-spirit" is or what "a society which rigidly adheres to clocks, calendars, rigid benchmark reporting," is or what does "has little interpersonal regard for peoples efforts so long as they effectively produce," means. Thats still too vague. Could a "free-spirit" just be someone who is high all the time and incoherently rambles nonsense but they think that they are super geniuses. Or is it a brilliant mad scientist who has gone insane rendered unhirable. As for a society that oppressively adheres to clocks and calenders, would that mean one where the managers would fire you if you were once one minute late to work even if you were a brilliant scientist (a very dumb policy) or you would have practically be a no show for an entire month before even getting a warning (show up to work sometime next week or else). Both extremes are pretty unworkable for a company to be productive. In any case, I don't get why it would actually be necessarily to form towns based on what kind of bosses would run companies inside of them. What would be the practicle advantage of doing so. As I said some time earlier, to a large extent you are conflating two things, how people interact amongst themselves socially (eg: what is socially acceptable) verses how the legal system treats them (eg: at what point you cross the line and do something that isn't legally acceptable). Not showing up to work on time isn't a criminal manner, its a social manner, one that might or might not get you fired, depending on the policies of your company. You don't need to form towns around that idea, you just need to open up your own company and run it anyway you wish. But ok, I'll play along.

Again, I don't know what "has little interpersonal regard for peoples efforts so long as they effectively produce, upon which they are merely rewarded financially." mean because I don't speak Kristalese. I am assuming its a town where corporate bosses don't care about their employees happiness and instead just pay them more to compensate for their unhappiness. Do I smell an anti-free market anti-capitalist propaganda coming from you? In any case, any manager who would use that strategy here in the 21st century isn't worth his weight in salt and ought to be fired. Any company with half a brain would try to keep their employees happy so that they won't quit unless you pay them a large chunk of money (which would eat up corporate profits). Again, how private companies treat their employees is a manner of what is socially acceptable, not what is codified in law (unless they really do something, like curse their employees out). However, to argue your the case its not socially acceptable to talk to people in subways in New York isn't codified in law, its how people interact with each other in NY. Sure, some things are tied to a geographical location, so I guess I can stretch the argument.





It is my position that I wish, in creating a theoretical system of society, to offer this man what I consider his natural right to fit in somewhere to the best of is abilities in some place where it is appropriate. The first tenet that comes to mind is that for this to happen, the culture where he would fit in would first need to exist. He's not a bug-eyed martian example, but a sort I commonly see, and have seen prosper in some cultural situations, and fail miserably in others, so it is not improbable that a society could be created in which he fits.

Ok, so now we're dealing with someone so severally socially retarded that they don't understand the concept of hitchhiking or the Greyhound bus.



The second tenet is that for him to prosper, he must be allowed in to such a society (and of course allowed to leave the one which did not work for him (and for which also, he did not work out for them)). Third, it is unlikely that the first neighboring culture he walks into will be the most suitable fit either. Hopefully he will realize this on his own and move on.

Earth to Kristal. How is your proposed system different from how things currently are. Its already legal to travel within the US freely. Its even in the constitution. Last time I've checked there aren't any checkpoints you must stop if I wanted to go from Louisiana to Mississippi. If a town that this person wouldn't fit in could possibly exist, it would already exist. The fact that there aren't that many socialist communes in existence that such person would fit in should speak volumes. Remember, there aren't any laws on the books saying that you HAVE to show up to work on time or "live by the calender". Its how people interact naturally. So if there were enough people who thought like you, they would try to set up their own companies that are ran by your model, which don't even have to care about making a profit so long they don't go into debt. Sure, people have that option to take a job that pays less but isn't as stressful and encourage them to be more creative. They do it all the time. Seriously, theres no need for codified laws telling people how much they should pay their employees (save for the minimum wage) and what jobs people should take.



It is not my intent to create societies which people do not desire, so it would seem that in order to preserve cultuarl integrity, there would also have to be some mechanism by which they could boot him out, because people live by the clock there too, and his style does not work for them. Eventually I expect him to find a fitting society.

Yeah, its how the real world works already. If you don't feel like you fit in say Louisiana, you go move to Florida or something. If you don't feel like you fit in Florida, you go move to California. The only innovation you have added is the right for communities to boot people who don't fit in out. Well, aside from the fact that that goes against the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishments), I am assuming that this would be considered a legitimate form of punishment equalible with jail time and fines. So lets say you get caught stealing a box of tic tacs from some store in some small town somewhere, as part of your "punishment" the judge will say that you're banished for 1 year from the city limits in addition to fines and jail time, except you can take the option of being banned for life and not serve the jail time or pay the fines (eg: if you try to come back we will keep kicking you out until you agree to serve your time and pay the fine, etc). That option would be guaranteed by the federal government somehow.





I do however have an entirely seperate situation, and that is that of those who are terribly disabled. As they exist everywhere in nature, and I wish to preserve their natural right to fit in best they can somewhere and prosper, it seems to me that they should be accepted anywhere, without the community shirking it's responsibility to cope with nature by booting out such persons.

Ok, I want to form my own society. It is my personal belief that people with disabilities are degenerates and I don't want the fudgeers in my town. I should have the right to boot them out. What about my natural right to kick them out.



I'd prefer that societies gave such persons equal access to swimming pools and fine dining, but will compromise on them at least offering basic food and shelter somehow.

But I won't. I don't want to compromise on that point because I feel that people incapable of caring for themselves should get the fudge out and that they are a drag to my society. Even giving them one cent bothers me greatly.



- Now, coming from these tangible ideas of how things should work (and I totally realize what I've suggested here can't pertain to communties as small as households, which I still say should have some peculiar rights within their home which supercede that of the community surrounding them (say spanking kids for instance)), and taking these tangible examples as embodiments of a subjective principle I conceive as being physically possible and wish to promote, how am to put this in terms of an objective system which could satisfy Southern Yankee as having plausable merit?

Ok, fair enough. You've met me half way. I will entertain some answer. Ok, the formation and recognition of communities could be done very easily if there was some federal government in place. It could work very similarly to how states were first ratified into the union. For instance, first they became territories, and then they try to get ratified into states. The only difference is that the requirements would be MUCH more lenient, for instance you only need 51% of the current states to vote them in and the people and land requirements would be much lower, for instance only 10,000 people. So any large mass of people would basically become a state and we would just have like thousands of states that would fit in the US instead of the 50 we currently have, and also more local control. I am not being original here at all-- in fact I am directly stealing the idea from the US constitution that already exists. So your model isn't any new system at all, its actually what already exists except the thresholds are a lot different. But you already conceded the point that you need federalism on some level, if not anything to ensure the recognition of communities and protecting their rights to deport anyone they wish. And the communities would each have to elect their representatives to form a Congress that is the federal government that we know of today that would vote on the bare requirements. All you're really doing is changing the parameters. For instance, to pass a law that binds all communities, you need 80% of the vote of Congress instead of only the 51% of today and for ratification to become a state you only need say 40% instead of the 66% or whatever it is and need less people and land. More or less your system just tweaks those numbers; but then couldn't you argue that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and others wanted only 40% to form states then thats what the Constitution would have said already. I take it that how they arrived at their parameters was the result of long all-nighters debates and compromises. I somehow take it that they are probably much more competent at coming up with the numbers than someone like you. But ok, I'll play along. Ok, we can't implement your system today as that would imply changing the Constitution and most of the land is already settled, so what we're gonna to do instead is pretend that we live in 1776 where most of the land is unsettled me being Washington and you being Jefferson given the task to write a constitution except that we also have access to 21st century technology, and beyond.




I somewhat imagine that you have taken the liberty all along of thinking purely in the concrete and objective, and finding flaws within that domain. I, on the other hand, am thinking in the abstract in support of a belief system which I feel could potentially physically exist, though I am uncertain what form it may take, and burdened with communicating it to you in the language of the objective, because unlike most of the people I know, this appears to be the only domain of consideration in which you have a primary facility.

No, actually I am not trying to find concrete flaws in your abstract system through examples by nitpicking it to death; I visualize why your abstract system is doomed from the gethgo from an abstract reasoning point of view except everytime I try to explain it to you in abstract language you keep on misinterpreting me and its really aggravating, to the point that I resorted to using concrete examples to illustrate why its obvious why your idea is a failure. In other words, no matter how much tweaking you make to your idea, its fundamentally flawed but I don't know how to point it out to you except by illustration in the form of concrete examples. Like it or not, that is how most normal human beings communicate, via concrete examples. Oh sure, we all think in abstract terms but we need concrete examples to illustrate them, just like math teachers illustrate their points through examples even though math is completely abstract. But try not to feel too bad when I shatter your pipedream and point out how fundamentally flawed your way of thinking is (possibly caused by being in a college for such an extended period of time and living in places like SF and LA your whole life), because when the forefathers first tried drafting a constitution, before they wrote the constitution that we know of today, they have written a piece of crap known as "the Articles of Confederation". So hey, if one of the brightest thinkers in the world can write something thats such a piece of crap like the Articles of Confederation, to the point where they had to start from scratch, theres no reason to feel bad if you fail yourself on such a task. It happens to the best of us, no matter how bright you may or may not be.


Ok, so here are base requirements for your society that you've given me:

--- there needs to be some federal government or UN sort of thing
--- there needs to be some mechanism to recognize communes
--- there needs to be a mechanism for free travel but also the rights for communities to ban individuals
--- there needs to be some restrictions on what kind of laws that they will pass, for instance you can't punish someone if they volentairly decide to leave

I will add some to that to make it more workable

--- there needs to be some mechanism to file lawsuits (with 4 subrequirements)
-- individuals must be able to sue other individuals
-- individuals must be able to sue communes
-- communes must be able to sue individuals
-- communes must be able to sue other communes

eg: if I punch you in the fact and then run to a different community and you are severally injured, you should be able to sue me without me running off somewhere.
eg: if I get wrongly booted out of a commune I should be resentful about it and I should have the option to sue them, or if a society decides to chop off my hands for stealing --- yes I know you said thats not allowed, but in the real world communities might not listen and go ahead and do it anyway. Then theres always private citizens doing stuff to each other.
eg: suppose I set arson and burn down an entire village and some other village accepts me. The damage is already done and they may need to get compensated.
eg: Suppose two communes hate each other so they sponsor "terrorist" actives, eg have their citizens go and steal from the other community and run back to their own or randomly beat people over there up and then run back. They can even do it covertly so that no one would suspect that it was dilibrate and you sure couldn't prove it.

Like I said, a lot of what ifs, but its pretty obvious you need some mechanism to sue. Its unclear if punitive damages should exists in your world, since punishments don't exist. Eg I steal a candy bar from a store. The candy bar is worth 50 cents. They can sue me for 50 cents, the value of the candy bar, but they may also try to sue me triple damages to compensate for damage caused by other thieves and for deterance. Theres off course the obvious problem of people using the lack of laws on the books in one town to dodge punishments. For instance, I live in a capitalist world and commit stock fraud and run off with 10 million dollars to say, an Amish town that doesn't even have a stock market. Sure, they have anti-theft laws but they don't consider the stock market to be property because to them its all 0's and 1's. I could in theory bring over my own computer to the Amish town, set up a proxy connected to some other town and just commit ID theft and other fraud from the safety of my room and no one can tell me anything. Given enough time I am sure I could find a way to get around of having a bank account even though I live among the Amish. Considering all the gaps in local laws without a federal system, your idea would be riddled with loopholes and a lot of sanctuary cities would exist for criminals. Sure, other towns can try to punish towns for non-enforcement of their laws, but as long as there isn't a critical mass of people in one town they can stay under the radar. Eg: identity thieves can inhabit one Amish town, the Crips may inhabit another and the Bloods may inhabit another Amish town, or something equivalent. As long as they don't pull their antics in their hometown to where they won't get kicked out they can in effect operate from the safety of their base and mooch off of the locals. So no Kristal, if you don't believe in lawsuits that is not an option, sorry but theres no getting around it. You need a mechanism to sue, either the individuals doing their crimes or the Amish for allowing it to happen on their own soil.

I'll leave you with that.

PS: You're familiar with the mathematical concept of proof by contradiction. I am doing just that with your pipedream idea of a society which hopefully you will see soon enough why you are obviously wrong without a shadow of doubt.

"So the sake of argument, allow me to try to clarify this scenario. Note that since I don't speak Krisalese so I don't know what a "totally spontaneous free-spirit" is or what "a society which rigidly adheres to clocks, calendars, rigid benchmark reporting," is or what does "has little interpersonal regard for peoples efforts so long as they effectively produce," means. Thats still too vague. Could a "free-spirit" just be someone who is high all the time and incoherently rambles nonsense but they think that they are super geniuses. Or is it a brilliant mad scientist who has gone insane rendered unhirable."

I think of people who have 5 different skills, want to nurture them all, but can only do so when they are inspired. One day, they want to make music, another day they want to work on a cure for a disease, and another day, they just want to do someone's accounting.

There's not really any way for a person like that to fit in/earn a living in most communities. There is at least one small commune that I know of, that has worked around that. You must put in a certian number of hours 'helping' and that includes any activity that needs doing, or that other people enjoy (playing guitar and singing to people who are hanging the wash counts, if they appreciate it!) I can't imagine that ever working in large places though.

I think of people who have 5 different skills, want to nurture them all, but can only do so when they are inspired. One day, they want to make music, another day they want to work on a cure for a disease, and another day, they just want to do someone's accounting.

Oh ok I see. Well, that probably wouldn't work too well either. The problem is that this person wouldn't likely be good at any of those things. An expert in all is an expert in none. The thing is, for a person to be hired for any one job there are two general requirements, 1) that the person would like the job and be enthusiastic about it, 2) be good at it. Ok, theres others, like communicating well with others, not sexually harassing others, etc but that besides the point. Well, the person you've mentioned earlier would certainly fullfill the first requirement, but not the second. Someone who is a part-time doctor but also a part-time musician and a part time accountant wouldn't make for a very good doctor. Likewise someone trying to be an accountant. The thing is you need quality not quanity of people trying to solve certain problems-- they're not very parallelizable. I mean its great and all that you're also a brilliant musician and a good philosopher but if I get sick I wouldn't want you operating on me.




There's not really any way for a person like that to fit in/earn a living in most communities. There is at least one small commune that I know of, that has worked around that.

That should probably tell you something. The fact that there aren't too many communes that succeed on this model probably means that its not a very good model.



You must put in a certian number of hours 'helping' and that includes any activity that needs doing, or that other people enjoy (playing guitar and singing to people who are hanging the wash counts, if they appreciate it!) I can't imagine that ever working in large places though.

Yeah, its called having a part time job. Heres how it works, you are a janitor at day but a jazz musician at night working for tips. Its not a radical concept. People do it all the time. But heres something else, people like to dog that they have to work two jobs just to pay the bills under "the Bush economy", yada yada yada. I highly doubt they'll go with the Kritsal idea of working two part-time jobs instead of one full-time job. People don't want that system.


Kristal reminds me of that South Park episode where the college-know-it-all hippies moved in taking over the town. One of the hippies walks up to Stan and was all like "hey man, would it be great if we like had this thing where like, one guy like baked bread, and another one was like the vet, and another one delivered mail and stuff, and they provided services for each other and stuff man."

Stan's reply: yeah, its called a town

> Oh ok I see. Well, that probably wouldn't work
> too well either. The problem is that this person
> wouldn't likely be good at any of those things.
> An expert in all is an expert in none. The
> thing is, for a person to be hired for any one
> job there are two general requirements, 1) that
> the person would like the job and be enthusiastic
> about it, 2) be good at it. Ok, theres others,
> like communicating well with others, not sexually
> harassing others, etc but that besides the point.
> Well, the person you've mentioned earlier would
> certainly fullfill the first requirement, but
> not the second. Someone who is a part-time doctor
> but also a part-time musician and a part time
> accountant wouldn't make for a very good doctor.

