Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Civil Wrongs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    ...If you really want to reduce crime, where one person takes what another person works for, you end poverty by a guaranteed income...
    So to end a situation where one person takes what another works for, we have to institutionalize a situation where one person takes what another works for. Brilliant.

    Here's an idea that has worked for thousands of years, why don't we try this again...

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Originally posted by Commodore View Post

      So to end a situation where one person takes what another works for, we have to institutionalize a situation where one person takes what another works for. Brilliant.

      Here's an idea that has worked for thousands of years, why don't we try this again...

      That is the only way that a modern civilization and economy can operate, if you want that nation to endure. What was used in older times, was fashioned somewhat by the age, by the era, by where man was intellectually. So when economic conditions change, society reacting to that change to create something different in the way the gears operate at times must be done. For the greater good of a nation, her people.

      We have a system, that cannot provide, by work, what it takes for all working age people to have sufficient resources for a life of nonsuffering. Because of robotics and massive offshoring, we have created a system that can never employ enough of the population. This percentage of the population that neoliberalism has created, along with robotics, and communication tech, does not need to work, is no fault of their own. It is the fault of the system that they were born into. SO, you either redistribute needed income for resources, or you ignore the suffering of the poor, while blaming it on them, when the system is actually creating this percentage, regardless of what those poor people do. Only a tiny amount can find a place in the neoliberal cog.

      So, a guaranteed income is what a modern, very rich nation, the richest in the history of the world, would do, as an act of not only compassion, but intelligence. Crime over time would drop to the lowest it is ever possible to be. For so much crime is theft, in some form, and people thieve to survive first and then have enough for comfort, next. Imagine the money saved in the justice system, the money saved on police, on prisons, and so on. You would eliminate most of the crime that poverty generates.

      It is the only sane and intelligent manner in which to proceed. It could have never been done for much of our history. But the advancements in all areas now makes it possible, and for it to be run without some giant burocracy growing like a cancer to administrate the universal income. No means test except existing wealth, and a computer manages the system. People never have to worry about getting their social security deposit, and it does not take the entire social security burocracy for their computers to make the electronic transfer to your bank account.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        So, a guaranteed income is what a modern, very rich nation, the richest in the history of the world, would do, as an act of not only compassion, but intelligence. Crime over time would drop to the lowest it is ever possible to be. For so much crime is theft, in some form, and people thieve to survive first and then have enough for comfort, next. Imagine the money saved in the justice system, the money saved on police, on prisons, and so on. You would eliminate most of the crime that poverty generates.
        Your not eliminating crime, you are legitimizing it, and using the government as proxy.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Originally posted by Commodore View Post

          Your not eliminating crime, you are legitimizing it, and using the government as proxy.
          LOL. That is a right wing belief, nothing more. And a belief that ignores with civilization came taxes, with some of those funds being used in the interest of the Commons. As civilization advanced and changed, the size of the Commons of course increased, to reflect the system in place and the era of advancing intelligence.

          To call taxation theft, is actually incoherence of thinking, created by an ideological belief, which in many cases is just based upon a learned value system that is an anachronism, and not viable in the modern world. Humanity has progressed, because change demands it. Progress at times gets reversed, but not because the progress was not beneficial to the people, but because it limited the wealth and income that the top could achieve. As soon as their wealth can affect and change the economic system in place, due to our rulers no longer representing the best interest of the masses, you get regression, to the progress made. Until it creates the same problems and chaos that the progressive in some way addressed and corrected.

          The next area of progress, unless this flavor of capitalism implodes us first, will be universal income so that poverty is finally destroyed, by the ability of the modern world and technology to finally be able to rid a nation of poverty. We only dreamed of it in the past, but never had the technology and science to pull it off. We now have that, even without AI, yet AI will make it so simple and easy to do, by removing the ideological driven human who would throw sand in the gears of real progress.

          BTW, a right wing hero, an economist, Friedman was talking seriously to Nixon about this long ago. He did it via the IRS, but that is the worst way to do it for it sees net growth in big govt. But a small burocracy that simply generates the transfer of funds, as electronic data, which represents money, from a fund to an individual bank account would replace hundreds of existing poverty programs and make it simple stupid as col. sanders of KFC was fond of saying.

