Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: We...the weak

Posted 11 years ago on April 30, 2013, 10:59 p.m. EST by windyacres (1197)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We live in a country of over 300 million people. Naturally, there are not 300 million strong people but a combination of strong and weak people, hopefully with a strong majority of the strong, with few that are weak. Too many weak people would invite disaster in numerous ways, therefore motivating the weak to be stronger is important. Must we resort to either a carrot or a stick?

Accept it. There will always be strong and weak. It is difficult for me to consider myself part of the weak, but I'm living on unemployment benefits and few job prospects available. Until last October I was an employer for over 25 years. I paid unemployment insurance, matched payroll taxes, paid for employee health insurance, and paid thousands in taxes. Times changed for me and bankruptcy is imminent.

Our Capitalism consists of the strong preying on the weak for every last crumb that can be extracted. The rules give the strong the advantage. Supposedly, working harder is the only thing needed to have the American dream, the weak must not have worked hard enough or smart enough.

"Protect the Weak". What if that were our mantra? Would everyone just sit on the couch? After all, "all I need is a pint a day" from Band on the Run. If we together loved and protected the weak, would productivity decline to ruin?

The stress relief, the burden off our shoulders of how to survive, could bring marvelous things if we embraced it together. The weak that are weak because they are slackers would not prosper, and the hard working strong would enjoy more ability to buy pleasure and comfort.

We should together agree that no one has to worry about hunger. No one should have to worry about becoming sick. We can assure everyone of these things. Another world is possible.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

Your post speaks to the heart. I commend you on your job creating ability and ache for you, having lost your recent endeavour.

Though I empathize with your plight, I happen to be one of those "Pint a Day" traveling souls.

It seems to me that minute economic wealth, low expectations and a love for the simple is the true path to prosperity. And I don't speak of financial prosperity, either. You may refer to people like me as weak or slackers, but history tells me we all end up pretty much quite equal at the end of our lives.

Though I do understand your want to motivate us slackers, us slackers just wish you over achievers, kidding ;) would worry about yourself. We know what we are doing. it's not healthy to live your life with one over arching goal.

Life to me is a journey, never a destination.

Besides, I'd say anyone who can make a minimum wage salary and survive in America is a true innovator and is more poised to weather any economic fluctuation.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

Very interesting post. Thanks for the perspective. Now that I'm divorced after 30 years and my sons are grown, the simple journey you describe is important to me. Have you found true contentment? Is Love part of your life?

The near future may cause our life journey to be one of intense suffering. Hopefully not, but the "Pint a Day" that you and i understand will need to be protected. The protection will require some effort of togetherness, but not necessarily the end of being alone. People will act differently if suffering is too great, and the life is a journey that today is fulfilling enough for us individually, will become impossible.

How do you feel about assuring everyone that no one will die from hunger, and that together we will help anyone that is sick?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

I don't think I've found true contentment, and as for love, i prefer to just settle for understanding. Because of the rugged individualism our nation embraces, I'm not surprised the way people act in our nation. I understand why the rich fight tooth and nail for what they have earned because the alternative, living pay check to pay check, scares the living hell out of them.

I understand why Christians are scared that their nation is no longer embracing their world view, as they are feeling marginalized.

American capitalism needs an underclass in order to function, and any attempt to erase poverty, either though incarceration or education, is a lost cause. You may pull the poor up by their boot straps but there will still be a lower echelon.

The American political class has evolved from ostracizing people based on religion, race, and sexual orientation to marginalization based on economic status. Politics is about self interests and those that choose not to participate end up under the bus. The slow creep of history may alleviate this form of marginalization, but I will keep my expectations low.

To your final question, I do believe we should look after the infirm and the poor, and for the most part our nation makes sure people have food and is slowly inching toward universal health care.

[-] 4 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

For someone without contentment or love, your low expectations effectively mask your sadness. You obviously haven't given up on life, and have good understandings about life. I hope you experience fulfillment and happiness, along with renewed hope.

As for lost causes and low expectations, I'm not there yet. After changing businesses and employing people that lived paycheck to paycheck for 5 years, my life changed forever. Now I personally live on unemployment benefits and the reality is stressful. Hope is still very much alive in me and I'm thankful for it.

To be thankful for a daily life of existing and appreciating the simple things is forever a part of me. I know that I need Love, both to give it and receive it. I'm looking for that every day.

[-] 4 points by Revolutionary (311) 11 years ago

Strength also comes from organisation just as from understanding the situation or from communication or from thinking out the solution.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

Organization is only necessary after the masses together are outraged enough with the current situation. There are still plenty of people comfortable enough to not care. Friends my age see the downward spiral but just hope the house of cards doesn't fall for a few more years because they're ok for now.