I think this is kind of presumptive. You don't have to devote 100% of your mental efforts into something to be good at it. If a person double majors in college, rather than spending their free time watching TV and partying, I say they can successfully become excellent at more than one thing. (Especially easy stuff like music and accounting. I'm not so sure about surgery. I'll agree with you on that. Chemistry is another thing altogether. Some people can come up with medical cures for things in their 'off time.' It's more a skillful discovery than anything else.

>
> That should probably tell you something. The
> fact that there aren't too many communes that
> succeed on this model probably means that its
> not a very good model.
>
I think it's a good model for small communities, and maybe small businesses too. Very small ones. In a giant company, you might have a lot of accounting that needs doing, and only a few people know this, and none of them feel like doing it. Same goes for large cities. You need a whole lot of structure. The free-spirit model wouldnt work in places so big that not everyone could possibly meet each other.

>
> You must put in a certian number of hours 'helping'
> and that includes any activity that needs doing,
> or that other people enjoy (playing guitar and
> singing to people who are hanging the wash counts,
> if they appreciate it!) I can't imagine that ever
> working in large places though.
>
> Yeah, its called having a part time job. Heres
> how it works, you are a janitor at day but a jazz
> musician at night working for tips. Its not a
> radical concept. People do it all the time.
> But heres something else, people like to dog
> that they have to work two jobs just to pay the
> bills under "the Bush economy", yada yada yada.
> I highly doubt they'll go with the Kritsal idea
> of working two part-time jobs instead of one full-time
> job. People don't want that system.

The 2 part time jobs doesn't fit in with the free spirit model, either. You are sweeping floors when you'd rather be playing sax.
I'd love to work 2 part time jobs rather than one full time one though. A community of like-minded people would love that system.

Ok, I know I am breaking my own rule here. I am supposed to wait until you reply to my other post and reply it back as one post, but whatever. I might as well reply to this one.



I spent my summers as teen living in a recreation of a 16th century scottish clan, and they were probably the happiest years I ever spent. My next happiest general extended circumstances are family gatherings which have much the same collective structure.

. Ok, so let me get this straight. You've spent some time RECREATING a 16th century Scottish clan and that somehow makes you a Scottish clan expert. Because its not like its all make belief and stuff. Wow, whats next, you're going to tell me that being a middle class teenager living in the US playing dungeons and dragons is like actually living in the Europe during the Middle Ages as a paladin. And while we're at it, I know what its like to coach an actual NFL team because I've once played Madden. Let me fax my resume to the NFL to see if they have any openings. If they turn me down I am sending my resume to the Pentagon because I am an expert in warfare. I've kicked some ass in Age of Empires.



I figure people were actually happier way back when except to whatever extent their basic survival needs weren't being met, or at least as happy. I've seen footage of starving India kids smiling and laughing while picking through dumps.

I don't know what to say. So you saw footage of starving kids in India smiling so I guess that means they're happy. Because you know, its not like its a custom to smile when someone's taking a picture of you or anything.


I suggest for your own welfare you contemplate the conditions of happiness a bit more.

Ok, I am not a complete moron. I know that buying a 60" flat screen TV won't make me happier in the long run as oppose to staying with the one that I currently have. I mean, yeah there are idiots out there that always buy toys and crap that they don't need to fullfill their empty lives, not thats their own problem and they're not the majority. You seem to have a very twisted slant against capitalism if you think that all people who aren't socialist think this way (ie I will be happier if I buy more crap that I don't need). Thats really missing the point. Yeah, you're right in that there are other factors in making yourself happy than material wealth. There's A LOT of factors in determining someone's happiness. But overall material wealth positively correlates with overall happiness. Oh sure you can point to Brazil as a counterexample. I mean there are over 130 countries in the world, not to mention subcultures within those countries, so it isn't too hard to cherry pick some example of one where people are materially poor but happy and vice versa.

You seem to be doing just that, first stating your conclusion and then looking for evidence to back it up. Your premise is that capitalist materially rich countries are unhappy and you set out looking for examples to prove your conclusion. I am really glad that you aren't doing any university level research (or at least I am hoping your not).

Sure, buying a 60" flat screen TV won't make me happier, but that should be my responsibility to figure this out; not some busybody Kristalrose socialist telling me I don't need it.




People work a lot more than they did in the first half of this century.

You're basing this on?



Industrialisation has made labor less required, worth less, so people need three meaningless jobs just to pay the rent.

Ok, humor me. Whats your definition of a "meaningless" job. PS-- the cost of rent is high because technology won't invent our way out of the fact that theres limited realestate on earth, unless we invent a way to live on the moon or something.



I agree that we 'should' in theory be working less with industrialisation, but thats not going to happen unless the means of production is socialised.

Spoken like a true communist. (note I said communist, not socialist). Being a communist is one thing, but at least be fair and balanced when discussing it.




"Poetry is in fact the antithesis of good and effective communication."
I have to disagree with that one. Many, if not a majority believe that poetry exists to convey things which are too sublime to be communicated in concrete language.

I am going with many. I doubt the majority feels this way, though I could be wrong. Not to be crude about it, but poetry is nothing more than a form of entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure its a nice thing to have, but so is having CGG with explosions and fast cars. I don't care for it being put up on some pedestal as if it were something uber sophisticated.



By good communication, I suppose I mean here sophisticated eloquence, and not accessability.

Ok, humor me. Whose definition of "eloquence" are we going by? My idea of "sophisticated eloquence" is different than yours. In my mind, snappy sarcastic remarks is the highest form of eloquence. Accessibility meanwhile is objective.


But since you throw in phrases like 'half a brain', I'm more inclined to point out that I'm versed in genius, college trained sorts of communication.

And it also depends on whose college and what department we're talking about. I am sure that the professors in MY college's English department would disagree with your idea of eloquence as opposed to yours, which is yet different from say Frostband's college's English department; likewise the art department, the philosophy department, and the English department all have their own ideas whats eloquent. My intro to social ethics professor was really impressed with my witting style. My intro to "essay writing"--- not so much.



I did actully come to realize by age 18 (I started computer and art college courses when I was still in HS), that art college was to produce art for art college grads, and not for the general public who wouldn't (at least not consciously) understand the language being spoken.

Thats great and all, but here on SC most people don't have advanced degrees in art. Thats just my point. The number one of writing, know your audience.



You make another good point, peoples ratings would be more accurate if they came at cost. I just had a brainstorm on tipping though, while service should still factor in, like tithing, it could be based on the clients income, and not that of the employee or the meal cost. After all, a waitress at a cheap diner could be putting in more effort than one at a $200 dinner.

People with more money generally go to more upscale dining places which generally require more tips anyway. Also, to a certain extent they tip more anyway. On the flip side, waiters will bend over backwards moreso to the higher paying customers at the expense of the lower paying ones, but on the flip side the extra tips means lower prices for everyone else so it balances out. Go google search the concept of a dollar vote. Again, your "brilliant" system isn't anything radical, its how things work already expect with the added idea of everyone being paid the same.





Well then, not caring for this model, what did you think of my corporate communes? Come to think of it, seems the response was comparatively favorable there. It's all food for thought. I've probably imagined some useful implementation details in all this, or at least arrived closer at what to do by figuring out what not to do (with your assistance).

Your idea would work great so long as you can at least break even (forget about profits). But the problem is that you would be overpaying the low wage workers and underpaying the high paying workers. No programmer (or at least not many) would be willing to work for you earning $20,000 and expected to pitch in washing bathrooms where they could earn $50,000 somewhere else. Likewise, people who clean bathrooms whose labor is normally worth say $15,000 they would all want to work for you earning the $20,000. But you would only need so many janitors to work at your company. I don't expect you being too successful. Sure, you could argue that your company has the advantage because you are paying yourself less than CEO of other companies but overall they would still outperform you. Afterall the corporate CEO paycheck is usually just a very small percentage of the company's budget. I doubt you would have too many customers under your model which is what you need to survive.

> I think this is kind of presumptive. You don't have to devote 100%
> of your mental efforts into something to be good at it. If a person
> double majors in college, rather than spending their free time watching
> TV and partying, I say they can successfully become excellent at more
> than one thing. (Especially easy stuff like music and accounting.
> I'm not so sure about surgery. I'll agree with you on that. Chemistry
> is another thing altogether. Some people can come up with medical
> cures for things in their 'off time.' It's more a skillful discovery
> than anything else.

You're right, you don't HAVE to, but its generally a good idea. Sure, you COULD double major in medicine and something else, but how many people can actually pull it off. Theres also the issue of burning out. If you're a student of medicine, you probably be better off just watching TV or playing on the internet (insert non-stressful recreation). Otherwise if all you do is study you most likely will burn out sooner or later. In theory, one could do both, be a doctor AND something else, since doctors can generally set their own hours. But it very rarely works out that way.




> I think it's a good model for small communities, and maybe small businesses
> too. Very small ones. In a giant company, you might have a lot of
> accounting that needs doing, and only a few people know this, and
> none of them feel like doing it. Same goes for large cities. You need
> a whole lot of structure. The free-spirit model wouldnt work in places
> so big that not everyone could possibly meet each other.

If you REALLY think that its possible to pull off such a system, theres nothing preventing you or Kristal from opening up your own small business that runs this way. I am sure that you and Kristal aren't the first ones who have come up with this idea. I doubt its anything new the world hasn't seen before. The US was around for over 200 years afterall, nevermind the world existing before 1776. I am sure many small businesses have in fact attempted this idea before, and I am also sure that in addition a VERY few even succeeded. Its theoretically possible and has been done before successfully, but the odds are heavily stacked against you. The problem is that there are many things that have to be in place for it to work and you need certain types of people that would flourish in such an environment. You could try it, but you'd really be rolling the dice there.

Employers are generally reluctant to hire part time workers and for very good reasons. Trust me, I know from experience.




> The 2 part time jobs doesn't fit in with the free spirit model, either.
> You are sweeping floors when you'd rather be playing sax.

Ok, bad example. Ok, how about an accountant who likes his job but also plays music at night.



> I'd love to work 2 part time jobs rather than one full time one though.
> A community of like-minded people would love that system.

That COULD work, but you would also need some mechanism to share office space and servers that host email accounts. Otherwise people commuting among jobs will waste a lot of time. The deck is stacked against you to make it workable. Think critically for a moment, if this was a good system, why aren't there more such communities. If this was a workable model communities that thought this way would be popping up everywhere on their own without Kristal's pipedream ideas. The fact that they aren't should speak volumes.

I know it's not a new idea.
People have pulled it off, in very small communities, that are set up to "attract" the type of people that would enjoy that sort of living.

> Employers are generally reluctant to hire part
> time workers and for very good reasons. Trust
> me, I know from experience.
>

What reasons? Most of them want to stagger shifts, and are more picky about which hours you can work, rather than how many. This makes it very very difficult for people who are only partially disabled (can't handle 8 hours a day) to find work.)

>
>
> |> The 2 part time jobs doesn't fit in with
> the free spirit model, either.
> |> You are sweeping floors when you'd rather
> be playing sax.
>
> Ok, bad example. Ok, how about an accountant
> who likes his job but also plays music at night.
>

He still might not feel like doing the accounting on this or that particular day. Or even playing music on any particular night. A small, close-knit system would foster productivity, determination and morale by allowing you to do what you are in the mood to do, when you are in the mood to do it. I totally agree that it wouldn't work in large systems.

>
>
> |> I'd love to work 2 part time jobs rather
> than one full time one though.
> |> A community of like-minded people would
> love that system.
>
> That COULD work, but you would also need some
> mechanism to share office space and servers that
> host email accounts. Otherwise people commuting
> among jobs will waste a lot of time. The deck
> is stacked against you to make it workable. Think
> critically for a moment, if this was a good system,
> why aren't there more such communities. If this
> was a workable model communities that thought
> this way would be popping up everywhere on their
> own without Kristal's pipedream ideas. The fact
> that they aren't should speak volumes.
>

I think it takes a rare sort of person to want to live in that system, much less effectively "do what needs to be done" when they feel the urge to do it. It's like the communal house I remember discussing a while back. No leader, everyone just does what needs doing, does their fair share, no chore charts, no leadership. Very very few people have the work ethic to live like that.
In small communities with minimal leadership, it takes people who pay close attention to what needs to be done. Self management. I think the real reason we don't see more of it is because 99% of the population prefers the system we have.

> |> Employers are generally reluctant to hire part
> |> time workers and for very good reasons. Trust
> |> me, I know from experience.
> |>
>
> What reasons?

I don't know because I am not a manager. But I am sure they have their reasons. Chances are they know something I don't. Unlike me they probably see the big picture and all sides of the issue. I only see one.


> Most of them [emphasis added] want to stagger shifts, and are more picky
> about which hours you can work, rather than how many. This makes
> it very very difficult for people who are only partially disabled
> (can't handle 8 hours a day) to find work.)

Thats a bit presumptuous on your part. I am sure that many managers are slowly moving away from that idea as new technology comes out. My job for instance allows me to pick my hours, so long as the office is open. Off course I also have to clock in and out. The problem with letting people work whenever is because sometimes you need them to be there during a specific time. You don't work in a vacuum, you work with others. People people depend on you to be there on a specific time so that they can email you and have a response in a reasonable amount of time. Also, managers are starting to experiment with letting workers work from home. Linda, just learn some patients. Good ideas will sooner or later become the status quo replacing the current status quo. You aren't the only one with the "innovative" idea of working whenever you want.



> He still might not feel like doing the accounting on this or that
> particular day. Or even playing music on any particular night. A small,
> close-knit system would foster productivity, determination and morale
> by allowing you to do what you are in the mood to do, when you
> are in the mood to do it. I totally agree that it wouldn't work in
> large systems.
>

I am sure there are a few companies or structures that do in fact ALREADY work on this model. Thats sort of my point. Theres nothing that you or Kristal has to offer that hasn't been tried before. The only innovation Kristal has is letting entire towns form along this idea of "doing whatever". The problem with her is that she seems to conflate two separate things. One, the way human beings interact with each other (eg folkways, mores) and two, the way bodies of formal governments treat each other and their residents. She's suggesting that we form governments along the idea of "doing whatever" that aren't accountable (theres that word again) to the feds. Shes (and you too) ignoring the reasons why federalism is a good thing and believe it or not, laws are there to protect you and your rights, not take them away.



> In small communities with minimal leadership, it takes people who
> pay close attention to what needs to be done. Self management. I think
> the real reason we don't see more of it is because 99% of the population
> prefers the system we have.

That and also the fact that theres too many free loaders that DO want this system. The problem is that without accountability (theres that word again), you have no way to track contributions. So one day I feel like programming a computer, the next I feel like playing music. The problem is, there are days I don't feel like doing crap. Theres also the issue of two people wanting to do the same thing but not the other but theres no reward mechanism for rewarding doing things no one else wants to. Theres a lot of people who will do the bare minimum to not get kicked out from the community but still not contribute to the common goal. Too many free loaders with such a mentality and the inability to weed them out is a recipe for failure.

> The problem with letting
> people work whenever is because sometimes you
> need them to be there during a specific time.
> You don't work in a vacuum, you work with others.
> People people depend on you to be there on a
> specific time so that they can email you and have
> a response in a reasonable amount of time. Also,
> managers are starting to experiment with letting
> workers work from home. Linda, just learn some
> patients. Good ideas will sooner or later become
> the status quo replacing the current status quo.
> You aren't the only one with the "innovative"
> idea of working whenever you want.
>
I know all this. I agree that it couldn't possibly work in some settings.

> Shes (and
> you too) ignoring the reasons why federalism is
> a good thing and believe it or not, laws are there
> to protect you and your rights, not take them
> away.
> I agree with some accountability to the feds. Criminals skipping town (like you mentioned in another conversation) comes to mind.

