Political Debate Thread!

[GeneralSpecific]

I for one am fearful of the growing welfare system. It only perpetuates labor-specialization (the need for unemployment benifits assumes that employment is necessary for survival, and employment nearly always leads to specialization), which leads to the growing urban spread. Cities are the alabaster manifestations of labor specialization, as the cities draw more goods from the surrounding areas than are produced by the cities themselves. This is because even cities are subject to the law of diminishing returns, meaning that they have outgrown their productive potential, no matter how many people are working in a particular area. The agrarian and industrial elements of society exist to serve the interests of the most populous areas of society, which are the cities. Cities exist due to the social nature of beings and their natural tendencies to seek efficiency through interdependency. Urban spread consumes the land and farms are dislocated from the city itself, so businesses arise to acquire farmland and satisfy the needs of the city dwellers. Cities manfuacture and sell, but they do not mine, they do not farm, they do not fish, and they do not herd; it is from these primary sources that real wealth is created. Consequently, businesses, which arise in the cities, notice this and seek to cut out the small-town middleman by using overwhelming purchasing power (conveniently blame the Federal Reserve here). Any form of social welfare which aknowledges this system as natural and A OK only perpetuates excessive population growth ( along with the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies which drive excessive demand and inherently drives us to overproduce and overconsume). We either end the fed (and destroy progress that is created through infinite wealth), end social welfare (to disincline those who are inherently financially incapable of supporting children), or place a cap on consumption and population growth, all of which are fine with me.

 

[sir_schwick]

We either end the fed (and destroy progress that is created through infinite wealth), end social welfare (to disincline those who are inherently financially incapable of supporting children), or place a cap on consumption and population growth, all of which are fine with me.

I would argue that the existence of the fed and social welfare must be tied into each other. Most citizens are disenfranchised(odd usage I know) from the resources needed to support children without going through the institutions that have been allowed sole access to them. This situation could only be perpetuated through the 'infinite wealth well', such as the Fed. So without forms of social welfare, the population would feel accurately as though they have been left to die and their means of survival stolen from them. This would constitute a crisis that would likely be self-terminating if left unsolved. Thus eliminating one would eliminate the other. It seems from this most recent rounds of government bailouts that American capitalism also relies on social welfare to survive.

Cities manfuacture and sell, but they do not mine, they do not farm, they do not fish, and they do not herd; it is from these primary sources that real wealth is created. Consequently, businesses, which arise in the cities, notice this and seek to cut out the small-town middleman by using overwhelming purchasing power

This is a relationship between urban and non-urban areas that seems to have remained constant from over 700 years ago. Kropotkin described a very similar situation between 'free' men in cities and the 'serfs' of the countryside of 13th century Western Europe.

 

[Tricit]

IMO a revolution in favor of syndicates would eventually see syndicates get warped by the same sort of bureaucracy and power grabbing that plagues society today. All it would accomplish is making a clean slate of the current dirty bags that control everything. It would slow peaceful technological progress and give a bias to military technological progress (which we don't seem to be in short supply of anyways given we always have a reasoncough to keep an advanced, active military). The result would be different dirt bags controlling everything, eventually. Maybe not initially (because of those leading the revolution), but eventually.

I'm not really anti anarchist or anti syndicate out of fear or prejudice, but simply out of understanding the concept of infinity and understanding more gains overall with what we have now; we have a system full of liars, albeit not 100%.

The only reason I'd ever become an advocate for syndicates or anarchy is if I were ever convinced that The Illuminate still exists, is big, and up to no good... or something similar with Free Masons, or whatever. Right now, It's well known that Free Masons are a well organized social networking organization, even somewhat entrenched in politics. Many of their lodge's websites demonstrates this. I don't think it's something that posses a problem for my ideal future. That future is further technological progression leaning toward longevity, health, and happiness.

--edit, by "up to no good", I mean getting ready to spray oxytocin to pacify the population, or if somehow those contrails actually turned out to be malicious chemtrails.

Right now, my only concern is the WTO's connections to Codex Alimentarius. . . and even they seem to become less a threat my right to nutrition management provided by DSHEA.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

i have given long thought about revolution, and the goal would not to be to change the entire society, it would be just a transfer of ownership.

btw i have a very good friend who is a freemason knight. and this guy is as goofy as they come but honorable.

nice conspiracies there on the bottom. you know all bout the skull and bones right

 

[Tricit]

nice conspiracies there on the bottom. you know all bout the skull and bones right

I wouldn't say that it's a conspiracy, it's just what they do. They're social networkers. It would be a conspiracy if they were conspiring to do something.

Conspiracies are that which people theorize on. If you mean to suggest what I say is false as a result of you knowing an "honorable" mason, then you may want to reference to it as something else than merely a conspiracy.

Additionally, I am not in favor of corporate militarism.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

i dont think the masons do much of anything anymore.

i also agree that totalitarianism in america is because of corporations