Organization will need priorities, beginning with Love, then agree that protecting the weak is for the common good. After establishing those values, a new economic and political process is possible.

[-] 4 points by Revolutionary (311) 10 years ago

Masses are not moved in case there is at least no philosophy to support them.Masses do not organize automatically unless they are provided a method for that.Of course,masses need to have already cultivated good values/humane values like love,shunning of hate and prejudice etc.Masses direly need knowledge about how they are being exploited by the governments run by mafia of politicians.Masses have to be imbibed with confidence to believe in their good values.Occupy movement has done enough to do all as said but their voice has not reached enough people yet.Yet I believe that you shall definitely succeed to save the humanity if you keep your pace or increase it. You are indeed great people.thank you all.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

The masses understanding that they are being exploited by governments run by mafia politicians is essential, but it's damn sure difficult when the MSM is owned by the mafia. If it's not MSM, it might be a "conspiracy theory". We can continue trying as people are waking up to the scam every day.

[-] 3 points by Revolutionary (311) 10 years ago

People of USA have got more potential to overthrow their illegal government than the people of other advanced countries not to talk of countries like Pakistan,India China etc.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

I've a theory, I think the truth has certain inherent power, it is not often "used" to move the masses as it is so damn inflexible, oh sure there are plenty who do the old two step, side step and say oh that's your truth but you know the damn planet's getting hotter because we're puking CO 2 into the air, that not my truth. What I'm trying to say is that I think if one sticks rigorously to truth while some control may be lost it is replaced with vast power. Of course all evidence of who runs the world would indicate my theory to be false, maybe it's more of a dream, I have a dream, has a nice ring to it....

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (311) 10 years ago

Of course truth is powerful but only people's collective conscience makes it so.For example a doctor would not lie the other doctor a lie about his subject.An engineer cannot tell a lie to the other engineer of his own discipline.Similarly a high court judge cannot tell a lie to the other high court judge but over here in Indian Occupied Kashmir a high court judge easily tells a lie to the appealant or complainant in case he does not have a lawyer with him to understand the tricks of the high court judge actually meant for doing injustice to Kashmiris.Similarly 99% Governments are meant for serving the rich and to work against the common people.

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 10 years ago

Band on the Run shortly became 'Live and Let DIE'! Being human means you don't have to think like an animal. But, even with animals, its not always about the 'strong VS. the weak: The 'strong /weak' thing is nothing more than Republican rhetoric meant to control the 'Weak-minded.' those, we have plenty of. Their called radical repugnicans. these weak-minded people are the strong ones. How oxymoronic! How moronic. But, we are talking about people. How generic . Later, when forced into the same boat as the weak ones, they claim they did what they had to for their family. That is where the 'shame' lies. Yet, these are the ones who prolong the burden for the rest of us. The wealthy, connected, powerful ones already have security and peace. Most of the time, there is nothing that these people say that even apply to them, but they will pretend it does. Keeping people from the truth is their strongest weapon. So, you see, they are really the weak ones. No longer does anyone have the STRENGTH to say, 'I was wrong. I'm sorry.' Rather, they say, 'I did what I had to do.' But did they? The answer is a resounding 'N-O.' You see, strength is really defined as 'giving of yourself.' That includes humility & humbleness. That IS strength. Weakness is 'giving to yourself.' Now we see there are 2 kinds of people in this world. There is no more time for 'agreeing to disagree' and 'coexistence.' EVERYONE, (did I say everyone?), must be on the same page on a whole lot of things, independent of strong, weak, black, white, christian or muslim.' They must view each other as a fellow human being first AND THEN they can be other things. That means you don't let a muslim die if it interferes with your being a christian first. If you do, you're not really much of a christian, anyway. That is the TRUE nature of coexistence. You don't let the weak die because you're strong and vice versa. That is co-existence. Prove the logic wrong. I don't think you can.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

The strong/weak that i was writing about existed long before the word republican. It appears to be natural evolution for the strong to survive better than the weak as nature proves. I agree with much of your post including viewing each other as a fellow human being first...then they can be other things.

The time has arrived where the human race can get off of the evolutionary natural existence where the strong survive by preying on the weak. The human race should instead guard all humans regardless of their weakness and make this our mantra. It is a formation of love.