          Since the elite class is still there, and will still own much more wealth than the rest of us, they will be fine with it. The wealthiest may only have a few billion dollars where before they might be hoarding hundreds of billions. A very small cost to get rid of poverty, and have a civilization where all of its citizens have enough resources to live a decent, non suffering existence. I doubt if it would cost as much as all of the current welfare programs added together, once you add the other great costs of poverty, which requires tax dollars and borrowing to finance. And it shrinks gov't if you structure it iintelligently.

          Of course, it would change the philosophy away from neoliberalism, into something closer to FDR New Deal economics. Which views a nation's economy as an entity who's primary purpose is to provide the model that brings a basic prosperity to everyone, instead of creating poverty which comes with neoliberal ideas. It would also discard economic Darwinism, and hold that the survival of the fittest is no longer what we want an economy to emulate, but a higher principled standard, which includes basic morality in the mix, instead of having an amoral system, which allows the turning of our backs on morality and human decency, in the interests of nothing more than greater wealth for the top dogs. Sure, its a great leap into a greater morality, placing that above maxing out the wealth at the top. But when you now finally have the means to do that, given we are not being driven by scarcity today, we should progress onward, and stop acting like we live in a past that featured lands to be settled in order to give people the ladder up from poverty. Adjustment is called for in this changing world of ours. And change wins out over implosion each and every time.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            LOL. That is a right wing belief, nothing more. And a belief that ignores with civilization came taxes, with some of those funds being used in the interest of the Commons. As civilization advanced and changed, the size of the Commons of course increased, to reflect the system in place and the era of advancing intelligence.


            While it would be a stretch to expect such perfection at time point in time, it is the direction of true progress.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

              You are under the misconception there is just one moral reality, or just one that will be taught.
              Not a misconception, there is only one. Moral relativity has tried to create more. There is only one right and wrong. There are no gray areas. You know what is right and you know what is wrong and yet you torment yourself trying to justify someone else's beliefs just to be politically correct.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                So, a guaranteed income is what a modern, very rich nation, the richest in the history of the world, would do, as an act of not only compassion, but intelligence. Crime over time would drop to the lowest it is ever possible to be. For so much crime is theft, in some form, and people thieve to survive first and then have enough for comfort, next. Imagine the money saved in the justice system, the money saved on police, on prisons, and so on. You would eliminate most of the crime that poverty generates.

                It is the only sane and intelligent manner in which to proceed. It could have never been done for much of our history. But the advancements in all areas now makes it possible, and for it to be run without some giant burocracy growing like a cancer to administrate the universal income. No means test except existing wealth, and a computer manages the system. People never have to worry about getting their social security deposit, and it does not take the entire social security burocracy for their computers to make the electronic transfer to your bank account.
                You know, years back I remember writing a post suggesting such an idea - simple income redistribution. Not that I really want this to happen - because I believe such a system would drown the human potential. Still, I would like such proposal made simply to demonstrate the hypocrisy of liberals who claim a monopoly on caring for the poor. Here was my idea - which sounds similar to your idea:

                Eliminate Social Security, Medicare, HUD, and every other department and program designed to help the poor with subsidies. This could free up $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion per fiscal year. Then create a new department named the Department of Income Redistribution . . . why not be direct and honest about its purpose. Now, with a decent computer system and a couple dozen employees this office could spit out checks to every American family earning less than $50K per year. No bias. Does not matter what race, sex, religion, or political party you identify with. Each family would receive a yearly subsidy bringing gross income up to $50K - or the equivalent of $24 per hour - whether anybody has a job or not. Nobody will require food stamps, heat assistance, or an Obamaphone. Retirees will lose Social Security, however, they will be guaranteed $50K income per year. No health care subsidies - but everyone can now afford their own private heath insurance policy. I have ran the numbers and this could actually be done.

                If such a proposal were made I am quite certain liberal democrats would find some reason to oppose it - somehow suggesting it would benefit the rich or hurt minorities. This would demonstrate what so many of us instinctively know - democratic leadership has no desire to really help the poor or minorities. They need to target people in groups to maintain their dependent voting block.