>
> |> In small communities with minimal leadership,
> it takes people who
> |> pay close attention to what needs to be
> done. Self management. I think
> |> the real reason we don't see more of it
> is because 99% of the population
> |> prefers the system we have.
>
> That and also the fact that theres too many free
> loaders that DO want this system. The problem
> is that without accountability (theres that word
> again), you have no way to track contributions.
> So one day I feel like programming a computer,
> the next I feel like playing music. The problem
> is, there are days I don't feel like doing crap.

You could still have your days of doing nothing. Same as normal. "Days off"

> Theres also the issue of two people wanting to
> do the same thing but not the other but theres
> no reward mechanism for rewarding doing things
> no one else wants to. Theres a lot of people
> who will do the bare minimum to not get kicked
> out from the community but still not contribute
> to the common goal. Too many free loaders with
> such a mentality and the inability to weed them
> out is a recipe for failure.
>
>
In a tiny community where everyone knows each other, there isn't much of a chance to get away with freeloading. Eventually, people are going to figure out that you are a bum, and make you pull your weight, or get out.
That's why I said it takes a certian kind of people to pull it off. If no one felt like doing the crappy work, in a small community, they would work it out, for the benefit of everyone. That's how most little communes work. If you aren't willing to do the tough stuff for the sake of the group, you have no business being there. It sounds idealistic, but the whole basis of a lot of these communities is to make it ideal. One thing I have noticed about them is that there's a strong work ethic, so if a person really isn't feeling well, everyone knows it and treats them like it is real. They don't suspect others of faking. There's one I read about where they all pitc in to bring the sick person things.
In most cities, typical cultures, if you are sick and in pain, that's just too bad. Come to work anyway, we are short staffed.

I know all this. I agree that it couldn't possibly work in some settings.

I guess you could argue that an organization or structure small enough could make it work. The problem is that it would have to be VERY small. The only examples of "anarchy" / "communism" that have successfully worked in situations that I've witnessed where either people's families (we don't make charts whose turn its to wash dishes or keep track of who did it more) or my college roommates, where we share some basic stuff. Any organization with more than 10 to 15 people would have a tough time pulling it off.


You could still have your days of doing nothing. Same as normal. "Days off"

Theoretically that could work. The biggest problem with letting people do whatever is that you might have to readjust your pay scheme, to either hourly or daily, or some other accurate measure of work done, as opposed to yearly salaries that we're accustomed to. A lot of people would have a problem with that since 1) hourly pay is usually associated with menial work, meanwhile 2) working solely on commission tends to make people nervous and oftentimes dishonest (think stereotypical real-estate agents, car salesman). I mean, yeah there are exceptions, such as lawyers who derive a lot of their pay by the hour and doctors, which I don't know how they get paid, but I am assuming its by number of people processed but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Ok, once you get past that hurdle....

You now have the issue of paying people on performance, which mangers as a rule of thumb are reluctant to do so. You can pay people by task completed and bid it out somehow to see who takes it that way employees can't complain that other employees are taking all the good hours or being lazy and not taking any, but that creates problems of people half-assing their assignments.

Or you can take the other route and just continue paying people by salary. The problem is calculating how much everyone's work is worth. You can estimate that accounting work is say $40 k a year, programming SQL statements is about $35 k, and say lawyer work is around $60 k. Ok, so say that you expect Bob to work 50% of his time as an accountant, 10% of his time as a lawyer, 30% programming SQL statements and another 10% just not doing anything.

So you go, ok, thats $40k * .5 + $60 k * .1 + $35 k * .3 which would equal to whatever. That would be the simple way to do it but then you would have to cross your fingers that thats how it will play out and also that the quality of Bob's work in doing these 3 tasks would be up to pay with other employees.



In a tiny community where everyone knows each other, there isn't much of a chance to get away with freeloading. Eventually, people are going to figure out that you are a bum, and make you pull your weight, or get out.

It would have to be a VERY small community for that to work, and then theres also the issue of disgruntled people who got booted out coming back and trying to sue the community arguing that they got wrongfully booted. Like I said, there would be a lot of what-ifs to work with.



In most cities, typical cultures, if you are sick and in pain, that's just too bad. Come to work anyway, we are short staffed.

Thtats kinda a stretch. If you take the day off from work, you'll still be in pain no matter if you're at work or not. So you might as well come to work. A smart manager would know that if the costs of having this person be at work outweigh the benefits then its better for them to just stay home anyway. It really depends on the type of illness you're dealing with, among other factors.

I don't really romantacise people sticking to their own kind either, though I enjoy the five minute bike travels to other cultures. I'm sure it would be different if they weren't trying to sell sitar CD's or antique minorahs to anyone who might appreciate them. Really what I'm after is being able to have your culture. ie musicians or environmental bicyclists be able to efficiently set up the community for what they prefer to do. I'd rather see something other than a Starbucks clone wherever I go though too.

SF evolved with specific support communities from the start, but not LA, except maybe our China Town. I don't think it was planning as much as class economics and personal preference. Really, it's not unlike the old (and efficient in many regards) system in which bakers had one street, and shoemakers had another.

While I wait for your exercise results, I see you are cleary part of the society a free-spirit doesn't fit with, since it seems you can't even see past the limitations of the system you take for granted towardsan alternative. From the get-go you're passing unfounded judgements that would make such a person feel unwelcome. By 'free-spirit' I man someone who has a knack for really coming through with ingenious productive results under fresh helpful spontaneous circumstances, but typically falters when planned obligatory expections are involved. Most successful artists have this nature. They thrive under the adrenaline of instant creativity and are glad o be helpful, but shutdown when they feel oppressed by circumstances. Drugs and burn-out hav nothing to do with it, though often drugs and burnout are what eventually happens to such sorts since our society has become too structured to incorporate such sorts except at Venice street fair venues, and two months of 9-5 non-spontaneity has such folk feeling like the living-dead and questioning living at all under such circumstances. I don't think you got my point about interpersonal employment. I refer to persons to whom a genuine 'Thank you' is more important than filling a job like a robot for a paycheck alone. Clearly the average person requires a paycheck, but not everyone makes that their first criteria. For people doing volunteer work, it's not a criteria at all. A company which treats production and pay above interpersonal communication is not going to work for a lot of people, though obviously the former is critical to business survival. "Ok, so now we're dealing with someone so severally socially retarded that they don't understand the concept of hitchhiking or the Greyhound bus." - I have no idea what you mean there or how it relates to anything I specified.

Yes, the person I described would work in a commune. America is not set up for communes. Our entire structure is based on who owns what, who owns where, and what one gets paid for doing something. Laws actually do exist to discourage such people from existing. Besides vagrancy laws, te city of LA has a 30% business tax on professions like tattooing, tarot, and street performance. About the only way to escape it and live in a communal setting would be to live within an actual commune, and the people with the mindset for living productively within a commune are not generally the same ones with the capacity to purchase territory and battle business laws to create such a commune.

There is a motive for this exercise. You say that there is no demand for such a culture. I think otherwise. Rather there.is no demand for such a culture from the people with lucrative entrepreneurial leadeship skills. There are about a million homeless people in the US. God knows how many are on welfare. I have talked with many of them and find that frequently they fit that test description I gave. They are willing to work and help, and indeed create communal support networks amongst themselves, but can't work under 9-5 M-F circumsances. Even a century ago they could have at least made their way doing spontaneous odd jobs, but today there is no business mechanism for that, so we either call them disabled and put them on welfare and or leave them homeless. One of my concerns in all this communal theory is finding a better answer than welfare or homelessness for people who don't fit in to a regimented life-style. They wouldn't be considered disabled centuries ago, but in terms of the narrow systematic business approach of modern america, the term is appropriate.

I hear in some small towns, the police do indeed make certain criminal people feel unwelcome from staying in town. The town systematically banishing people would be better than officeres taking that into their own hands.

I wasn't referring to degenerates, but rather the social responsibility of caring for the blind and such.

Ratification - good idea. We differ from the constitutional times in that new states would be etched out of existing states, not neutral territory. I would also heavily increase usage of the 10th ammendment.

Your idea of rewarding performers and booting the unproductive works for you because you are probably productive under such terms, and those are the terms of the dominant paradigm now. Suppose though (I'm just inventing judgemments here for argument, nothing personal) that we were in a society which solely rewarded effort with communal concern (don't ask me how they discern that, lets presume they have some magic tactic) and that you were a person with a surly attitude, quite productiive if you wish to be, but only out for your personal survival, not giving a hoot about others welfare. You would then be the one on the street while others enjoyed swimming pools. It's not an improbable system. Cultures are more like this ideology the more tribal and communal they are. One could even argue that such a system would naturally manifest physical welfare as a by-product, and that the goal of community emtional-spiritual welfare is higher on the Maslow hierarchy, thus a more reasonable primary societal aim, once it's ascertained that physical societal needs can already be met. Anyhow, I venture to say that you would not be happy in such a predicament, one arguably of higher merit, thus I urge you to reconsider your capitalist-producer non-welfare ideology.

Generally I am against lawsuits, it wouldn't have occurred to me, but I see ahead some valid points ahead you have. My ideal way of handling it would be a communal insurance which covers all damages to individuals, whethar through crimes or acts of nature, and crime would be a totally seperate non-interpersonal matter. People suing cities is the absurdes thing I ever heard of, since it all comes from our tax dollars. Even corporate and medical lawsuits can end up costing the larger community. Of course I'm coming from the romantic notion that everyone should be coming from a concerned effort with helping society in the first place and not cutting corners on safety for profit, but only because they feel they would serve society better by making their product more affordable. If their intent is good will without reckless negligence, I see no reason why they should ever be sued. When lawsuits do occur, I feel they should just cover damages, then move on to class action suits. Those can be absurd too. If they were truly meant to be societal answers, an equitable punishment would be to reduce future prices. If you pay past consumers, you must raise prices, so really corporations too should be exempt from suits, except for direct punsihment to individuals within them.

My insurance system would work. Hopefully that face-punching fellow will be punised by his new local laws, and if not, well at least he won't be back to cause more trouble. Having to move to another state everytime you got in a fight would get old quick. Some city-states might allow lawsuits of individuals by outsides, others might have compensation treaties. Though more so than now, I don't think the issue would ever be significant. You don't generally see people moving to Canada because someone is suing them over a faulty car repair. True though that the smaller communities became, the more communities would become like individuals amongst individuals within a country.

If there were not an internet, and one went from stock theft to Amish, I'd just consider it like a rebirth. Not anyhing to gain from the theft if you resign yourself to living as an Amish. The internet is something else entirely though. As I see it, if you do a transaction via internet, say from a secret island to the US, you are in fact operating within the US, and should be charged with a US crime. Any country offering internet service commerce would probably honor extradition or at least have similar prosecution. I think the internet would instantly evolve though with systems like Paypal to insure people are who and where they say they are, and will honor transactions. Crips or Bloods hanging out amongst the Amish would have to live as Amish. If they continued indefinitely to live in such a manner, even if they had comitted murder in the past, I have no problem with that. I don't believe in punishing changed persons any more than I'd believe in punishing people for crimes from prior lifetimes. If you'd do it again under similar circumstances, and aren't a changed person, that's a different matter. It's one thing to become an Amish, and another to just hide out briefly appearing to be Amish.

I believe karma catches up with everyone anyhow. If it weren't the law, something else would take it's place. I just got some karmic justice myself this week. I got some bootleg copies of a couple albums on holiday, and came home to find out that my house sitter tossed all my Netflix DVDs as junk mail, for which I'll probably be liable. Criminal justice is just for those too ignorant to observe karma in action, and to reduce it's perpetuation. It's unnecessary from a punitive standpoint.

I doubt the Amish stand for much mooching. They have to run a tighter ship just to survive, and keep an eye on everyone.

"I don't believe in punishing changed persons any more than I'd believe in punishing people for crimes from prior lifetimes."

LindaH had a good understanding of the sort of person I most had in mind, someone most like myself. In most endeavours I am involved in people ask why that's not my primary occupation. Theology professors expect I'll be a theology professor, professional musicians ask where I play, people ask where my other sculptures are showing, suggest I should be a writer, sell my perfumes, run an animation studio, design automotive circuitry, etc.etc. ... essentially they generally presume that whatever little facet of my life I show them has been my one specialty all my life. I couldn't do much of that on demand with multiple part times jobs either though. It all comes at moments of inspiration. I'm sure though that if tested I'd appear as an expert in quite a few things. I've even test scored 98% in subjects I barely knew existed, just because I've been around enough to synthestesiastically reapply related knowledge to new domains and can reverse engineer systems at a glance to deduce the probable implementation details. I have little doubt that I could pick up something entirely new to me like candy making or topography and be perceived by my peers as an expert advancing the field within a month or two. It's kind of like ones 10th computer language being incidental to learn.

Ok, off now to your current post...

Well, I also know what not's in my cross-application system knowledge-base, and coaching an NFL team is not within my generic skill set components. Our clan had very many people getting history degrees. The chief maintained a private historical library with 1000's of books, and we were all required to write persona biographies which the officers of the clan would review for authenticiy. I get some similar material from friends and relatives who also delve heavily into period reading material and historical accounts. All that is besides the point though. The point is that I've lived in large family style communal environments and observed that they worked well. Probably they were historically accurate (although the modern voluntary nature probably makes them flow smoother), but even that is besides the point of their being observably viable alternatives. Oh, and my original point, that they were happy experiences still stands (though again, the voluntary nature factors in, I'm sure).

I wasn't arguing socialism vs. capitalism there (thus no slant at all), I was merely directly challenging your statement that people were happier because of the gadgets we can now produce.

I don't have stats on people working more. It does seem that multiple jobs is a recent thing which wasn't as prevalent when I was young, and that communities once had much spare time for civic volunteer things like Moose lodges, picnics, decorating the town, hearts games, beach lounging. I'm guessing that the height of leisure was between 1954 and 1967 with one person working a 9-5 30 year career job with overtime laws, with a wife at home.

Yeah, rent is higher than production goods because of scarcity, but it still costs because of capitalism. Theoretically the cost per capita need be no higher than the maintenance, building depreciation, and related civil infrastructure taxes. We aren't just paying for capitalism, but tiers of capitalism including taxation by the banking industry.

By meaningless job I mean law (esp lawsuits), telemarketing (selling credit cards), the entertainment industry, security (people watching over parked cars while others can't pay bills), travel agents - essentially anything not directly related to survival food, shelter, and clothing. Those things could probably be automated with 5% of the existing workforce if we just needed something which worked rather than was fashionable. If I'm right, that means that 95% of our work hours could be spent in leisure time instead of creating new competitive niches to buy fashionable gadgets and support corporate owners to become billionaires.

If society had different priorities, we would have made digital backs for existing 35mm cameras instead of forcing photographers to completely retool. Computer audio would work with ones 1930 turntable and amplifier, rather than having to keep computer, OS, software, media, and hardware peripherals all within three years of each other. We had to have planned obsolesence and fabricated scarcity to keep capitalism going. I have seen many companies sit on better ideas because it's more profitable to be inefficient than be their own competion. Very few industrial policy makers are operating foremost on behalf of the long term big-picture benefits to the general welfare of society (though sometimes that can be an incidental by-product of their goals). I realize there are virtues to our competitve scurrying, but I'm sure a system designed to promote the general welfare would be more effective at doing so than one not, just as businesses built on plans aimed at profitting will more likely profit than ones for whom profit was an incidental objective.

I see myself as stuck with the job of promoting and keeping alive the notion of promoting the general welfare, even if I've arrived at no fantastic system for doing so myself, simply because no one else seems to be stepping up to the plate. If no one does so, it's likely that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer to whatever extent people will bear short of revolting. It's probably been that way throughout history.

You're missing my point, tipping more for costlier dinners. I meant that tipping based on client income would equalize tips between waitresses at roadside diners and Monte Carlo dinner shows who are putting in equal effort.
..and actually you're wrong about the tipping more. More than one study has been done showing that tipping is actually inversely proportional to income. One could thus conjecture that the poorer people are more sympathetic to the plight of their economic peers, or that the wealthier are wealthier because they are in general less generous with their money.