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 years ago

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. First, you are speaking in a purely economical context, intermingling a little bit of nature. And strong vs. weak is a fallacy even in the animal kingdom for the most part. There is nothing natural about it. As far as being human is concerned, there is no strong vs. weak, and promoting such dogma ultimately leads to the destruction of both. This goes back to Confucius and before. It is the basis of the seven deadly sins, leading to 8th, which you promote; ignorance. As far as being republican-let's put it in the political and economical frame you presented it in: Strong vs. Weak was framed economically way, way back. A prime example being 'Laissez Faire'. a term ill-promoted back then as it is right now by the neocons. Those people were republicans minus the label. You see, it's not the label, it's the mindset. As far as nature is concerned, to say it is natural is also ill-spoken. When animals migrate, the stronger of the heard defend the weak. Watch National Geographic's 'Stress: Portrait of a Killer' to see how the predators ultimately become the prey. I know exactly what you're saying; 'Now that I'm one of you, let's have peace and love.' I say, 'You can get in line way behind the people who knew it was wrong to begin with. There is no strong vs. weak. It's a simple game being played and the weak have the ability to be strong when they're on a LEVEL playing field. Luck of the draw is not strong vs. weak. It never was and never had to be that way. We all know the REAL slackers are the well-off' because they have nothing better to do than play games in which they are always the winner.'

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

It's apparent that you're not ignorant, nor will I accuse you of promoting ignorance, but your "big picture" view differs from mine. One of us is writing things that are not truth, and neither of us desire to do that.

You point out that migrating herds attempt to protect each other but we both know they are successful only some of the time. If they were smarter and more committed they could easily protect themselves but the results are clear. You claim there is nothing natural about it which seems absurd because predators exist, and they attack the weak. Big fish eat small fish, strong dogs eat weak dogs, and I contend that it is indeed natural.

Luck of the draw is different from strong vs. weak. The simple game you describe is not simple at all. The number of variables required to perfectly level the playing field for everyone is huge. Capitalism fosters an advantage for the strong which corresponds with nature. Unlike nature and the other animals, humans have the capacity to make the commitment to each other, to protect each other, and it is a form of love. I agree that the REAL slackers were born on third base and play games in which they are always the winner.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

I thought capitalism was about who owned the resources and the means of production

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

I was pointing out that with capitalism there cannot be all winners. Capitalism is a system designed to produce winners AND losers. Luck, connections, hard work, etc., all are part of it.

The owners of resources and the means of production ideally would be universal, but can exist in other forms besides capitalism.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

I must not understand this capitalism

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 years ago

Yes, luck of the draw is not the same as strong vs. weak. I believe that's what I said. 'The game' is the whole nasty rhetoric of strong vs. weak. So you're saying because you have more money or position you are stronger than me? I doubt it, friend. Economic prosperity is NOT strong vvs. weak. And if it's that natural, why don't I just beat the fuck out of a handicap and take his wallet? Secondly, there's way too much suck ass going on. Bedfellowers are the disease bringing this whole country down right now becauses it insures that the INcompetent can get position Hell, why not just take up arms against one another? The strong will survive, right? Luck of the draw is what is preventing a whole lot of qualified people from getting jobs today. If I, for one minute, thought it was natural for me to think in your terms, I'd try to outdo my competition by whatever means. Hey, it would only be natural. Some times, as I did say, strong vs. weak is necessary. And when it exists in the animal kingdom, for a man, (with alleged mind), to think it's natural for him. Well, then I should consider him DANGEROUS. I think it would be difficult to live in peace that way. So, go ahead. Tell me again that it's natural.

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

Men are very dangerous, and we have no peace. If it weren't for police, your wallet would be taken from you and you would be beaten. History proves that it has always been this way and is why I describe it as natural. The future can make natural a completely different way for humans, and luck of the draw will be diminished. The world needs love.

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 10 years ago

Sure, in a micro view, my wallet would be taken and I would be beaten. In a macro view, everyone would be destroyed. The police wouildn't be able to stop the madness if that is truly the way we all were, naturally speaking. But that is NOT the way we all are. I don't seek to take advantage of those smaller or weaker than I am, nor have I ever. Rather, I defended them But, I take no credit because there were a lot like me, though they are much fewer in number today than 40 years ago. That's because the last two generations of parents have instilled the 'just take care of yourself' mindset. And when does that stop before you don't have any friends? At least not any willing to be bought- we know there are a lot of those around today as well. But are they really your friends? NO. You see, there was a time when preservation was taught. Take what you need and pass the rest. You didn't think about slackers. They had their own demons and people were less judgemental. But, they wanted to be part of the whole, so, they eventually caught up. All men were not created equal and that was understood. That's why they given levity and no judgement. The stuff about survival of the fittest, slackers and wealth as an indicator of fitness is all poisoned political rhetoric. And what do we see? Doctors committing welfare fraud in excess, online businesses using people's credit cards like their in a candy store, retailers sneaking in fees that aren't posted anywhere. This nonsense never used to exist during the great prosperity that followed WWII. That is a fact. Now, it's prevalent. These people are just vultures looking for an easy way to get at the spoils. There's no strong or weak about it. It's just a pass given to them by demons with deviled tongues. And so long as they believe it, they will never get what they want. They will never be happy. So, how about we compromise on this one? You can say it's natural and I'll I agree, but not to all.