                In a static world this could solve practically every economic issue facing Americans today. The problem is you cannot make such a drastic change without effecting human behavior. In a dynamic world . . . reality . . . there are so many potential unintended resulting problems it would take the rest of my evening to list them all.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post

                  You know, years back I remember writing a post suggesting such an idea - simple income redistribution. Not that I really want this to happen - because I believe such a system would drown the human potential. Still, I would like such proposal made simply to demonstrate the hypocrisy of liberals who claim a monopoly on caring for the poor. Here was my idea - which sounds similar to your idea:

                  Eliminate Social Security, Medicare, HUD, and every other department and program designed to help the poor with subsidies. This could free up $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion per fiscal year. Then create a new department named the Department of Income Redistribution . . . why not be direct and honest about its purpose. Now, with a decent computer system and a couple dozen employees this office could spit out checks to every American family earning less than $50K per year. No bias. Does not matter what race, sex, religion, or political party you identify with. Each family would receive a yearly subsidy bringing gross income up to $50K - or the equivalent of $24 per hour - whether anybody has a job or not. Nobody will require food stamps, heat assistance, or an Obamaphone. Retirees will lose Social Security, however, they will be guaranteed $50K income per year. No health care subsidies - but everyone can now afford their own private heath insurance policy. I have ran the numbers and this could actually be done.

                  If such a proposal were made I am quite certain liberal democrats would find some reason to oppose it - somehow suggesting it would benefit the rich or hurt minorities. This would demonstrate what so many of us instinctively know - democratic leadership has no desire to really help the poor or minorities. They need to target people in groups to maintain their dependent voting block.

                  In a static world this could solve practically every economic issue facing Americans today. The problem is you cannot make such a drastic change without effecting human behavior. In a dynamic world . . . reality . . . there are so many potential unintended resulting problems it would take the rest of my evening to list them all.
                  We will never know how it will work, until we actually do it. But from the one example we do have, the short term experiment conducted on a small town in Canada, the results were more positive than negative. Granted, it was not carried out except for a few years. So that caveat to its positive contribution to a micro society.

                  Instituting such a system would, over time, mold human behavior and values in several areas. Whether this conditioning is positive or negative remains to be seen. But since man spent most of his time on earth living an egalitarian existence, with the collective, the tribe being valued more than a lone individual, where selfish driven individualism was not the norm, this kind of living and cooperation could very well be in our genes, and easily coaxed back out, if the environment was condusive to it. I believe this to be the case, and I think it is reasonable to think so, with enough evidence to support this view strongly.

                  Capitalism is much more than a system that provides resources to a population. For it is structured to distribute limited resources, a scarcity of resources, to a population with some getting more than they could ever consume, some getting a sufficient share and a percentage that gets little or none. For there was not enough to go around, due to a technological driven limitation of acquiring raw materials. But we live in an era where any scarcity is planned, engineered, contrived in order to push up prices and max out profits.

                  And yet, what I proposed and what you proposed is the future, and there is no way possible out of it, unless we just destroy ourselves or get destroyed. No possible way, or reasonable way out of it given we are moving to a place where only a small percentage of work, that provides goods and services, will be needed from human beings. So, you will have robots providing most goods and services, but not enough employed workers, earing a wage, to buy what the robots provide. And to ignore what this will create in the gears of a capitalistic economic model is whistling past the grave yard. Or if there isn't whistling, there is this fanciful delusion that other jobs involved in supplying consumption will replace what the robots took away. That ignores the fact that all private jobs are involved in some way in providing consumption, for wages, in order to buy for yourself some of those goods and services. And the fact that robots are in the process of replacing every job that it can do in the place of a human being. So, its delusional to just say, or think, that as we did when we moved from an agri based economy to an industrial economy, making products for consumers, that we will have something to pop up to take the place of the goods and services humans provide today, for a paycheck. Truth is, there isn't anything in the wings that will employ the hundreds of millions that need an income to buy what the robots are making and supplying in the service sector.

                  So, robotics, plus automation, plus computing, implodes capitalism as we know it. And it implodes because it has removed the income from the system that allowed it to run for so long. It removed the income of the workers making what they consume, which then buys what they and others are making. So, the income will have to come from non work. And it will have to come just like a paycheck, in order to buy the needed resources needed for first survival and then reasonable human comfort instead of the suffering. And so we will be forced into an economic model in which population is being paid wages on behalf of the robots doing their jobs. When you remove the human being from the capitaltistic system, it is forced into a form of socialism, but without the state owning the means of production of goods and services. But the profits involved in this new system will be extremely low compared to past capitalism. But the dogs at the top will be less rich, relatively speaking, as they will have more of a surplus than those on a universal income. Whereas the wealthy man of today is a large billionaire, this will be reduced down to milliionaires, which isn't a bad thing. For the disparity in income will be the lowest it has ever been, and the rich will be ok with it, for it allows them to remain wealthy, just not as it once was.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                    We will never know how it will work, until we actually do it.
                    Hmm... where have we heard that before....