I don't see how my communal corporate system would affect customers one way or another. If anything, if the corporate culture screened more carefully for dedication and collaboration skills, it should result in better or cheaper products. Like any other company, the employee owners would likely vote on whatever retail pricing led to ultimate profits.

People don't hire part-time because it costs more. In fact, at least in the 90's, the cheapest model of all, after figuring in benefits, was to put everyone on overtime when possible. There's also training as a portion of employment time, constant predicatble availability, the time it takes per day to get rolling, and the overhead of general company communicaion. The less time you work per shift, the less the proportion of that day is spent on actual production. For my system to work, work areas would have to be designed to facilitate multiple tasks without communication or commuting lags. Ideally you just walk down the hall to pick up an alternative task, and anyone could page you instnantly if they knew you had some minute expertise on downloading photos or latin spellings. I envision some sort of hive where everyone has some periphery awareness of collaborative dynamics, either by keeping an ear out for situations in which they could help, or with aid of some technology like a streaming bulletin board on peoples monitors or cell phones.

I suspect LindaH refers to the consumer service industry. In fast-food, for instance, they stagger shifts so they can send people home during slow hours while insuring against drastic understaffing. They calculate using a 'sales-per-man-hour' formula. When sales are down, people go off the clock.

You seem to be missing the philosphical ideology sentiment of socialism. While, to complete an objective, more SQL statements may be required than legal contracting writing , but aside from inequitable education investment costs, why should legal work pay more per hour than database work?

That 16th C. scottish clan I was in had 400 members, and yet the chief would personally lecture you if someone had found that you had stolen a book from your school library. No one, not even the officers (except during pike manouvers or stage management) has any directly assigned authority, and yet unlike a company with direct supervision, you have to be on your best behavior at every instant with every person, or it will come to an officers attention (substitute matron or elder for extended family family or tribal environments). Believe me, the system is way more effective at preventing slackers than the corporate hierarchy model. Instead of one supervisor, all 400 members you may interact with are directly or indirectly policing your behavior on behalf of the common good. If companies ran that way, people wouldn't be stealng office supplies or taking extra breaks unless everyone agreed that everyone should be doing that for the common good. The nice thing about such a system is that someone could pull out a violin and start a country dance on a moments notice if it wasn't interfering with other obligatory duties like kitchen work or setting up camp, and was in the general interest.

I wish more people understood that concept. Using the 'past life' reference helps get the concept across though, I think.

> I'd rather see something other than a Starbucks clone
> wherever I go though too.
>

"Starbucks clones" exist because Starbucks has customers. People who don't like Starbucks don't have to buy it so if enough people in an area don't like it, they won't open up new franchises. PS: There aren't any Starbuckes nearby where I live, or at least not that many, and the few that exist aren't prominently on street corners but tend to hide on the sides. In fact the only areas of the country that Starbucks is popular is in large cities like NY and LA. For the love of God, stop projecting and assuming that everywhere is like LA and San Fransisco. The country is a lot more diverse that you give it credit but I rather doubt that you've been outside of LA, CA that much.


> SF evolved with specific support communities from the start, but not
> LA, except maybe our China Town. I don't think it was planning as
> much as class economics and personal preference. Really, it's not
> unlike the old (and efficient in many regards) system in which bakers
> had one street, and shoemakers had another.

. Again, I thought I've already said that I have nothing against people of a certain mind set living together in the same area, eg: bikers living in a biker town, punks living in a punk town, lawyers doctors and business executives living in um, where ever they would normally live, probably upper scale suburbs. I only request that they do so within our minimalistic state and federal laws (yes, our laws are rather minimalistic, contrary to what you may believe, remember: believing something doesn't make it true).



> While I wait for your exercise results, I see you are cleary part
> of the society a free-spirit doesn't fit with, since it seems you
> can't even see past the limitations of the system you take for granted
> towardsan alternative.

??? wtf man ????

Is that projective assumptions coming out of your mouth. Yes, I consider myself rather creative and have witnessed a lot of creativity among some of my friends. Its possible to be creative while holding down a 9 to 5 job. Its called daydreaming.

Also, yes, I am capable of thinking "outside the box". As well as inventing my own fantasy worlds where whole societies exist. Again, its called daydreaming, or at least watching movies letting someone else do the dreaming for you if you can't do it. You're familiar with the concept of escapism I am sure. We all do it, not just your so called "free spirits". Its just that most of us know how to do it without losing our jobs.


>By 'free-spirit' I man
> someone who has a knack for really coming through with ingenious productive
> results under fresh helpful spontaneous circumstances, but typically
> falters when planned obligatory expections are involved.

wtf, was that even English?




> I don't think
> you got my point about interpersonal employment. I refer to persons
> to whom a genuine 'Thank you' is more important than filling a job
> like a robot for a paycheck alone. Clearly the average person requires
> a paycheck, but not everyone makes that their first criteria. For
> people doing volunteer work, it's not a criteria at all. A company
> which treats production and pay above interpersonal communication
> is not going to work for a lot of people, though obviously the former
> is critical to business survival.

Um, its that EXACTLY how the free market works. People voluntarily forgo the "genuine thank you" because they PREFER the paycheck. Jobs where you aren't a "robot" only which pay less exist as well. And there are people who take them as well. Free market doesn't mean work to make money and be a consumer. It means you have that option, but if you spend less money on toys you can take the more fullfilling job.



"Ok, so now we're dealing with someone
> so severally socially retarded that they don't understand the concept
> of hitchhiking or the Greyhound bus." - I have no idea what you mean
> there or how it relates to anything I specified.

What I meant was, the system you describe already exists, to some extent. The town doesn't have to "kick you out", you just have to be smart enough to know how to leave on your own.



> Yes, the person I described would work in a commune. America is not
> set up for communes. Our entire structure is based on who owns what,
> who owns where, and what one gets paid for doing something. Laws actually
> do exist to discourage such people from existing.

Thats probably the US and other governments strive for fairness in their legal system., as well as conflict resolution. Communes don't always produce fairness and create disenchanted individuals who either got kicked out of one or came out from one that broke up. While you're at it, why not argue that the right to get a divorce is not set up for marriages. Yet people still get married. Divorce laws are there to deal with what happens JUST IN CASE a marriage fails, not to prevent one from happening. Likewise, US laws that are based on who owns what and where are there to protect individuals JUST IN CASE a commune fails, not to deter individuals from forming one in the first place. Thats just a side effect, and a positive at that, since it forces people to think twice about what they're getting themselves into.

PS: I have nothing against communes and think people should be free to join them. HOWEVER, my moral ideals tell me that there ought to be a mechanism to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority in the event the commune breaks up.




>Besides vagrancy
> laws, te city of LA has a 30% business tax on professions like tattooing,
> tarot, and street performance.

Which I think are a GOOD thing. Tattoos produce negative externalities due to injuries. Street performances can also be nuciences since they annoy some people as well as impede traffic, and since they're using up public property for personal profit, they should compensate the state. Oh yeah, its also there to make the tax system fairer. A "non-street performer" basically faces taxes on two fronts, sales and income taxes. A sales tax is typically 9% and income taxes are around 20% (and thats on the lower end) so 30% is quite fitting. Yes, these taxes cause a deadweight loss, but surprise surprise, taxes in general do. You call it vagracy laws, I call it making sure people pay their fair share.

Oh yeah one more thing. Tarot card reading is a SCAM, whose "practionaries" are largely by charlotens and douchebags. Where's the FTC when you fudging need them. Some people even argue they should be locked up in prison-- but I am not one of them. So no, I have no problem with the government taking a nice chunk of their change. [don't get me started on how I feel about tax-exempt status for churches]. They're either creating a deadweight loss by discouraging people to pay money for basically nothing, or they're taking money away from scamers--- either way a good thing. I really don't care for intelligent you say you are or how high you scored on some test, but the fact that you got taken in by Tarot cards and offer the service means only one of two things 1) that you are dumb enough to believe that crap, 2) that you are a cynical douchebag milking people's ignorance.

I am going with 1.



About the only way to escape it and
> live in a communal setting would be to live within an actual commune,
> and the people with the mindset for living productively within a commune
> are not generally the same ones with the capacity to purchase territory
> and battle business laws to create such a commune.
>

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. A capitalist is someone who understands Marx." -- I forgot who wrote that.

Now substitute communist for comunalist and whatever prejative you have for me for a capitalist. Basically I am trying to demonstrate to you that you don't even understand your own point of view-- I mean its implications.



> There are about a million homeless people in the US. God knows
> how many are on welfare. I have talked with many of them and find
> that frequently they fit that test description I gave. They are willing
> to work and help, and indeed create communal support networks amongst
> themselves, but can't work under 9-5 M-F circumsances.

*cough* ullsh t *cough*

Off course they would tell you and others that. What I find amazing is that you take their word at face value.



> I hear in some small towns, the police do indeed make certain criminal
> people feel unwelcome from staying in town. The town systematically
> banishing people would be better than officeres taking that into their
> own hands.
>

Yes, but at least the said undesirable would have some recourse in state and federal protecting their individual rights; for instance the ability to sue the town if they become victims to police brutality. Your system doesn't have such layer of protection.



> I wasn't referring to degenerates, but rather the social responsibility
> of caring for the blind and such.
>

Ok, I see you haven't bothered to actually read my post and understand it. Ok, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENTS, suppose that:

I am a neo-NAZI. I consider people who are blind, deaf, cripple, and have mental illness as degenerates. I believe that society should exterminate them. HOWEVER, just to make Queen Kristal happy, I am willing to compromise in simply deporting them. So I don't care about your "social responsibility" rhetoric. Wheres my 10th Amendment rights. Bloody Murder, how dare your oppressive federal laws of social responsibility be shoved down my troath. I want my local government rights gosh darnit. Oh yeah, I also believe that rape should be legal, to 1) keep women in their places, and 2) to keep people of lower castes in their places. Therefore I welcome convicted rapists from neighboring towns. To offset the sex ratio, as well as the disproportionate female exodus, I will also selectively abort male fetuses and I will keep some female schizophrenics and retards instead of deporting them. I will smack women in the head so that they will become retarded therefore too dumb to leave my community so to make it easier to gang rape them. This is MY community and YOU have no right telling me how to live, since we are democratically ran using bottom up rule using your system where local laws superceede federal laws. Kristal: your rebuttal:

<end of hypothetical>




> Suppose though (I'm|> just inventing judgemments here for argument, nothing personal) that
> we were in a society which solely rewarded effort with communal concern
> (don't ask me how they discern that, lets presume they have some magic
> tactic) and that you were a person with a surly attitude, quite productiive
> if you wish to be, but only out for your personal survival, not giving
> a hoot about others welfare. You would then be the one on the street
> while others enjoyed swimming pools.

///////// (Is that more prejuctive reasoning I smell reeking from your mouth?)

Then I will find a way to "fake it" and still be productive for the community while internally being pissed off and still having access to the swimming pool. And then I would sabotage community efforts when no one is looking while pretending it was "an accident" if getting caught. In other words screwing up on purpose. But since you're saying that can't be possible, I assume that your "magic tactic" is a brain scan looking for impure thoughts, then that would just be too creepy for me. If that were the case, people have no control over their own thoughts anyway, so we're talking a grave injustice here. Unless you want people to suppress their deepest thoughts and lie to themselves that they care about the community. Either way your utopia sounds too much like a cult to me. Exactly why I am glad for state and federal laws stepping in when disenchanted people leave their cults and want some legal recourse for their experience.

PS: Where do you get the idea that I am 100% selfish. I see you are highly prejudiced and believe that anyone who disagrees with socialism is somehow purely selfish because they work for their own profit. And you also seem to lack any basic common sense or understanding of how human nature works. In the words of Frostband, you need to get out more. For starters, people are neither perfectly selfless nor are they perfectly selfish. You seem to believe that only types of people that exist when in reality people who are either totally selfless or totally selfish are EXTREMELY rare. Nor is there such a thing as a "person who lives by the clock" or a "free spirit" since you can probably find elements of both in most people. Stop thinking that 9-5 jobs are oppressive and people who work them lack imagination. You seem to be exactly the type of person who would start your own cult, then inadvertently cause irreparable damage to dissidents while genuinely thinking you did nothing wrong.






It's not an improbable system.
> Cultures are more like this ideology the more tribal and communal
> they are. One could even argue that such a system would naturally
> manifest physical welfare as a by-product, and that the goal of community
> emtional-spiritual welfare is higher on the Maslow hierarchy, thus
> a more reasonable primary societal aim, once it's ascertained that
> physical societal needs can already be met. Anyhow, I venture to say
> that you would not be happy in such a predicament, one arguably of
> higher merit, thus I urge you to reconsider your capitalist-producer
> non-welfare ideology.
>

You're familiar with the concept of a socio-path I am sure. Someone who would go through the motions of caring about the community and be charismatic enough to pull it off. I am sure tribal communities were crawling with them. These would be a sociopaths paradise, granted they had the social skills to pull it off.




> Generally I am against lawsuits, it wouldn't have occurred to me,
> but I see ahead some valid points ahead you have. My ideal way of
> handling it would be a communal insurance which covers all damages
> to individuals, whethar through crimes or acts of nature, and crime
> would be a totally seperate non-interpersonal matter. People suing
> cities is the absurdes thing I ever heard of, since it all comes from
> our tax dollars. Even corporate and medical lawsuits can end up costing
> the larger community.

Thats sort of my point. I am looking at it from a MORAL perspective, not an economics one. It would be immoral to not have some recourse protecting individuals from tyranny of the majority. Lawsuits are one such redemy. If I become victim of police brutality or get falsely banished from some town, I should have the right to be compensated in which case you still need state and federal laws for that to be possible. Off course in theory people can all have good intentions wishing to not harm others but they can still inadvertently harm others and not realize you're even doing it. I give you one example, that of psychologists, who often give crappy advice causing more harm than good to the person they counciled but they never think they did anything wrong. (I mean no offense to psychologists/councilors, but R47, if you're reading this kiss my ass buddy). Sure, they may have good intentions, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't face the prospect of punitive damages; especially if they dilibrarly hide data or collude with each other to protect each other's asses

As for higher prices / taxes, thats sort of the point. If I step on a pot hole and hurt my foot and the city knew about it, the taxpayers DESERVE to pay the punitive damage for electing the morons who didn't fix it. As for corporations, yes lawsuits cause higher prices but thats not necessarily a bad thing. Think of it as punishing the consumers for supporting some externalities. For instance, if the raw materials to build a house cost $1,000, labor costs $5,000, management $4,000 and land $10,000 then a house should cost $20 k. (corporate profits is included in management). But if along the way innocent people get hurt in the making of houses, lawsuits are a redemy to the injured and the consumers SHOULD pay the cost since what they're demanding causes externalities. You of all people constantly dog at Walmart because they offer products at lower prices while not having a soul and they disrespect "workers rights" and whatnot. Well, compensating the people that Walmart supposedly hurts would raise prices which is the whole point, making companies that don't more competitive.



> When lawsuits do occur, I feel they should just cover damages, then
> move on to class action suits. Those can be absurd too. If they were
> truly meant to be societal answers, an equitable punishment would
> be to reduce future prices. If you pay past consumers, you must raise
> prices, so really corporations too should be exempt from suits, except
> for direct punsihment to individuals within them.
>

1) Ok, so how do you compensate the fact that catching people is hard. If somebody robs me and has only a 1 in x chance of getting caught, I feel like its fair to compensate me up to the value they stole from me times x to compensate me for the risk that they might not have been caught. Well, thats probably going too far, but the closest we have to that is triple damages. Even in the biblical times the Hebrews had laws stating you pay back 1.20 the value of what you stole.

2) We already have such a thing as piercing the corporate veil. That should take care of the second part of your rant.