[-] 4 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

We agree on things. 40 years ago you and I and many others would defend the weak, more so than today. There was also much less cheating then and society cared more about improving humanity. Greed was not popular at all.

Political rhetoric, (propaganda), had already begun though and we were victims. Trust existed along with a united cause of beating the Soviets to prove that capitalism was better than communism. People with power betrayed us, and deceived us, and began to write laws that gave the already powerful even greater advantages. Vultures are now prevalent, and continue to use any means necessary to expand their control. Thus the reason for this forum.

[-] 0 points by nazihunter (215) 10 years ago

Fair enough. A lot of the stuff that's passing for capitalism these days is nothing I was taught as a kid. I was taught a fair price for a fair product. That was when our public schools were the best in the industrialized world. Now, we're so far down on the charts, I'd rather not say. We're putting kids in college that still can't spell.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

all humans are fragile

my Pomeranian acts vicious because she is afraid

we won't be able to tie her downstairs any more

she's bound to provoke that pitbull pup upstairs

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union: “ It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

A wonderful speech. He refers to a second Bill of Rights which corresponds to my favorite phrase, "the social contract."

How can we implement the social contract? I suggest we just implement it and see who attempts to stop us and immediately confront them! Any laws mentioned preventing a social contract probably exist for the wrong reasons anyway so we just change them.

Why would anyone be against what this speech advocates? Anyone against it should begin attempting to explain their reasons directly to our faces! No hiding and no secrets.

Many of the things he mentions in the speech have not turned out to be reality. Unfair competition and domination of monopolies is something i have personally experienced, and now I'm receiving unemployment benefits and facing bankruptcy.

Technology of Roosevelt's day wasn't capable of supporting Roosevelt's words, but that technology exists now. We can end the dog eat dog world and have new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

It isn't that anyone is weak. The poor are not to blame for being poor. The unemployed are not to blame for being unemployed. It is the foundation of capitalism to exploit. The capitalist exploits in order to make a profit. So, someone is exploited, right? or capitalism falls apart.

The "reserve army of labor" required by capitalism wants unemployment because unemployment keeps wages down.

The only weak ones here are the exploiters, the capitalists, whose greed has overtaken their capacity to love.

All we need to do is rid ourselves of an economic system that purposefully only works for a few people. Down with capitalism! And, let's find an economic system that works for all people.

[-] 4 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

Describing people as strong or weak was for the purpose of our goal of world improvement. Weakness exists in many forms. Whether they have no arms or legs or a mental impairment or simply old and have a worn out body. All kinds of health issues. No one is to blame, unless we decide to blame healthy people for not helping do work, and mooching the system. Even they should be assured they won't die from hunger and assurance they will be helped if they get sick.

The weak also include the exploiters, the capitalists, whose greed has overtaken their capacity to love. That is well written. These people are not likely to understand they are weak, and we need to love them also. They need "tough love" so they can understand the world will not allow their greed to continue to dominate.

We need a completely new economic and political process. Capitalism has become the last system that uses competition amongst ourselves for survival! Capitalism depends on winners and losers! The time for a system where there are no losers is now and entirely possible. A giant leap for mankind!

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Describing people as strong or weak places blame. If Americans didn't have half the shame they feel for their crappy individual economic situations (ie: you're a failure and to blame if you're not the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg by 25) they might actually get out in the street and fight for what they have a right to, which is a decent living and a decent debt free life.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

I don't consider it blame, just as a realistic way of describing circumstances. I'm sure shame is a deterrent but my focus is on the new economic system that technology now makes possible, and in that new system, some will able to help more than others. This would be something to feel good about. We are all in this together!

I've been out in the street in New York for Occupy. The only reason we have to fight is because Capitalism still exists! The message so many people want to hear is Love in action. Love action should be assuring everyone that no one has to worry about hunger, and no one has to worry about getting help if they get sick. This would only be the beginning of spreading Love in other ways, a world where there are no losers caused by human actions.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

The way to spread love is with an economic system that is based on love for all human beings. Capitalism is not it, I agree.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

I think Crapitalism would be a more accurate term as to what is going on.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

LOL. Also, keep in mind that no where in the Constitution does it declare that we must have a capitalist economic system.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago


It does call for a system of equality.

Crapitalism ain't it!!!

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

I don’t know. Maybe it’s the cynic in me. I think there will always be poverty. A large portion of the people will always be weak. As much as love, understanding and compassion is a natural trait, so is greed, envy and corruption. Being competitive is part of the human spirit, and that’s a good thing.

The peace and love utopia society has never existed and most likely never will. There have been many types of government in human history, but so far capitalism has worked out best for the masses. The most glaring example is the US. Americans have one of the highest living standards in the world due to capitalism. When the masses are fat and happy they aren’t interested in experimenting with some other type of government.