                    Oh, I remember now...



                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Commodore View Post

                      t h

                      While it would be a stretch to expect such perfection at time point in time, it is the direction of true progress.
                      Except that is such a loony belief that no one has ever tried it, for its obvious it doesn't have a chance in hell of working. Look, a creative brain can think up many things that might appeal to a particular kind of personality, but being creative and operable do not necessarily go together.


                      We already know what works out better than it fails. Rejecting what works because of ideology isn't our future because intelligence just has to negate failed ideology.

                      The vision that guy you quoted there, is not the vision of concerned, moral, serious people. He lives under the delusion that capitalism, unfettered, will provide what a Commons provides and then any slack is taken up by the charitable human heart. Idealistically there are many more charitable hearts than black hearts, but these have never manifested in sufficient numbers to ever take up any slack.

                      A society that shuns cooperation and collectivism in certain areas, a highly individualistic society is a society driven by hyper selfishness, in a framework of economic Darwinism. A reverting to the chimp behavior in Darwin's jungle, where the strong survives. And everyone else gets exactly what they deserve. And this is seen as the way to go, no taxation, no Commons. A society in the way that guy wants would be a two class society, you know, that kind of thing that 6000 years of human history has given us as the NORM. And these two class societies arose from thinking like the guy above. In the sense it was a Darwinian driven system, but taxation was used, originally to fill the King's money room. The powerful gotta have wealth. And the wealthy gotta have power.

                      We only started to move away from the two class system with Progressivism, which you call socialism, communism, Marxism, or neomarxism. You can add neosocialism, neocommunism, or create some other ism to denote pure evil. ha ha.

                      Progressivism is not socialism, it is the opposite of neoliberal capitalism, bankster MNC corporate capitalism. It sees a nation's economy as the engine that allows the people to survive and prosper by their work, instead of an engine that should be run only to max out the profits of banksters and MNCs. Progressivism would never by free trade agreements, turn over national sovereignty of the people, to MNCs and private sector tribunals that trump the laws of a state.

                      The thing that will always stand in opposition and which will shine a bright light on the weakness of right wing neoliberal ideology and beliefs is that we have seen what the neoliberalism of the gilded age produced, while the GOP ruled in DC for 20 years. We can see what progressivism created post ww2, and its success is not debatable in that the positive far outweighed the down side. Than we have the neoliberal model returning, in 81, and what the last decades have done to working people, college grads, and the middle class. So, to defend bank deregs, the deregs of capitalism and deny what it did to americans, when placed side by side with what progressivism did for americans is just unreal, astounding, and even incoherent. And yet that is what the right side does.

                      So, facts in regards to this issue hold no water on the right. They deny the facts. They will not accept them. For if they did, if they allowed rationality to rule, they would have a problem. They would have to justify how they can believe what they do, when the facts show it up as a delusion, a false belief. And perhaps its just the lazy way to go into abject denial. This is not indicative of a con though, for you see the same behavior with the modern liberal. It seems only the FDR progressives have beliefs that sit on top of a sound foundation of human history to be learned from, and facts. But progress must be laid upon the facts of reality, not some ideological belief that is incoherent with reality.
                      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 06-13-2016, 05:37 PM.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        Except that is such a loony belief that no one has ever tried it, for its obvious it doesn't have a chance in hell of working. Look, a creative brain can think up many things that might appeal to a particular kind of personality, but being creative and operable do not necessarily go together.
                        And how do you know that it has never been tried? How do you know that it doesn't work? Because you'd rather steal than lift so much as a mental lobe or a finger in creativity.
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        We already know what works out better than it fails. Rejecting what works because of ideology isn't our future because intelligence just has to negate failed ideology.
                        What we have now has put us $20 Trillion in the hole, and devalued out currency many times over, and you are seriously are seriously going to tell us that it is working?
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        The vision that guy you quoted there, is not the vision of concerned, moral, serious people. He lives under the delusion that capitalism, unfettered, will provide what a Commons provides and then any slack is taken up by the charitable human heart. Idealistically there are many more charitable hearts than black hearts, but these have never manifested in sufficient numbers to ever take up any slack.
                        Solely because they all decided a head of time that it couldn't work. Thus the self-fulfilling prophecy is born.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                          And how do you know that it has never been tried? How do you know that it doesn't work? Because you'd rather steal than lift so much as a mental lobe or a finger in creativity.