> My insurance system would work. Hopefully that face-punching fellow
> will be punised by his new local laws, and if not, well at least he
> won't be back to cause more trouble. Having to move to another state
> everytime you got in a fight would get old quick. Some city-states
> might allow lawsuits of individuals by outsides, others might have
> compensation treaties. Though more so than now, I don't think the
> issue would ever be significant. You don't generally see people moving
> to Canada because someone is suing them over a faulty car repair.
> True though that the smaller communities became, the more communities
> would become like individuals amongst individuals within a country.
>

You're overlooking that sometimes communities will end up hating each other and spitefully not punishing offenders from other communites. You're also overlooking that we now have cars and are a mobile society. So I can be a resident of say Mississippi but go on a road-trip to say Alabama and either punch their people in the face or commit a DUI over there. There will also be a fight over finances. Suppose the penalty for speeding in one town is $50 fine and in my community its also a $50 fine. If I face the same punishment in my community instead of the other one, that means that my community gets the $50 to their treasury. You can see how that can be problematic. Same with community service. If I commit a crime in community A that requires 20 community hours but live in community B that requires the same, community B will get the benefit of my community hours instead of A even though my crime was against community A.



> Crips or Bloods hanging out amongst the Amish would have to live as
> Amish. If they continued indefinitely to live in such a manner, even
> if they had comitted murder in the past, I have no problem with that.
> I don't believe in punishing changed persons any more than I'd believe
> in punishing people for crimes from prior lifetimes. If you'd do it
> again under similar circumstances, and aren't a changed person, that's
> a different matter. It's one thing to become an Amish, and another
> to just hide out briefly appearing to be Amish.
>

Not really. 1) We're assuming that violent gangs can't offer the Amish protection in exchange for getting to stay there for free, 2) We're assuming that the Crips and Bloods or whatever gang couldn't just cynically look at the work as just cost of doing business, especially since street level thugs tend be the ones doing all the dirty work anyway. I can see this scenario, gang members living near the Amish border, so they would be within walking distance to other communities. They work the land about 5 hours a day working in shifts in exchange for being allowed to stay on the land. Then on alternative days they venture out and do the crimes and come back in. Amish communities would also be the perfect place to hide your drugs and other assets and on the plus growing your own crops also means growing weed if you get the chance. In other words, live my Amish rules when on their territory, but as soon as you leave revert to your criminal activities.


> I believe karma catches up with everyone anyhow. If it weren't the
> law, something else would take it's place.

Then you're an idiot. Then again you also believe in Tarot cards so its fitting.



> I doubt the Amish stand for much mooching. They have to run a tighter
> ship just to survive, and keep an eye on everyone.

I am not talking about mooching. I am talking about doing your fair share of work in exchange for establishing your base (eg a place to sleep, hide your drugs, etc).

">By 'free-spirit' I mean someone who has a knack for really coming through with ingenious productive results under fresh helpful spontaneous circumstances, but typically falters when planned obligatory expections are involved.
wtf, was that even English?"

I thought it was rather exacting English. Where's your problem, with the structure or vocabulary? Can you not handle three adjectives in a row?

By 'smart enough to leave on their own', I meant for instance realizing that they would fare better in New Zealand than the US they had always lived in, not difficulty with reserving a flight. I imagine the world is already quite full of people who can make and afford flight reservations, but haven't considered that some other nation would fit their lifestyle better. There are plenty of people enduring things like domestic violence or poverty because it's the only thing they are comfortably familiar with. I hope you were just messing with my head, interpreting that instead as having transportation management difficulties.

Your logic is rather incomplete, as you have left out option number three, that Tarot cards can be an effective tool for discerning life path options and probable outcomes. Heck, if you were a bit more open minded, you might have even seen that could be true, that they could be an effective counselling tool, whethar or not they had any actual spiritual communication capacity.

I'm guessing you haven't spent time with the homeless much. They tend to fall in to two camps, bitter loners and freespirits. The freespirit type, if they find a 6-pack of beer, will immediately distribute it amongst their peers. They will pitch in and help with activities that have no personal physical reward. There lives aren't all that easy either; One generally has to walk all day to get to the the next free soup or clothng. When I was in that situation I carried around programming résumés. Just before I went homeless I was five interviews towards a $100k+ job programming for the SF Gate and had just left an $80k medical insurance programming job, but afterwards I had no means of getting phone calls or showering, and if I had money to photocopy my résumés, it would have been spent on a hamburger.

The make up of homeless in Santa Monica, LA,CA,USA is quite interesting. In order it seems to consist of war vets, mentally unstable, alcoholics, lawyers, and drug addicted. I kid you not, there are a ton of homeless lawyers here. They are the ones I hung out with most. My best friend though was a dissertation short of her Ph.D in English Lit.

When do you ever see people suing the police for bullying them? The recourse may officially exist, but I think the police intuitively know what they can get away with. I put up with some injustices myself when I was too young and inconfident to stand up for my rights.

As to your hypothetical neo-Nazi town, my answer has been trade sanctions. It doesn't sound to me like a community that would be large enough to have it's own milk cows and microchip factories.

You got lost in the details of my community with the magic tactic of rewarding kind attitude over production. It was a more philosophical question. My point was that having a kind attitude is as randomly distributed as having proficiient marketable skills, and who is to say absolutely that one value system is higher that the other. To any degree that people have control over either personal criteria, one system rewards higher community production, the other higher community kindness. Assuming there would be enough production to go around anyhow if people were operating from kindness, I think the latter would form a better community. Essentially I'm shooting a hole through the prominint righteousness of your plan to reward top producers, rather than the most kind with swimming pools.

I gave you the benefit of doubt, by saying I was inventing [hypothetical] judgements. Even in our capitalist system, the purely selfish still manage often to end up homeless or in jail, or at least lacking true friends.

Don't criticise me for arguing in terms of polarized extremes. You do it as often yourself.

The notion of socio-path had indeed crossed my mind. In fact, I'm sorry to say, it had occurred to me that you border on the temperament yourself. I say this not because of any values you nurture or dismiss, many of them are grand and worthy, but because your arguments are almost exclusively framed within the realm of physical logistics, and when passions are involved in your arguments, even they are presented in a Machiavellian framework. That 'faking' your demeanor would even occur to you as an answer puts you in some familiarity with the line of thinking.

Akin to my post elsewhere on living within a clan, a tribal community is the least likely place for a socio-path to survive. In our society they have comparatively more control of strategic social interactions than in tribal structures. Here, except when confronted with authority, you can bug out when not up on your game. It has been my life karma to end up living with more than my fair share of borderlines and socio-paths. It just dawns on me that I could call some of them borderline-sociopaths, as their sociopath mindset was found to be more of an intermittent daily survival mode interspersed with moments of poetic tenderess towards life.

I'll buy your argument on corporate lawsuits. It changes though when they become monopolies which 'everyone' must subscribe to to live on the par with others.

Undoubtedly a huge difference in our arguments draws from our comparative life experiences. As high and social minded as may imagine myself to be, I am limited to my own perspective, and thus strive to create a society in which people like myself would self-sufficiently prosper. I doesn't occur to me to make allowances for the situations you think would occur, because they wouldn't occur to me. I have no more anger than the Dalai Lama, and have spent the last dozen years restricted to bicycling range (a large bicycling range) (except the family plane/train visits), so it seems fairly preposterous that someone would drive across borders to punch someone. If it occurs to you however, then I suppose it is true to some extent that some bimbos would do such things. I am an optimist though, and feel it's more useful to spend time creating systems which nurture what one wants, rather than prevent what one doesn't want. I leave picking up that sort of slack to people like you. I consider it polluting to one's state of mind to dwell on what could go wrong. If everyone spent their time on positive answers rather than negative prevention, the problems would eventually diminish without people having to dwell on negative subject matter.

Our ideology colors our concepts of criminal law too. You are looking at crime as an interpersonal matter. I see it as two unrelated events, a person harmed by the one nature-society, and a person harming the one nature-society. I see acts of kindness in the same light. I never pass interpersonal judgements on people who cause me harm, because invariably I can track down the crime against me to some similar crime I incurred against the one society. Thus I look at individuals merely as unwitting agents of the collective consciouness's retribution. I wish everyone had such perception, for then they would see that crime is a problem for them from the moment of it's conception, and no merely a matter of getting caught or not. On the othe hand, I still examine their criminal behavior as something that needs remedied. I just don't take it personally.

I hope for your sake that the flavor of your arguments is exagerated for sake of debate, and not representative of your typical life outlook. My life experience has been that I can relax wherever I go as if strangers were family. The viewpoint of your argumunts suggests that you must be in constant alert stress, never being able to trust those around you, seeing them as competitive isolated entites rather than as a collective, mirroring your own goodwill.

I don't imagine you to be 100% selfish. Clearly your beekeeper suit concern is not privately motivated. Our system forces all of us to balance logistics. I do suspeoct however that you are totally oblivious of any collective spirit and hence are reduced to conceiving all your ideology from a paradigm standpoint of isolation. where society, both as a philosphical abstraction, and as a system implementation, comes down solely to a metric of physical interpersonal logistics with no sense of belonging to something higher and wiser.

It is unlikely we will ever come to see eye to eye in this debate because we are coming from across a divide. While I have left explicit spirituality out of this discussion, my conceptions are coming from a foundation that we are merely facets of a higher integrated clockwork order, and the closer we physically resembled being facets of a single consciousness, the more we would prosper (although I might conversely argue that it is this higher integrated order which ever makes seeming competion work on a grand scale).

In spite of all the concrete detail examples we give, it comes down to my suggesting that we could all fall into place in efficient collaboration without competition, in spite of our individual diversity, as a collective entity; while you argue that it is our nature and right to be isolated and competitive, and that those with such a perspective will dismantle attempts at building societies based on local collective-consciousness.

I believe there is some truth to both components of this dialectic, and probably will be for eternity (or the span of mankind at least), just as good and evil seem to remain an eternal archetypal dialectic.

From what I've heard of Marx, he understood capitalism quite well, predicted that it would take the form it has taken now with ever increasing pyramidical demands for higher production and consumption. Where he went wrong was in intentionally dismantling that system in the belief that people would be happier instead in collective poverty. He saw the future and preferred what the Amish had going. His political implementors apparently misunderstood him, or more likely also understood him, but knew that the general populace would not so embrace the final outcome, thus cloaked the ideology in part as a mechanism for mutual physical prosperity, which it was never designed to be. I am not Marxist however. While I see some truth in his ideology, I consider it to be far short-sighted and unnecessarily restrictive. I believe 'bountiful' collectives can exist, and also recognize that more than half the population, such as your yourself, do not have the temperament to make them work. Such ideologies only work as integrated system however, and not when interspersed by an equal and opposite ideology, thus the only solution I see is to create a world in which people live under different pure sytems, incorporating an evolutionary dialectic only from their periphery, and not tearing apart it's operative foundation. I don't believe that any one system has been ideal for all persons, nor could be, nor that the lack of any particular system is ideal for all persons either.

If you had an open mind, I could demonstrate to you cause and effect on the plane of collective-consciousness which you would find to be satisfactory proof from the vantage of observational science. I know your type however, and the last thing your sort of ego wants is to discover that it has been an illusory facet of a collective consciousness all along. You would not have the prerequiste open-mind to observe such phenomenon. This is a fortunate safeguard however: The rare people who still maintain such a competitive self-interested ego while still observing the underlying mind-matter interconnectedness between all events are what we call sorcerors. All of the worlds major religions have prominent systematic mechanisms for weeding out such people before they even have a chance to come into being.

I'm sure it's nothing you have to worry about.

So how was your holiday? What sort of goals do you have this year?

> ">By 'free-spirit' I mean someone who has a knack for really coming
> through with ingenious productive results under fresh helpful spontaneous
> circumstances, but typically falters when planned obligatory expections
> are involved.

Sorry. Too vague. Going by that definition, I am a free-spirit too. I have a knack for coming up with creative stuff under ANY circumstance, including spontaneous ones too. But I too can falter when planned obligatory expectations are involved, for instance having to do work or chores that interfere with my daydreaming--- or when I have to wake up which causes my dreams to be interrupted.

Thats just the problem with using "art" language, or "abstract" language if you will. Its not very precise and could mean just about anything.





> By 'smart enough to leave on their own', I meant for instance realizing
> that they would fare better in New Zealand than the US they had always
> lived in, not difficulty with reserving a flight. I imagine the world
> is already quite full of people who can make and afford flight reservations,
> but haven't considered that some other nation would fit their lifestyle
> better. There are plenty of people enduring things like domestic violence
> or poverty because it's the only thing they are comfortably familiar
> with. I hope you were just messing with my head, interpreting that
> instead as having transportation management difficulties.
>

Ok, you've identified the problem. But I still don't hear a solution from you. How do you go about in making sure that people realize that they're living in the "wrong country". You want to promote some large scale education program or do you want to expand some mass scale relocation program, with mass deportations until everyone lives in the country best suitable to their needs. Either way you cut it, it would involve a massive social engineering project, and quite frankly a very creepy idea giving any group of people enough power to make it happen. Face it, at some point you would have to force people at gun-point to relocate to their most optimum countries. I really don't like your idea of relocating people to a more fitting environment because "its for their own good".







> Your logic is rather incomplete, as you have left out option number
> three, that Tarot cards can be an effective tool for discerning life
> path options and probable outcomes.

Yes, you're right. I haven't even considered the possibility of Tarot cards actually being anything other than uttermost bull$hit. And I have good reasons not to. Ok, I know you probably don't share my sense of skepticism and actually believe that other people would lie about something for their own personal gain. But at least read this link. http://csicop.org/si/2003-07/rorschach.html/

Only substitute fortune tellers with Tarrot Card readers. Call me cynical if you will, but I like to think that my bull$hit sensors are much more sensitive than yours. The sad part is that you actually believe that you're providing a legitimate service when you charge people money for your "services". At the very least to your credit you give a large percentage to some charity. Also, I wonder if you are familiar with fellows that go by the names Penn and Teller. If you ever get a chance to watch their show, please do.




> Heck, if you were a bit more open
> minded, you might have even seen that could be true, that they could
> be an effective counselling tool, whethar or not they had any actual
> spiritual communication capacity.
>

I have little enough faith in legitimate psychology councilors as it is. What makes you think I have faith in crap like Tarrot Cards? Also don't feed me that "open minded" garbage. Look, I am open-minded and all, but that doesn't mean I should take every crackpot idea on par with legitimate stuff. For instance, I shouldn't take the belief that the sun rotates around the earth on part with the current understanding that the earth revolves around the sun; where the former is uttermost bs. Face it, not all theories and ideas are equally valid. Some are not valid at all. Yes, I gave Tarrot Cards a fair look without any prejudice, and came to the conclusion that its bs on my own.




> I'm guessing you haven't spent time with the homeless much. They tend
> to fall in to two camps, bitter loners and freespirits. The freespirit
> type, if they find a 6-pack of beer, will immediately distribute it
> amongst their peers. They will pitch in and help with activities that
> have no personal physical reward.

I have encountered the homeless before. They come in the form of people I gave change to, and then five minutes later asked me to give them more because they don't remember me or got really rude when I didn't have any. So yeah, going on personal experience alone, I have good reason to be cynical about them. I've also read the book Sidewalks, about the homeless; and watched the Wire where one of my favorite characters was a homeless man; and know people who are friends with gutter punks. So I think I have a fairly balanced view of the homeless. They're people just like everyone else; in other words some are cynical moochers too lazy to bother to work and others are honestly trying to do the right thing.




> The make up of homeless in Santa Monica, LA,CA,USA is quite interesting.
> In order it seems to consist of war vets, mentally unstable, alcoholics,
> lawyers, and drug addicted. I kid you not, there are a ton of homeless
> lawyers here.

Its not shocking that there are many war vets ending up being homeless. Its also not shocking that many lawyers end up homeless, considering how very specific their skill set is. So what happened, did they lose their licenses over something or some other scandal made people uncombable working with them.