Yes we need to fix a number of things. Fix the corrupt government, get the greed out of corporation and heal the evils of Wall Street. Also focus on poverty, unemployment, etc.., but this is an ongoing effort. To think some other type government will fix these things is misguided.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

As long as the masses are comfortable enough and ignore the downward spiral we are in, nothing will happen until it's too late.

[-] -1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

When things are "too late" is when real chnge can be made. Very little will change until it's too late for the status quo to do business as usual.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

We apparently differ in our understanding of what "too late" means. To me, "too late" is after anything meaningful can be done to avoid slavery which needs to happen asap. Trying to revolt after becoming slaves is a more difficult if not impossible task.

I agree that there are too many people currently comfortable enough to ignore many glaring signs of this downward spiral.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

You are right. There always has to be an underclass for a stratified society to exist. It is a characteristic of our system.

For this reason, I choose not to denigrate the poor nor worship the rich. They are just functions of our system, and neither is more entitled to prosperity.

This may be a rub for you, but because the rat race is so cut throat, there can be something said to the effect that those on the bottom are more likely to be trust worthy. After all, they have the least to lose.

The opposite argument has been made in academia, "those on the bottom are more liable to become cut throat out of resentment. I don't believe it is an "either or paradigm, but those on the bottom who embrace their lot can be just as trustworthy as those whose works or maneuvering have elevated them.

I am just trying to contemplate some of the assumptions underpinning our society. For all the reasons that most people believe a Capitalistic republic is the best we can do, should be reason why we all should be skeptical of this system's assumptions. It leaves me with a chicken or egg conundrum as to what is morally correct. Are we cut throat because nature demands it or because society rewards it?

[-] 0 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

I also believe the underclass is generally more honest and ethical. There values are different. They tend not to have as much feelings of entitlement as the more prosperous. One example that comes to mind is migrant workers and fruit pickers. They do work even the most needy Americans won’t do. They also tend to have less crime and social issues. I have always admired these people.

As for the best type government. Seems clear to me capitalism has proved itself to benefit the masses more than any other type government. We just need to fix the greed and corruption.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Bravo - well said.

Escape the brainwashing people!!!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Even though the diapers of capitalism have been thoroughly soiled, a minor scrubbing to remove the dirty politicians and a fresh diaper that separates the corporate layer from the government layer is all that's necessary to heal this painful rash.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

Capitalism is what exists and has proven to be the best system, especially with a scrubbing to remove dirty politicians and a new diaper that separates the corp layer from government. Only though for the transition to a better system.

The time has come for mankind to carry on daily life without competing with each other. All of history has depended on this competing aspect of evolution, but no more. Capitalism must have losers, and we should no longer accept that. Today technology, unlike any other time in history, can make living without competing possible. A giant leap for civilization that can take place in a short time. A better world is possible and we are living during the time of the greatest enlightenment in the history of mankind.

It's exciting and comforting to think about the dog eat dog world as being in the past. Mankind has finally reached the point where there are no losers, only winners to different degrees!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Give us an example of where this new type of economy is flourishing.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

That's what i consider the most exciting part. It doesn't exist yet! We are actually alive at the birth of this movement, and will participate in making it happen.

Is there any type of economy that is flourishing for a majority now? No! Capitalism proved better than communism and socialism during my lifetime. Now Capitalism is unrepairable and even though it continues to exist, Capitalism is Dead! Let's celebrate the fact that dog eat dog is dead and will be replaced by a sustainable system that works for all.

Animal life will continue to be controlled by instincts, and survival of the fittest will rule that world as it always has. Humans are entering an enlightened period where amazing machines for the first time in history allow humans to have a world that is NOT dependent on the survival of the fittest. No more dog eat dog! No more winners and losers. Only winners with different circumstances.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Without a blueprint or a working model of your new system, I think the rest of us will need to repair the old system while we wait for yours to be designed, built, and tested.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

Settling for repairing the old system is not something I believe in anymore.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Until you come up with a workable system we have no choice but to repair the current one. I'm all for a better system, but talk about one is just hot air.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

I think talking about repairing the old system is just hot air. If we could do the very things you mentioned below about the wealth distribution things would be much better but we can't. You claim capitalism hasn't changed, the problem is how the wealth is distributed, and the small group of people who are at the controls have changed. If you consider the natural evolution of capitalism, that is exactly what we should have expected. That is the nature of the problem with a dog eat dog system.

Repairing the old system would involve going against pros that specialize in complex secret deals, and making us powerless. Ruthless, organized crime power that are only focused on the word...MORE! You are one of the most respected posters on this forum, and you don't realize this system is broken?

Let's get together and start working TOGETHER on the blueprints for the new system. We don't have a deadline to finish, but the time to start is now.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

"If we could do the very things you mentioned below about the wealth distribution things would be much better but we can't."