                          What we have now has put us $20 Trillion in the hole, and devalued out currency many times over, and you are seriously are seriously going to tell us that it is working?

                          Solely because they all decided a head of time that it couldn't work. Thus the self-fulfilling prophecy is born.
                          I just not have run across a civilization that endured for awhile, that did not finance the continuation of empire by taxation once the loot from conquered people were confiscated.

                          Taxation to help finance the continuation of a society, the financing of civilization itself, is simply a step up from the mindset of tribal societies, where most people in the tribe, contributed by individual and group chores, so that the tribe would survive. Moving from a tribe into an urban civilization, humans just took that mindset with them, and taxes serve the same purpose that collectivism did in tribal society. In fact, taxation is of the same nature as the collectivism for survival exercised by tribes. Only the means changed, as we advanced.

                          Perhaps you know of an enduring civilization that didn't tax in some manner in order to finance the infrastructure required for civilizations to date? You should use it, so what you want can be proven to work, and be sustainable. We already know what taxation for the commons has yielded, in democratic societies. We know what it looks like when the commons is allowed to get old and deteriorate. Ike saw what the commons produced in Germany, like their road system that America needed, given our size, and the future need to move military assets from coast to coast, just in defense interests. Leaving a commons up to for profit capitalism, introduces an unnecessary risk and leaves the existence of a commons up to capitalists. Unlike an anarchist, some of us know that gov't, which is nothing more than the voice of the people, within a framework of rights and laws, is necessary, and represents at its best, the ability of the people to shape the environment that they must live in.


                          And so to take away the people of a nation, financing their commons by taxes, and turn that over to the capitalists in the private sector, so that it is no longer in the interest of the people, but is now owned not by the people but capitalists so they can make a profit. This is turning over the duty of gov't to serve the common good, to finance by taxation a commons, like defense, to capitalists, and you lose the republic, and we become a gov't ruled over by for profit capitalists. And a gov't no longer represents the people, and the gov't is not one by and for the people.

                          As bad as gov't can be, I would fear greed driven capitalists much more. For they are above morality, that is how they demand to be seen. No place for morality if you are trying to get rich. I think that is one of Lucifer's Commandments.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Her's a nice video for those who think black people aren't treated differently by the police.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4

                            I'd like to see you justify why a white guy can open carry an assault rifle but a black guy gets arrested at gunpoint by a flotilla of police who end up calling for a canine unit.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                              Those who remember me from past years on this forum may recall I am extremely logical and unapologetically literal. Over the past 90 months I have observed race relations steadily decline in a nation which, as a whole, has proven to be post-racial. The disappointment and frustration over an issue I care deeply about is only multiplied by the fact I saw this coming from light years away – and still have a college writing assignment proving so.

                              It was 1987 in my Freshman College Writing 102 class where I first began recognizing modern liberalism. My professor insisted on ‘racial dialogue’ claiming it were the secret to achieving ethnic equality. After I had suggested obsessing over skin color may not be the path toward unity she then led the class in relentless denigration of my character and opinions. That was the moment I realized liberal thought had no room for diversity of opinions. Disagreement on its own indicates bigotry in the progressive mind.

                              http://drivebias.com/civil-wrongs/

                              Twenty-Nine years later we have a twice elected a black President proving we are not a racist nation. Regardless, the same civil rights leaders continue demanding increased ‘racial dialogue’ as a path toward racial equality. As I had discovered in 1987, ‘racial dialogue’ is code word for white people apologizing. Anything less than an apology is unacceptable.

                              Just as I suggested nearly three decades ago, our preoccupation with skin color cannot possibly lead toward a color-blind society. The real road toward equality will be evident when we stop fixating on our differences.
                              Here, Here!

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                                If we do that, Jessee and Al and company will be out of business. Obama has done more damage to race relations in this country than anyone alive today. Liberals are vicious when they are challenged. They get really nasty in behavior.
                                The well revered Martin Luther King, did not fight for Blacks to be grouped in a separate but equal category. He fought to have black people considered as individuals and equal human beings without color defining their rights and abilities and potential. Not less rights because they are black, but not more either. King fought for a color blind society. No hand outs, not pity, but equal respect and "EQUAL" rights under the law, to work towards their individual goals without being oppressed. Sadly it has been decades and people are still being defined as black and white. Does anyone think this well and rightfully admired man had this in mind?

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X