>They are the ones I hung out with most. My best friend
> though was a dissertation short of her Ph.D in English Lit.
>

You mean to tell me that someone with a Ph.D. in liberal arts, English Lit at that, ended up not unemployable! Shocking.




> When do you ever see people suing the police for bullying them? The
> recourse may officially exist, but I think the police intuitively
> know what they can get away with. I put up with some injustices myself
> when I was too young and inconfident to stand up for my rights.
>

Well you're right, very few police officers who abuse their power face any consequences and very few of their victims actually win in court. But the few that do face severe consequences and the winners win large settlements, to compensate for their low chances of winning. Lets put it this way, a police officer caught lying to a judge accused of police brutality or anything else will face a Civil Service committee and they won't be very happy. He'll be writing parking tickets for the rest of their lives if lucky.



> As to your hypothetical neo-Nazi town, my answer has been trade sanctions.
> It doesn't sound to me like a community that would be large enough
> to have it's own milk cows and microchip factories.
>

One small problem. Here, you're going under the assumption that we'd actually follow through with the trade sanctions, which is a craps shoot. Hell, we had trade sanctions on Iraq, but that didn't stop the French did it. You may want to re-read your history on how well trade embargoes worked against the original NAZIS.

Heres a humorous take on the subject: http://www.cracked.com/article_15767_third-reich-f...



> You got lost in the details of my community with the magic tactic
> of rewarding kind attitude over production. It was a more philosophical
> question. My point was that having a kind attitude is as randomly
> distributed as having proficiient marketable skills, and who is to
> say absolutely that one value system is higher that the other.

And who the hell ever said that the current value system doesn't value a kind attitude.


> To
> any degree that people have control over either personal criteria,
> one system rewards higher community production, the other higher community
> kindness. Assuming there would be enough production to go around anyhow
> if people were operating from kindness, I think the latter would form
> a better community. Essentially I'm shooting a hole through the prominint
> righteousness of your plan to reward top producers, rather than the
> most kind with swimming pools.
>

Ok, but how do you plan on measuring said kindness? For instance, I may be kind by killing an animal because I think its in pain and should be put down but someone else might disagree. I also may believe that the free market of the US is the most kind system because it offers choice.

Also, isn't being kind rewarding in itself already? Besides, kicking unkind people out of your swimming pool doesn't seem too kind to me.



> I gave you the benefit of doubt, by saying I was inventing [hypothetical]
> judgements. Even in our capitalist system, the purely selfish still
> manage often to end up homeless or in jail, or at least lacking true
> friends.

Um, I think you've just made my point for me. US capitalism doesn't say that you HAVE TO be greedy out for money. It means that you have that choice. In other words, you have the freedom to make your own bad choices, just like alcohol or cigarettes. Yes, its probably not a good idea to become a stock broker where you earn more money but wind up with less friends so that you can buy expensive toys you don't really need and won't make you happier. But you have that option. Most people would take the less stressful job that pays less money but has more friends. Sure, you have the right to be stingy with money and be unkind, but that doesn't mean you should do it. The freedom to make your own bad choices is what makes our country great.

You don't seem to be someone who understands how demand and supply works obviously. Some people prefer to be unkind and stingy with money and what not, and they would rather be unhappy and have more money. That is THEIR choice. Freedom to make bad choices is how the free market works. They're already being punished without the unnecessarily banishment from your stupid pool.






> Don't criticise me for arguing in terms of polarized extremes. You
> do it as often yourself.
>

Um, ok fair enough. You got me there.



> The notion of socio-path had indeed crossed my mind. In fact, I'm
> sorry to say, it had occurred to me that you border on the temperament
> yourself. I say this not because of any values you nurture or dismiss,
> many of them are grand and worthy, but because your arguments are
> almost exclusively framed within the realm of physical logistics,
> and when passions are involved in your arguments, even they are presented
> in a Machiavellian framework. That 'faking' your demeanor would even
> occur to you as an answer puts you in some familiarity with the line
> of thinking.
>

The best way to catch a criminal is to think like one. Yes, people are more Machiavellian than you imagine. You give human nature way too much credit.



> Akin to my post elsewhere on living within a clan, a tribal community
> is the least likely place for a socio-path to survive. In our society
> they have comparatively more control of strategic social interactions
> than in tribal structures.

Wait, what!? What does the type of community have anything to do with ones ability to fake their demeanor? Just why would it be harder to fool a tribe than urbanites? Aren't urbanites generally more cynical than primitive tribal people therefore more likely to call their bull$hit.






> I'll buy your argument on corporate lawsuits. It changes though when
> they become monopolies which 'everyone' must subscribe to to live
> on the par with others.

When that happens, oftentimes the government steps in and sets price controls either using the average price model or the fixed price model. I would image that then the government would watch their asses more closely where they'd be more likely to pierce the corporate veil. If not, if there aren't any alternatives, the consumers should still live with the higher prices because their lifestyle causes the externality. For example, hypnotically suppose that your local power plant "kills babies" to make its power and that people need power to live their lives. Just because its a necessarily evil to live doesn't mean you should be exempt from not paying for the damages it causes. Otherwise people could be using your argument to support say slavery. Someone will say "But the cotton corporations have a monopoly, so it would be unfair to us consumers to let slaves sue them because it would cost us more." Well, yes, even if cotton was a nessesity and people want it cheap shouldn't mean that it be ok to cut corners such as not paying labor. Also, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the higher prices because consumers certainly didn't mind the benefits. You can't have it both ways, benefit in lower prices of corporations / governments doing evil, but not face consequences when the said corps get sued for punitive damages.



> Our ideology colors our concepts of criminal law too. You are looking
> at crime as an interpersonal matter. I see it as two unrelated events,
> a person harmed by the one nature-society, and a person harming the
> one nature-society. I see acts of kindness in the same light. I never
> pass interpersonal judgements on people who cause me harm, because
> invariably I can track down the crime against me to some similar crime
> I incurred against the one society. Thus I look at individuals merely
> as unwitting agents of the collective consciouness's retribution.



Oh no, not this Karma nonsense again. Lets ignore for the moment that you're a Westerner with a possibly poor understanding of an Eastern religion.

Kristal, you are indeed officially one of the dumbest and one of the smartest people I've ever encountered. You are the dumbest smart person I've encountered. You're highly intelligent and knowledgeable in so many ways, and creative at that, but in other facets very gullible. If its not Tarrot Cards, its Karma nonsense, if its not Karma, its your too high esteem of human nature.



> I hope for your sake that the flavor of your arguments is exagerated for sake of debate, and not representative of your typical life outlook. My life experience has been |> that I can relax wherever I go as if strangers were family. The viewpoint of your argumunts suggests that you must be in constant alert stress, never being able to |> trust those around you, seeing them as competitive isolated entites rather than as a collective, mirroring your own goodwill.

Its probably just because I am arguing on the internet using text. No, my outlook isn't THAT bleak, I just know where to put up my boundaries. You seem to be someone who lacks any personal boundaries that separates yourself from others.



> From what I've heard of Marx, he understood capitalism quite well, predicted that it would take the form it has taken now with ever increasing pyramidical demands for higher production and consumption. Where he went wrong was in intentionally dismantling that system in the belief that people would be happier instead in collective poverty.

Um, you've missed a BIG one. How bout the fact that Marx believed in the LeMarkian version of evolution instead of Darwin's Natural Selection. That drastically shaped his world view and his theories. Go look up who LeMark was and what he actually believed?



>, so it seems fairly preposterous that someone would drive across borders to punch someone.

You totally misunderstood my scenario. Ok, here it is: someone going on a road trip or just being a tourist and getting a tad bit too drunk at a local bar and then punching someone else in the face at some bar-- a stranger, not going out of the way to punch an enemy. But now that you mention it, there are stalkers out there, albeit somewhat rare.





> So how was your holiday? What sort of goals do you have this year?

They were ok. My goals, as in resolutions: To procrastinate less, to be less lazy.

Perhaps I could have said instead "Creatively helpful, but fails under ANY external pressure" (More vague, but more common terminology). You don't strike me as that type.

When small neighboring communities vary tremendously, it should be more apparent that more fitting options may exist for people, than when compared to the status quo, where people presume the world to be similar, and have no knowledge what really occurs at street level in Argentina or the Congo.

Are you telling me you believe in nothing resembling Jungian psychology? At it's least paranormal, but still highly effective counselling mode, Tarot does indeed resemble Rorschach tests. I can often look at photos and and figure out what sort of life perspective and disease tendencies a person will have. Generally people form patterns which affect all aspects of their life, and the tip of the iceburg, for instance their interpretation of a Rorschach test, is enough to expose their patterns. Accurate interepretation requires people with a sensitive subjective gift. Just because a person objectively sees monsters in ink blots, doesn't particularly mean much in itself about their nature. I don't believe it's beyond science though. An AI pattern association profiling program should be able to discern a person's major patterns, just as surely as choice of television shows indicates a persons psychological demograph. People who watch CSI for instance are more likely to be wary and pessimistic. Being wary and pessimistic in turn affects many forms of life perception and behavior.

Of course I believe in Tarot deeper than that. I rely on timely voices of passing strangers to remind me that I came to the grocery for sugar, while I'm standing line, having forgotten it. At the train station I decide I want a Samsonite with rollers instead, and one is waiting 15' from my back alley gate when I get home. Literally my life often relies on dozens of what people would call 'coincidences' every day. 'Co-incidence' - an accurate term for universal mind-matter assistance.

Rather than direct proof of Tarot, it would do you more good to see that anything and everything is connected by some force which connects story-matter though time and space. If you restrain your vision to Newtonian physics you won't see anything paranormal, and wouldn't have any systematic framework upon which to affix details within an understanding. You would have a poor understanding of modern appliances if you did not have some notion of electricity to apply your observations to.

The lawyer I hung out with was abused as a child by her father's satanic porn ring, and dedicted her life to research to tear it part. A couple of them, her and a vietnam vet who lost his house in a divorce seemed to have shifted entirely to pro bono work, A third (also living in the shelter of 80) was more like a cheerful plastic car salesman dork who preferred working on his screenplay. None of them made what you could call successful mainstream decisions.

I live just a mile down the street from Herbie the Love Bug. Seems kinda sad really, that Herbie is locked in an immaculate showroom, not cruising cross-country trails like my wife and I did our nearly identical model.

I don't trust Machiavellian pernsonality types and try not to hang out with them. Of course anyone sensible operates on projecting reward and punishment, but for some it's merely an incidental utility to support kind comfortable living, for others though, it's more like kind comfortable living is something one fits in inbetween a constant dominant driving Machiavellian survival mechanism. To try and put it less poetically, There are those who are strategic, but would never jeopardize their interpersonal emotional character, and those for whom I sense would indeed change their character bahavior, if it suited their Machiavellian goals. Car salesman types. I have a business partner like that. I don't like having to relate to him like a chess game. I expect from him the same sort of dedication to me that he has for our potential potential software clients.

I run in to Machiavellian types at school, and their probably are more than i imagine out there, but there are also probably less out there than you imagine. It's easy to imagine that and find supporting evidence that people think as you do yourself. As an exercise, try considering that the people you meet are not coming from the same perceptual and motivational fromework as yourself. Like atracts like, and so it's probably true most of the time for you, but a lot of people are also probably slipping under your radar of understanding too because your take on human nature is too self-centered. Mine was too until I surrendered some ego when I reached that homeless shelter in my mid 30's, and took to listening to people with an open mind instead of presuming they thought like myself.

In our society a socio-path can get by with 'objective' conversations to a few key people like supevisors. These amount to scenes they can rehearse. I've done much acting. There are two ways to go about it, rehearsing appearances or living in character. If you are to live in a tribal setting, having to be always on, discussing your dreams and other 'subjective' material with any member who will report your nature though the gossip vine, your chances of maintaining a superficial demeanor cover are slim. Someone with selective multi-personality disorder may be able to pull it off (someone who could create a 'genuine' cover), but I doubt a sociopath could last long in such a setting, just as liars are eventually discovered when accumulated facts stop adding up.

'Heartfelt' (which is quite different than 'cheerfully naive') is more likely to unearth the depth of a person than 'cynical'.
I agree though that people versed in BS can spot BS better.
I said 'tribal', not primitive.

I'm quite pleased with Gore's concept of fuel-added taxes on commodities (Kyoto at a consumer level). I had a similar notion of taxing on total environmental costs, but it's a bit too complex for current implemention. The accounting is easy enough, just forwarding stats on raw inventory material to ones in-house production environmental costs. The problem is discerning which things, toxicity, hydrocarbon consumption, non biodegradable waste, byproducts of manhour consumption, habitat endangerment, etc. are relatively costing the earth most in the first place.

You seem to accuse any ideological perception or behavior of mine based on reality as a kaleidoscopic manifestation of a single consciousness as being 'gullible'. While (not usually) an observable phenomenon, such a model from any philosphical, physics, or theological standpoint is ulimately no less scientifically preposterous than epiphenemenalistic models with no explanation for the beginning/source of creation. If you do observe the interconnectedness of physically detached things on a frequent regular basis (as I do), then it would actually be less scientific to not build one's understanding of events on some undefined underlying interconnected force, just as people based their lives on observation of air and gravity before any understandings of them were formalized and accepted. People used ramps and knew they couldn't fly and that planets circled close by even before Newton came along. With his awareness of gravity though, he was able to see the interconnectness of things through this force in a manner unavailable to others with no formal concept of gravity to attach their observation to.

If you were really of an inquisitive scientific nature, you would at least briefly dismiss your purely physical concept of nature, and determine the nature and far reaching repurcussions of an alternative foundation for the events of time and matter, to do at least some black-box testing of alternative models, even if you had little observational data to conclusively prove or disprove such alternatie models. The history of accepted scientific discovery should suggest that it has always been the the most comprehensive yet eloquently simple model which provides the most workable understanding of reality.

You are correct. I have had extended 'Heaven on Earth'/Satori like experiences which went hand in hand with having no personal boundaries at all.

I never heard of LeMark before, but his theory seems to have some merit. Cerebral plasticity and our various electro-chemical feedbck systems would seem to fall under his understanding. I believe heavily in intention, both within the domain of personal biological control, like being able to eradicate a disease or overcome an allergy, and within the larger mind-matter domain of the entire universe. As I've often said, I frequently rely on statisically improbable external events coming my way through the power of intent. Natural selection alone would be a piss-poor adaptive mechanism.

I'm not sure how LeMark relates to Marx though. I can creatively imagine ways, but they may be far from the ones which existed.

My goal was to procrastinate less too, but my life seemed too empty this morning when my self-prescribed work week was to begin, so I went for some SC interaction first.

> Perhaps I could have said instead "Creatively helpful, but fails under
> ANY external pressure" (More vague, but more common terminology).
> You don't strike me as that type.
>

Ok, thats MUCH better. I now know what you were trying to get at all this time. If you'd only said it like that from the getgo, if you want me to be a Monday Morning Quarterback about it.

And you're right, I am not that type.




> When small neighboring communities vary tremendously, it should be
> more apparent that more fitting options may exist for people, than
> when compared to the status quo, where people presume the world to
> be similar, and have no knowledge what really occurs at street level
> in Argentina or the Congo.
>

But shouldn't it be THEIR responsibility to go out of their way and at least read up on Argentina or Congo. The cost of travel has plummeted and people have more leisure time today than ever (ok, maybe not the '50 and '60).



> Are you telling me you believe in nothing resembling Jungian psychology?

That is correct.


> At it's least paranormal, but still highly effective counselling mode,

By effective you mean as in the placebo effect. Ok, I'll buy that.



> Tarot does indeed resemble Rorschach tests.

Which does little to its credibility.




>I can often look at photos
> and and figure out what sort of life perspective and disease tendencies
> a person will have.

Translation:

>I can often look at photos
> and I think that I can figure out what sort of life perspective and disease tendencies
> a person will have.