If you've you think we can't do the simpler things such as separating corporation and state, what makes you think we can do the much harder one of replacing the entire system?

I appreciate the offer to work on a new system, but it's up to all the people to decide, not just a few of us. If all we accomplish here is to get to the point where the people, without coercion, change the present political/economic course, we will have achieved an incredible victory.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

This is bigger than changing the present political/economic course, it's changing civilization. For the first time in human history, we can evolve from Evolution! Darwin's theory was natural selection until only the strongest survive and we can see that history supports that theory. Finally, we are capable of escaping the dog eat dog systems that have ruled from the beginning of human history.

It may not be simpler to separate corp from state, than changing people individually and as a whole to a different plane of relationship. It's up to all of the people to recognize the power of making this change. We must recognize that even though it is clearly a superior way of living, some will resist because of their personal positions in life. Love them anyway! Continue to spread, even sing, to everyone about our change to this better plane of relationship, where everyone Loves and is Loved, and everyone can know they are Loved.

When people together recognize that human relationships are completely changed to one where Love has replaced fear, the new economic/political systems will follow naturally.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

I applaud the strategy to change the heart of man. It is the best solution. But this is also the most difficult and may be impossible.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

I agree that it may indeed be impossible. I actually have hope that it may not be difficult, however. Democracy should be the answer but we have a fake democracy now, and no idea of how to convince people otherwise.

There is a tv show called "Undercover Boss" that i have watched the last two weeks. Both shows revealed common workers as their particular burden was lifted from their shoulders by their boss. One was so relieved she couldn't stand and just crumpled to the floor, incredible joy that the boss was paying for an expensive medical situation in her family. Why can't more people have their burdens lifted? At least to know they don't have to worry about food and help if they're sick! Both shows also showed every undercover boss change their life because they worked along side their employees and realized for the first time how much suffering there is in the world. My last business venture changed me in this same way.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

What was also amazing about this show was the lack of ability of employers to do the most basic jobs, the minimum wage jobs that they claim even a trained monkey could do. One Boss literally couldn't manage to pick litter off the ground.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

I saw that. He was fired by his trainee who knew what work was about. That boss seemed to still feel privileged to me though. Most of the other bosses seemed to have an awakening about how lucky they were, and how little difference there was between them and the common laborer. The bosses know there are so many people needing work, they still don't have to pay them very much.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Undercover boss is a great show! But even the most generous employers on that show gave a one time gift that will temporarily lift a few workers, not the bulk of workers in the long run.

To have the burdens of all people lifted is really why Occupy started. To end the income inequality that is the root cause of our lack of economic and political power.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

I was hopeful mainly because of the bosses understanding for the first time in their life that there is so much suffering, and to experience the joy of giving. They are now people that can understand what Occupy is about. There were some bosses that did more than a one time gift, even changing company policies.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 11 years ago

Something inside jrhirsch is broken .. she lost her ability to dream.. to love .. to be human.. she simply has become bitter and condescending.. it happens to some of the best .. she needs to get away for awhile .. let herself heal .. repair her wounded mind .. her wounded soul.. to look at the world and see it for all its beauty and wonderment.. to dream once more.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Yes I do see the wonder in our world, and also the terrible injustice that blights it. The very reason why I'm here is out of concern for the people who suffer, but don't understand why. To give them the knowledge that the power they possess is greater than any tyranny, that they can overturn the injustice they were taught could never be defeated. That is my dream.

That dream depends on this harsh reality. The strategy we choose will either succeed or fail in our battle against tyranny. We must choose wisely. A poor choice will defeat us before we have taken a single step.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 11 years ago

Knocking down/discouraging every attempt at defeating tyranny, is a 'poor choice'.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

the last time an anrcho-syndical economy was flourishing the rightwing fascists destroyed it. it has not been tried on a large scale since.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

So what's stopping you from implementing an Anarcho-Syndicalist economy? Just the north east section of Spain was under this economic system. The entire country doesn't need to change it's system. Start a small business or community based on these principals and show how well it works.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

i will when the time is right. right now i am a full-time student. once i graduate i will have the needed credentials to build a civilization from the ground up the right way.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

I'm really in support of your goal fora better economic system. In the meantime I will work to repair the present one, or more precisely, the 1% of it's members who have lost sight of fairness and decency.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

I say this baby has to go. We've been patching and regulating and deregulating and scrubbing and powdering for over 2 centuries. It's an antiquated system at this point. It rose up out of the industrial revolution, but we have had a technological revolution in what is more and more a global economy, and it simply no longer works.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Capitalism is still working well. Growth has increased 2% a year for decades. The problem is how the wealth is distributed. Isn't that what we're protesting about?