Um, no. Wrong answer, try again. You only THINK you can figure out but that doesn't make it true. Are you either a trained doctor or a licensed physician, or know anything about medical science? I highly doubt that, and please, for your own and others safety, don't diagnose other people's medical problems and leave it up to professionals. The photos don't mean crap and whatever quack theory you have about what they mean; it probably has been debunked over and over and over again.



>Generally people form patterns which affect all
> aspects of their life, and the tip of the iceburg, for instance their
> interpretation of a Rorschach test, is enough to expose their patterns.

Ah yes. This one's a classic trait of human nature. Looking and seeing patterns in random events and data where there are none. Just one of many classic fallacies that plagued human kind for centuries.


> Accurate interepretation requires people with a sensitive subjective
> gift.

Sure, I believe that. *cough* bullcrap *cough*.

Thats probably what you tell yourself. In reality, you and many others have no special gifts regarding accurately interpreting people. Not that you aren't gifted in other ways, (eg: being all poetic and knowing a lot about technology and stuff), but "reading" people is not one of them. Its actually a fascinating human phenomenon and an interesting paradox. How the more intelligent a person is, the dumber and more gullible they can be. I read a paper somewheres on it.

Your creativity is also a liability, because it enables you to conjuncture creative bullcrap explanations to explain away your misses. You are in essence a very bright con artist, conning yourself into believing that you have great abilities, but in reality, you don't.

Look, believing in something that hasn't been proven is one thing. But believing in something that was debunked, over and over again, thats something else totally.




>Just because a person objectively sees monsters in ink blots,
> doesn't particularly mean much in itself about their nature. I don't
> believe it's beyond science though. An AI pattern association profiling
> program should be able to discern a person's major patterns, just
> as surely as choice of television shows indicates a persons psychological
> demograph. People who watch CSI for instance are more likely to be
> wary and pessimistic. Being wary and pessimistic in turn affects many
> forms of life perception and behavior.
>

Just a few small problems. 1) You need to discern statistically what happens by chance and what happens systematically. Ok Kristal tell me, what sigma value do you plan on using for your error cut off. AI pattern association programs are nothing more than statistical discriminators, which will catch false positives as well as false negatives. 2) WHO is interpreting the data. That can be a major clue because of their biases. Likewise, who wrote the AI program. What biases did the programmer have it mind. 3) You need some operating definition. That is, what exactly is "pessimism" or whatever it is that you are measuring. Do you even know what is it that you are measuring, and if so, how you go on about measuring it; or are you simply waiting for the data to come in and THEN decide on what you plan on measuring after the fact.




> Of course I believe in Tarot deeper than that. I rely on timely voices
> of passing strangers to remind me that I came to the grocery for sugar,
> while I'm standing line, having forgotten it. At the train station
> I decide I want a Samsonite with rollers instead, and one is waiting
> 15' from my back alley gate when I get home. Literally my life often
> relies on dozens of what people would call 'coincidences' every day.
> 'Co-incidence' - an accurate term for universal mind-matter assistance.
>

Coincidences happen. They're part of life. Learn to deal with it.

You're more likely to remember the coincidences than all the times they didn't happen. If you were to know more about statistics, you would know that coincidences happen sometimes, the same way how a broken clock is right twice a day.



> Rather than direct proof of Tarot, it would do you more good to see
> that anything and everything is connected by some force which connects
> story-matter though time and space.

Everything is interconnected. Ok. So what does that have to do with determining a person's personality based on doing a Tarot card reading of them?




>If you restrain your vision to
> Newtonian physics you won't see anything paranormal, and wouldn't
> have any systematic framework upon which to affix details within an
> understanding. You would have a poor understanding of modern appliances
> if you did not have some notion of electricity to apply your observations
> to.
>

I am quite open minded towards the "paranormal" (meaning things regarding to quantum physics or anything else we don't know about). Thats not the point. What I am NOT open minded towards however, is someone's claim that they have the specific answers to something we know nothing about. For instance, your bs interpretation of my personality is no better (nor no worse) than any one of my friends or neighbors. Your interpretation of someone random on the streets you don't even know is the same as any educated guess using stereotypes or random guesses.



> The lawyer I hung out with was abused as a child by her father's satanic
> porn ring, and dedicted her life to research to tear it part.

1) Did this really happen or did she find this out via hypnoses. I am going on the assumption that it was the former. 2) Her childhood abuse certainly didn't prevent her from becoming a successful lawyer, so I doubt it would have been the cause of her homelessness. 3) I wish her luck in fighting it. I've found nothing when googleing "satanic porn ring".



> I don't trust Machiavellian pernsonality types and try not to hang
> out with them.

Problem: How would you know that someone is a Machiavellian personality type?



> I run in to Machiavellian types at school, and their probably are
> more than i imagine out there, but there are also probably less out
> there than you imagine.

Well, you have no idea of knowing how many Machiavellian people I imagine that there are just like I have no way of knowing how many Machiavellian people you think there are.



>As an exercise, try
> considering that the people you meet are not coming from the same
> perceptual and motivational fromework as yourself. Like atracts like,
> and so it's probably true most of the time for you, but a lot of people
> are also probably slipping under your radar of understanding too because
> your take on human nature is too self-centered.

I had runs in with a rather diverse range of people, with few sociopaths on one end and few super naive types that allow others to walk all over them, but most close to the center (meaning most people have good and bad in them) as well as cynics who have the ability to think like sociopaths but the morals of the "normal" types. I take myself for the cynic. No, I don't assume that everybody is out to get me, but I use basic common sense around people. Just think of it as "prepare for the worse".



> In our society a socio-path can get by with 'objective' conversations
> to a few key people like supevisors. These amount to scenes they can
> rehearse. I've done much acting. There are two ways to go about it,
> rehearsing appearances or living in character. If you are to live
> in a tribal setting, having to be always on, discussing your dreams
> and other 'subjective' material with any member who will report your
> nature though the gossip vine, your chances of maintaining a superficial
> demeanor cover are slim.
>

A somewhat prejudiced assessment. I doubt that a sociopath would have it any harder (nor easier) to fooling everyone in a tribal community. Yes, you COULD argue that its harder to fool a society where you are "forced to discuss their dreams" but then on the flip side, other people are forced to discuss their dreams too, so you get a better shot at knowing what your victims are thinking. Arguing if its easier or harder for a sociopath to fool everyone in a tribe than in todays world is like asking is it easier to win some sporting game in a dome or in an open roof stadium or is it easier to win on artificial turf than on grass.

Well, playing in the dome would be easier because you are in a climate controlled environment where the ball isn't wet and slippery, but then the other team gets the same advantages of being in a dome as you get.

Now, if I were to go by empirical data, I would point out that most cults tend to have a charismatic leader and tend to be in more tribal like setting. You tell me how good your chances are in maintaining the superficial demeanor.




> You seem to accuse any ideological perception or behavior of mine
> based on reality as a kaleidoscopic manifestation of a single consciousness
> as being 'gullible'.

No, not ANY, just only most. Also, just an opinion, the more I think about it, your language and word choice disturbingly resembles that of someone who has joined a cult. I am not saying that that is the case, just a personal observation. Unlike you, I admit that my personal observations and world outlook in general is not infallible and are only an opinion, not anything scientifically tested. This is in contrast to Tarrot Card reading, or any other New Age bullcrap you've bought into, which claims to give people easy answers to all their problems.

Sorry, you just can't analyze a person's "life path" without either getting to know them well or their "medical dispositions" without doing some DNA testing or prior medical history. Sure, you can make educated guesses (eg: stereotypes), or just random guesses (eg: Tarrot Cards, flipping a coin, sorry, they are just that) in trying to size someone up, but you can't expect your guesses to be accurate.




> If you do observe the interconnectedness of physically detached things
> on a frequent regular basis (as I do), then it would actually be less
> scientific to not build one's understanding of events on some undefined
> underlying interconnected force,

*cough* bullcrap *cough*

If I'd have observed the interconnectedness of physically detached things on a frequent regular basis like you do, I'd be seeing patterns in random events where there are none, and looking for evidence to back up my preconceived beliefs, hence not scientific at all.




> If you were really of an inquisitive scientific nature, you would
> at least briefly dismiss your purely physical concept of nature, and
> determine the nature and far reaching repurcussions of an alternative
> foundation for the events of time and matter,

And what makes you assume that I haven't?



>to do at least some
> black-box testing of alternative models, even if you had little observational
> data to conclusively prove or disprove such alternatie models.

Black-box testing, as in actually going to a Tarrot Card reader and have them feed me their bullcrap. No thanks. It was enough that I knew several people who were getting all into Tarrot Cards telling me how awesome it was and my bullcrap detectors were going off-- even though I've secretly wanted to believe it.

Look, don't get me wrong. I would prefer that these things were real if it was put up to a vote. It would be great to have some easy button you can press, and bang you have the answer you need. But reality, unfortunately fortune telling and Tarrot Card reading is uttermost bullcrap. Me wishing it were real doesn't make it so.




> I never heard of LeMark before, but his theory seems to have some
> merit.

> I'm not sure how LeMark relates to Marx though. I can creatively imagine
> ways, but they may be far from the ones which existed.

A quick run down on LeMark. He was the first guy who noticed that species change over time (hence the precursor to evolution). The problem however is he got it all wrong. He literally believed that changed DIRECTLY get passed on to the offspring. For example, according to LeMark, giraffes streght their necks to eat food from high trees and have baby giraffes who will grow up to be taller. Darwins take: short giraffes die while the taller ones pass on their genes. LeMark for instance believed that if you cut off a rat's tail or leg, its offspring will be born without a tail or a leg. Or if you get a tattoo, your offspring might inherit your tattoo and be born with it. Yes, he and a lot of people ACTUALLY believed that. Off course, this being 2008, with the benefit of hindsight we know that Darwin's model was right and LeMark's model was wrong. Ok, take a guess which version of evolution Marx went with.

If you guessed the LeMarkian, yep, you would be correct. He literally believed that the members of a community would evolve to Marxism. In other words, it wouldn't be like your idea of communities evolving, but more like individuals having their genes drastically changed from one generations to the next. So unlike being born a Tabu Rasa learning your world around you, yep, you would actually be born a Marxist. In retrospect we know its bullcrap but don't let the fact get in the way. It would be nice to actually research the position and ideas of others, before you actually take them up.

No, I don't mean as a 'placebo'. I mean that discussing archetypes can be a useful dignostic tool for determining a person's perspective on life, and what specific faculties and requirements they have for best fitting in and strategically procuring a happier life. That all borders on Jungian psycholgy, and anything short of at least the periphery of Jungian psychology strikes me as sociopathic.

One can't go intentionally looking for something they don't know exists. It makes more sense to presume that things you don't know about are similar to ones you do know about. That's how the mind effectively works in general. It's illegal to serve unrequested water in restaurants or water plants in the day in LA. I suspect in 20 years one will have to an awfully good reason for taking a flight somewhere. Not only do I think we should have local access to lternative cultures, I also think, for efficiencies sake, it's time to have mixed use zoning, so people can live, shop, and work without commuting any. Recreational flying is one of those retarded things which has helped cause our current global environmental economic political maladies. It was useful at one time, but now communications should take the place of travel.

Some 'medical intuitives' are getting medical degrees these days. The principle is simple, wholistic health. The idea is that certain personality types, certain lines of thought and belief, correspond to body types and likely diseases. People who fear get headaches, people who worry and require comforting will get stuffy heads, people who don't feel they belong here will lose consciousness or become famished. It's not at all unlikely that a sound mechanism of physics can explain it all, but nor is it unlikely that if all these things are related, that someone can spot a particular type. We know statistically that different races have different disease likelihoods. We haven't had statistical tools though for subjective evaluation. The scientific community in general avoids anything of a subjective nature. That does'nt mean it's not valid, just that scientific tools are currently ill equipped to process such data. You can go back to early medical texts like the pivotal 'Anatomy of Melancholy' which categorically identify various subjective humours, and match plants for their treatment. Today the same material would be phrased in objective terms of things like seratonin deficiencies, but the original wholisitic caricature and organic phramacology remains valid. If you gave some thought to the matter, you would find it more preposterous that one's medical health tendencies were not visible. The available skill of a person to recognize them is an entirely differnt matter. Juilliard music grads can appreciate higher sensitive subtle forms of music which the layman doesn't even recognize as music. Likewise is what can be expected of medical intuitives. The approach is of course the antithesis of the boolean technician approach which insurance companies would find most lucratively reliable.

While I don't go about practising medical diagnoses on others, I have often had to advise my own doctors and dentists on diagnostics, cures, and procedures. I also supply them with research material. I also do some spare time inventing of devices to alleviate problems like herniated disks. Just the other night I was working theoretically on how to programmatically modify a new bidirecctional reverse kinematic MRI machine to target cancer cells. A person is essentially disassembled and reconstructed at a microgravity level when undergoing an MRI. I propose that we selectively interfere with the rebonding of the hydrogen molecules in malignant cells.

The only thing relevant to our lives are the patterns we observe within them, whethar their causal relationship has been established or not. That aside, many people do observe another causal system which relates thoughts and matter. Statistics though are not evidence of anything. Relative scope is everything. In the span of the phrazillions^Nth of years that will encompass eternity, it may turn out even that 15 billions years of gravity was just a chaotic glitch blip, and not some eternal law.

The difference is that I can rely on the coincidences for guidance though. If one checks the time with broken clocks, and the time is always coincidentally correct, then the system can be said to be working. One causal system, the clocks mechanically moving through time such that would always give the corect time may not be present, but another causal system has taken it's place, a single orchestrating consciousness which both puts broken clocks in the paths of persons, and guides these persons to inquire about the time at the moment at which these clocks will give the correct answer. I could go on and on about living in such a paradigm. Quite a few others speak about living in such 'synchronicity' too. You are missing out on an operational phenomenon which would drastically transfigure your entire understanding of the universe.

Does everything have to appear on Google for you to believe in it? I can easily imagine that child porn and satanism attract those with similar lusts, especially when an immoral lust for power in a multi-billion dollar industry is involved. The homeless shelter we both stayed at let that gal use the office facilities to further her research. I think she just broke down from overwork on her cause.

There are huge prolific cultures of every paranormal persuasion with heavy involvement all over. Scientology is a famous example, but it's 1/100th of what's going on out there in the underground spiritual/political domain. I've explored some of this first hand, and have contacts in many faiths with similar reports. As a related side curiousity, JPL, exactly where you'd expect to find the most scientific minded, is rife with wiccan pagan solomonic kaballists. (Ancient kaballistic texts on golums were clearly concerned with the same programmatic nano nuclear science we are now approaching). Some of my highest unlikely political opportunities were related invisibly to my involvement in a metaphysical organization in ways I wouldn't bother to explain.

Your comment on discerning sociopaths leads me to believe that you don't have much experience in the way of getting to deeply know people during party conversations and such.

Totally off topic, you are reminding of the coolest footbal game I ever saw (I'm not much of a sports fan), which was played in snow, with one team wearing white.

You seem to express an incomplete thought here: "Now, if I were to go by empirical data, I would point out that most cults tend to have a charismatic leader and tend to be in more tribal like setting. You tell me how good your chances are in maintaining the superficial demeanor." - I don't know what you're getting at. I would say chances are particularly slim, but that really depends on the cult. Most cults, and even things like political activism groups, are in fact rife with self censorship, with thoir own brands of 'speak no evil'.

"And what makes you assume that I haven't?" - Well, your preceding paragraph for one:

"If I'd have observed the interconnectedness of physically detached things on a frequent regular basis like you do, I'd be seeing patterns in random events where there are none, and looking for evidence to back up my preconceived beliefs, hence not scientific at all."

Essentially you are telling me that you have preconstrained the realms in which you will even make observations, thus, if some alternative causal relationship between events existed and were presented to you, you would fail to acknowledge it.

There was one fellow here living in a drought, asking for some miracle proof of my cosmology, and within 48 hours I sent 40 days of rain his way. While my score was one out of one, he still of course interpreted this as pure coincidence. My conclusion is that proof for a non-believer is simply not possible. If they don't wish to see something, they won't, even when it's right in front of their nose.