From 1946 to 1973, the lower 90% shared 70% of the increase in income. All under capitalism.


From 1974 to 2008 the lower 90% shared none of the increase in income. It all went to the top 10%.


So has capitalism changed between these two time periods? No, but the small group of people who are at the controls have. Distribution of wealth is not a function of capitalism. It's a decision made by the people of every income level. But because the value of money has been manipulated to the point where the average person can't keep up with it's steady decrease in value, the people that do the manipulating take full advantage and tilt the playing field to their advantage, reaping enormous incomes.

A system doesn't cause people to be selfish and greedy, that's a natural component within human beings. The best system is one that takes into account man's natural selfish instincts and allows the constructive one's to flourish and the destructive ones to be suppressed.

The destructive elements such as the repeal of Glass Steagall, upholding of Citizens United, and passage of anti union legislation are what we need to focus on.

If we're having trouble accomplishing that small feat, of even getting the people educated enough to realize how badly they're being screwed, how do you expect to accomplish the much greater task of replacing the entire system?

What do you propose to replace capitalism with and how will it restrain the natural selfishness within man that will attempt to subvert the new system to favor the same small group of elites we have today?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Extraction of profit through exploitation is the basis of capitalism. Once you take that away, then you don't have capitalism.

Man is not naturally selfish. Man is conditioned to be selfish or shamed, but he is not naturally so. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Look to hunter gatherers and other indigenous groups. They share. They know there is enough to go around and they know others will share with them. They don't live in constant fear that they will not have enough. Their existence on this good earth is not a mere material acquisition.

What new system should we replace capitalism with? That is the perplexing question because the world is not like it ever has been in the past so what will likely happen is that over time, the current system will undo itself and develop into something new that fits the times and something likely that we have not seen before. It will be a sharing economy based on love and not fear, enjoyment and not acquisition.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

So let's take away the exploitation. Set a barrier between Congress and Corporation. Separate commercial and investment banking. Set the minimum wage based on a percentage of average income. Tax consumption rather than production. Just minor tweaks are necessary to get the system running so that everyone receives a fair share of the wealth they help produce.

Just because you are a little more human than most doesn't mean that everyone else is.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

You see, the exploitation is inherent in capitalism. It is it's reason for being. All the checks and balances in the world will not stop it from exploiting, because it doesn't exist if it does not exploit.

I'm not against anything you say, btw. Pragmatically, of course we should do all of those things, I just don't think they go far enough. Keep in mind, no where in the Constitution does it say we must have a capitalist economic system.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Our economic system is much like a democracy. We vote with our dollars. The fundamental problem, as in our present democracy, is that the people are uninformed about the true value of what we cast our votes (our dollars) for, and suffer gravely because of our lack of economic knowledge.

If all the people, today, knew what you and I already know, there would be rapid change in both government and corporate structure that would fairly balance the extremes in wealth. But the only way to get to that point in the real world is by education, and that will take some doing considering the MSM brainwashing of the last 40 years. The deprogramming of America will be as difficult as any follower of Jim Jones or other cult.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

We definitely have huge hurdles, that's why I'm all for pushing as hard as we possibly can. The harder we push, the more we might get.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Ah - I see the sick supporters of greed are out and about again.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Yes, their hearts are hard and their brains are small.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

and their brains are small.

and mushy. LOL poor assholes. Universal Healthcare NOW.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Man is not naturally selfish. Man is conditioned to be selfish or shamed, but he is not naturally so.


Marketing otherwise known as psychological warfare can take the credit.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. 1 Timothy 6:10 NIV

Greed has been with us for at least 2000 years.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Greed has been with us for at least 2000 years.

Since the beginning of time. Note the fall of civilizations throughout history and note it all happened when Greed went rampant and trashed society.

ALSO Note: Greed is not JUST about money but is also about every aspect of life.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

I thought you agreed that man is not naturally selfish? Now you say he has been from the beginning of time. Which is it?

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

I thought you agreed that man is not naturally selfish?

  • note it all happened when Greed went rampant and trashed society.

Greed is a mental illness. Do you not see that? Mental illness which can be transmitted to the susceptible. So no - it is not a natural thing in that not every one is greedy or starts out as being greedy. But Greed has been an illness since the very beginning.

So - no contradiction. Understanding now?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Greed is a mental illness that can be transmitted? Any proof?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

A starter for your consideration:

Greed as a disease | Marketplace.org - Marketplace from … www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/consumed/​greed-disease

Scott Jagow: Our need to constantly have more may be a disease. A mental illness, perhaps a physical one. Professor Peter Whybrow studies neuroscience and human ...

Pleonexia and Psychopathy - tecumsehproject.org

www.tecumsehproject.org/pleonexia-and-psychopathy.html By way of introduction pleonexia is an imbalance suffered by individuals that destabilizes individuals, society and the natural world. It is a sickness, a form of ...

Pleonexia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonexia

Pleonexia, sometimes called pleonexy, originating from the Greek πλεονεξια, is a philosophical concept in writings by Plato and Aristotle, employed also in the ...

Epidemiology and Diffusion - Changing minds and persuasion -- … www.changingminds.org/disciplines/communication/diffusion/​...

The disease is spread by transmission between hosts. ... Ideas aim straight for the brain, where some are based on emotions such as greed or fear, ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Well said.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago


People!!! Break free from the Brainwashing!!!

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 11 years ago

jrhirsch, you are starting to give me a rash.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

LOL. That is really funny.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

you must be stuck on stupid.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Yep - and so it bears repeating:


Also a term to be learned/considered:

Democide - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Happy May Day to you DKA! Solidarity!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

And to You BW

Keep-on Keeping-ON

It's snowing here - Global Warming climate instability.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

"That snow outside is what global warming looks like: Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth." George Monbiot.


[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (13007) 2 hours ago

"That snow outside is what global warming looks like: Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth." George Monbiot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

A +4 comment now a 1

The Global Warming deniers are out and about I see.

Fossil fuel groupies?

Sellouts in general?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

It is my personal stinklers. And, guess what? I don't like them either. These are people who don't care about the environment or other people and who love greed above all else.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

They just happen to be mentally ill?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Yep - Bad biological wiring in their hardware. But not all of the sick greedy are those. But perhaps there are more due to the increase in pollution - pollution in food air land water as well as psychological warfare pollution.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Regardless of how they got to the greedy point they are at, they are there, and they are harming others. It must be stopped.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Yep - heat is not the only thing that happens. It is not that simple. Weather becomes turbulent unpredictable.

Watching the weather for last month Minnesota North & South Dakota were sitting in a pocket of unseasonal cold while most of the rest of the continental USA reported an unusually warm April.

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 11 years ago

25 YEARS OF BACK-RIDING off your employees , and now you sing songs.. I will shed no tear.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

I assure you I will not be much of a burden, I intend to help. Please spare your tears if you have any for my former employees and millions of others like them. The process that squeezed me and them will spread to others, possibly you.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 11 years ago

We "the employees , don't need no tears.. we are soldiers, we are slaves .. we are strong.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

I'm about to switch to being an employee from employer. With what I have experienced, employees being soldiers, slaves, and strong is correct, but we will need tears unless there are changes.

Large corps are dominating our world, I understand it from personal experience.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 11 years ago

You are welcome to join the fight against Tyranny.

[-] 4 points by windyacres (1197) 11 years ago

Count me in! You will be more help if you understand that small business employers are not all slave drivers, but work along side employees. Small business employers are being squeezed out, leaving tyrants as the only employers. That is happening right before our eyes and seems to be accelerating.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 11 years ago

We will have need of people with good management and organization skills in the new world. I recognize the talent.. but don't expect higher pay for it.

[-] -1 points by elation (-32) from New York, NY 11 years ago

A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

[-] -1 points by elation (-32) from New York, NY 11 years ago

that's the crux of the problem, people can't see how doing something good for others benefits all including themselves. They endeavour first to take care of themselves and then resort to pissing on others. What did yeshua say to the rich man who had obeyed all the commandments when he asked how he would go to the kingdom of heaven (within) he said you have one thing left, give your riches to those who need it. What kingdom is there if there is only a few selfish persons that benefit from it?

[-] -1 points by elation (-32) from New York, NY 11 years ago

Yet they stand "pious" and thank yeshua for their wealth but piss on the poor for not being motivated enough. Contradicting his message. It's time to find a role model that is not a hypocrit like they obviously are.

[-] -1 points by Sockpuppet33 (-4) 11 years ago

2 Corinthians 4:4. That's why evil is rewarded in "This World".

[-] -1 points by elation (-32) from New York, NY 11 years ago

If there are those among you who claim to be wise, let them be fools so that they may be wise. And those who are rich, let them be poor so that may be wise aswell.. It seems like the OP once rich man has seen the light. And that's a very good thing. Because now he begins to understand the importance of equality and protecting the weak, not because they are weak, but because we are a kingdom together rather than seperate, otherwise we cannot stand.

[-] 1 points by grammawilli (0) 10 years ago

I Received this dream-message from an awakened human who wonders... is this possible?:

"I had a great dream a few months ago... Someone found a way to tap into the bank accounts of the very rich and shared the bounty with everyone. As a green flood of cash spread across the world like the life-giving flood of the Nile, people had enough to eat, got medical care, got their teeth fixed. And all over the world, people stopped fighting. Can this happen? "

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1197) 10 years ago

That's a wonderful dream of the future!