That short giraffes die and shift the procreative numbers doesn't disprove that conscious or biologically sublime intention wasn't involved in gaining longer necks. Because poor investors go bankrupt doesn't disprove that wiser investors arrived at success through creative intent.

I should have saved the link I found to LeMark for you. It's gist was that science was finally coming to adopt LeMark's premise.
It's an unfortunately common mistake for people to assume that because one model is found to be correct, it can also be assumed that alternative explanations must be false. Is it environmental nurture or genetics, Newton or spiritual forces, chemical, electrical, or soul thought. Who said it has to be one or the other?

I wished for a red headed daughter, though such existed in neither parents family tree, and got one. I find nothing preposterous about LeMark. It seems more likely to me that gills evolved into wings, and phosphor cells into eyes by creatures that attempted flight and making use of sight, with a conscious or biological desire to do so better, than not. Those who didn't died and left the gene pool, but that still does'nt invalidate LeMarks concept of intent. I think though that we do have to broaden the definition of 'intent' though to include unconscious forms of recognizing that an evolutionary direction is advantageous.

I suspect Marx's usage of LeMarkian thought was more theoretical than physical, which is to say that the 'concept' of evolution applies to social systems as well as biological systems. I highly doubt he imagined there would be direct genetic consequences. If his belief was merely social, not physical, then it makes sense. The telephone was invented by someone who intentionally wanted to see voices transmitted. It was not some accidental quirk discovery nurtured and refined upon it's recognition. Likewise for a socioety to develop towards a goal, it must have at least some nebulous goal. The goal of our country was democracy, and mechanisms later came in to existence which supported that goal, because the collective intent was there. In a sense, american children ar indeed born as capitalists. Sure, it's the result of formative parenting, not genetics, but it does happen. Teenagers of today are less communistic in values and ideology than they were back in the day when McCarthy reigned. Whethar conscious or not, I see that as the result of collective societal intent. I would imagine that is what Marx had in mind. If he did in fact believe in some genetic counterpart, that doesn't discredit his sanity. Scientists still battle over the nurture vs. genetics question. Granted, considering Marx was thinking on a comparatively theological scale, it's a bit of stretch, but even now you will readily find scientists who believe a propensity towards spiritual thought can be explained with inherited bioneurology. The most questionable link in the equation is whethar or not 'will' factors in to procreation. I believe it does, though not through any scientifically observable mechanism. At the same time, I also believe, as with the flying fish gills, that it is also a scientifically observable mechanism, though not with a science we have yet, but only because we currently lack the capacity to observe long term events, and lack tools for relating intent, behavior, and physical conditions. Heck, we still have clinical psychiatrists who develop behavioral medicinal cures with black box criteria devoid of internal perceptual analysis, as if human psychology were some incidental parallel by-product of machine function. I suspect them of having sociopthic dispositions themselves for even thinking along such lines. I'm not the first to postulate such thing. I have heard many suggest that it is those with a poor self-understanding who are attracted to psychology and psychiatry in the first place. I'm guessing that they do eventually find knowledgeable self-satisfying explanations, but that the explanations will be restricted to within the domain they incidentally chose, be it psychiatry, psychology, or theology.

Have you considered the possibility that the line of answers you choose to seek are the ones which will ensure that the nature of reality is within your grasp?

> I mean that discussing archetypes
> can be a useful dignostic tool for determining a person's perspective
> on life, and what specific faculties and requirements they have for
> best fitting in and strategically procuring a happier life.

Um, no it can't. Its good for giving general advice maybe, for example say if the guy staunchly doesn't want his future wife to work its probably good relationship advice to not date a career woman. Yeah, things like that maybe. But other than that, "archetypes" as you call them are pretty useless.



>That all
> borders on Jungian psycholgy, and anything short of at least the periphery
> of Jungian psychology strikes me as sociopathic.
>

Wait, what! Repeat that.


>and anything short of at least the periphery
> of Jungian psychology strikes me as sociopathic.

. Ok, so anyone who has a theory on human psychology that isn't Jungian is a sociopath. Kristal, I didn't know that disagreeing with you makes one a sociopath? Come on, you should know better than that. Diagnosing people you don't even know well with psychological disorders because they have a different viewpoint is so Freudian. And Sigmund Freud was a bit of an dickwad. Don't take my word for it, look it up.




> One can't go intentionally looking for something they don't know exists.

You can't? Pseudoscientists and even social scientists do it all the time.



> I suspect in 20 years one will have
> to an awfully good reason for taking a flight somewhere.

If in 20 years SC still exists and/or we will both be in some contact in some forum or another form, and your prediction turns out false, remind me to make fun of you for making it. You go ahead and make your predictions for the future based on your "wackjob theories" of how things will pan out and I'll judge your theories on the accuracy of your predictions. Just don't make them more than 50 years into the future so I don't get to live to see the outcome.



>Not only
> do I think we should have local access to lternative cultures, I also
> think, for efficiencies sake, it's time to have mixed use zoning,
> so people can live, shop, and work without commuting any.

Ok. Probably the most sensible thing you've said all year. I agree, our zoning laws are bullcrap. btw-- based on what others have said in other forums, SF has one of the nations most notoriously oppressive zonings laws in the US. Also, just a small tidbit of information, most zoning laws come as the result of local governments, not the federal. So there goes your theory that local control will magically make idiotic oppressive laws a thing of the past.


>Recreational
> flying is one of those retarded things which has helped cause our
> current global environmental economic political maladies. It was useful
> at one time, but now communications should take the place of travel.
>

Ah yes. One of my all-time favorite prediction. The one of global warming and other doomsday scenarios plaguing the earth. Lets for a second ignore that the science on global warming is still inconclusive (hey, whatever happened to that whole global cooling thing?) and that we should do all we can to avoid releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. Ok then, what guarantee you have that we won't find an even faster way to travel using less resources, or even renewable energy sources.

But you have a point, communication makes a good substitute for travel. The thing you're overlooking is that BOTH the cost of travel AND and the cost of communication has gone down in about the same rate. People in your mindset would say in the late 1800's whats the point of taking a train across the nation to see LA when you can just take a picture of it and send it in the mail? Sure, email is faster and cheaper than mail, but so is our travel; so people will still continue to travel.



> Some 'medical intuitives' are getting medical degrees these days.

Ok, critical thinking question numbero uno, so how many of those degrees comes from diploma mills? CTQ #2) To what degree is their degree relevant to their theory (eg: the person may have studied to be a dentist but has a theory that reflexology is correct)? CTQ#3) How much of their theorizing involves some level of cognitive dissidence, eg the person deliberately rationalizing what they deep down know is bs because of what they know from their studies? CTQ #4) How do we know the person is a cynical bullcraper who knows that they're lying but just want to sell some bs book to enrich themselves?




> The principle is simple, wholistic health. The idea is that certain
> personality types, certain lines of thought and belief, correspond
> to body types and likely diseases. People who fear get headaches,
> people who worry and require comforting will get stuffy heads, people
> who don't feel they belong here will lose consciousness or become
> famished.

Um, what?? Where the hell did you get that. Fear causes headaches? Worriyness causes stuffy heads? Not feeling like you belong causes loss of consciousness? Me thinks somebody here has been drinking the koolaid--- which coincidently also cures diarrhea and sinus pressure (Koolaid Inc., make checks payable to.....

Ok, now back to reality. We ALL at one time or another feel fear, feel worried, feel like we don't belong. (if you've never have felt all of these emotions at least some time in your life there probably is something wrong with you). Also, we ALL at one time or another get headaches, get stuffy heads, or lose consciousness (if you never had 1 and 2 happen to you I really envy your good health). So off course any butt-hole with a book to sell can say "Fear causes headaches" or "worriyness causes stuffy heads" and anyone who reads the book can say "hey wait a minute, I think I've felt fear sometime last week" the next time they get a headache. And the sad part is theres no way to confirm or deny that it was the fear that caused it, so the writer can spin it anyway they want to.



>We know statistically
> that different races have different disease likelihoods. We haven't
> had statistical tools though for subjective evaluation.

Small caveat number one: Race is still a poorly defined construct. Sure, you can point and say "hey, that guy is black, that guy looks Chinese, etc". But then what constitutes "Hispanic", actually a very diverse population we roll into one; but then someone "Pacific Islanders" get a whole category all to themselves. I am not saying that race doesn't exist, but what I am saying is you need some operative definition what constitutes a race in the first place. Read on.....


Moving right along, I am assuming by your last comment what you were getting at is that you can in theory statistically know likelihoods of diseases based on personality types the same way with race. Ok, I'll grant you that. Suppose it is true.

Small caveat number two: If you thought race is a poorly defined construct, just wait until you try to come up with some systematic personality type system. And with race, you can at least physically look at a person and tell that they're black. You can't do that with personality types. More to the point, you need a precise definition of what a "type" is. Sure, we all as laypeople have some intuitive idea of what different types of people there are in the world. We build those types based on either personal observations or caricatures from the media and apply some stereotypes to the group. Sure, theres some truth in that, in that stereotypes are often true. But they're just that, stereotypes. For instance, in my schema of how the world works, I have a stereotype for people "like you". Someone brilliant with high IQ and very book smart, who knows a lot of technical jargon and roughly knows what they mean, but also very naive who would believe in any theory just because the person wrote a book and has a PHD behind their name, and believes in every urban legend and pseudoscience there is. I even know a girl in my college who has very similar characteristics as you (scored 34 on the ACT, knows a lot about the world, however also believes a lot of bullcrap), and I also know one of my mom's best friends who reads a lot of books and supposedly is brilliant but also has a copy of Kevin's Trudeau's book and the "Men are from Mars" bullcrap book, among Astrology books.

So there, I've formed a stereotype or personality type based on 3 people that I know. Now, that doesn't mean I am actually right, and theres a good chance I am not, but its a valid stereotype that I can make a decent case for that exists. If these three people (you included) were to actually meet, you would all find differences among each other very quickly and scream your hearts out that these other two are nothing like me until you're blue in the face. I also have a stereotype for myself which is based on some idealized alterego of myself--- but likely not true. Again, I can make a case for that personality type existing. Off course, chances are I probably look for evidence to back up my schema retroactively.

I am willing to bet that you probably have some stereotype personality type of me and even more people in real life that closely "resemble" me. I would say they're nothing like me and they would probably agree with me that I am nothing like them. Don't tell me you don't, you keep referring to "people like me" all the time. Again, you can probably make a valid case and a good argument for some list of arbitrary personalities and then write a personality test to see where each person would fit.

Any butt-hole can do that.


> The scientific
> community in general avoids anything of a subjective nature. That
> does'nt mean it's not valid, just that scientific tools are currently
> ill equipped to process such data.

You're right. Not everything that you can count matters and not everything that matters you can count. Yes, I am quoting Einstein. Thats really missing the point.

Having laymens ideas of how the world works is fine. You do it, I do it, we all do it. We all use stereotypes and personal experiences and whatnot to make judgments. Its perfectly reasonable. Just like there will always be crevices in the body of knowledge that science didn't find an answer yet. HOWEVER, what is NOT ok is coming up with a theory based on personal experience and then selling your idea on par with a scientifically tested idea; likewise its not proclaiming yourself an expert in something. For instance, if someone has an illness, they should go to a REAL doctor, not some quack who wants to make a quick buck talking about some bs Chinese healing philosophy wasting valuable time. Likewise, you may not realize it, but when you charge people money to read their Tarrot cards, in my eyes you're committing blatant fraud, defrauding people of their hard earned cash. If you wish to believe that nonsense, fine, but at least have the decency to do it for free--- since you're not preforming any actual service to society.




> Juilliard music grads can appreciate higher sensitive subtle forms of music which
> the layman doesn't even recognize as music. Likewise is what can be
> expected of medical intuitives.

Juilliard music is one thing. Medical intuitive is something else. Anyone can proclaim themselves an expert in medical intuitiveness and say that they're above average in detecting illnesses. I find it rather arrogant and patronizing that someone as yourself would take upon the attitude that you know for others whats best for them because your stupid little Tarrot Cards says so. What objectively makes you the expert in anything medical or psychological? Just because YOU say that you have astute ability to recognize personality types doesn't mean that you do. It only means that you are patronizing and condescending and a fraud at that.

At least I admit that I am not infallible when I give advice to people when asked it usually preceded by "I think" or "I believe".



>The approach is of course the antithesis
> of the boolean technician approach which insurance companies would
> find most lucratively reliable.
>

Boolean approach my a$$. Medical decisions are often done using probabilistic techniques with the expectation that there is some level of error tolerance involved. Your bs wholistic theories don't have that. They just say this is the way things are.




> While I don't go about practising medical diagnoses on others,

I am glad you don't.



> The only thing relevant to our lives are the patterns we observe within
> them, whethar their causal relationship has been established or not.

You're right. Like I said earlier, we all make causal observations and make educated guesses on how the world works. Sometimes they're wrong, but they tend to be right. The difference is we don't call it science. We call it observations. And we don't all write books about our experiences or sell our advice to others acting like we know more than we really do. We admit that our observations aren't infallible and not any more valid than the guy next door. It pisses me off only when you take on the attitude that you are an expert on something or know something when it isn't true as if someone died and made you the queen of something. eg: newspaper advice columnists, etc.



> Does everything have to appear on Google for you to believe in it?

Would you prefer if I raised my standards and say that it has to be peer reviewed in a scientific journal?


> I can easily imagine that child porn and satanism attract those with
> similar lusts, especially when an immoral lust for power in a multi-billion
> dollar industry is involved.

People of all economic races and economic levels have individuals into child porn. "Satanism" meanwhile is just something geeky only middle class or upper middle class bored white teenagers generally get into (ok, mostly). Multi-billion industries are usually something mainstream enough with demand worldwide. My point is that anyone can say that they've been victims in "child porn satanic cults" just like anyone can say they've been abducted by aliens. It doesn't mean its true.

Yes, there are child porn victims just like there are "satanist" cults victims, my guess more people the victims of the former. But satanists are rather rare, no?



> Your comment on discerning sociopaths leads me to believe that you
> don't have much experience in the way of getting to deeply know people
> during party conversations and such.
>

You seem to have it backwards. You usually don't realize someone is a sociopath until AFTER you get to deeply know them, not the other way around of realizing they're not until you get to know them.



> You seem to express an incomplete thought here: "Now, if I were to
> go by empirical data, I would point out that most cults tend to have
> a charismatic leader and tend to be in more tribal like setting. You
> tell me how good your chances are in maintaining the superficial demeanor."
> - I don't know what you're getting at. I would say chances are particularly
> slim, but that really depends on the cult. Most cults, and even things
> like political activism groups, are in fact rife with self censorship,
> with thoir own brands of 'speak no evil'.
>

Perhaps I should rephrase myself. The people on top, the cult leader and other high ranking officials, can more easily fake their demeanor. The people near the bottom would have a harder time if they were disenchanted. It would be harder for more people to fake it than non-cultish environments, but the fewer who could fake it in the cultish environment would milk it much better than in their non-cultish environment. In other words, the chance of success is lower but the payoff is greater. In non-cultish environments its "you can fool them all sometimes but you can only fool some all the time." In cults, its all or none, "You can either fool them all or fool none of them."



> Essentially you are telling me that you have preconstrained the realms
> in which you will even make observations, thus, if some alternative
> causal relationship between events existed and were presented to you,
> you would fail to acknowledge it.
>

That is NOT what I am saying. Read above. Yes, I would acknowledge it. I'd just be aware that I am only human and that my observations are no more valid than everyone elses. I am in no way infallible and I don't go around telling people I know more about them than I really do.



> There was one fellow here living in a drought, asking for some miracle
> proof of my cosmology, and within 48 hours I sent 40 days of rain
> his way.

You've actually sent rain to somone's house.



>While my score was one out of one, he still of course interpreted
<