Corona / Wuhan virus

Vendrah said:
And I dont think that the road to hell is really paved with good intentions, but rather with people who are excellent at masking good intentions.
Click to expand...

I think you mean bad intentions at the end there, but at any rate, it's both
 
Vendrah said:
Im sorry, I need to disagree just a tiny bit?
I think that abandoning fantasys like that is something someone out there want us to do.
I read 25% of a, perhaps, stupid conspiracy book from the right-wing. Although the guy was one of the most reasonable libertarians I ever read. Interesting point: If I were to ask you and many americans, from north canada to south argentina, what communism/socialism is, most people would give us a different answer. Very few people have an accurate vision about what is (and I dont either). Then, he mentioned a part of the communist/socialism letter/"manifesto", that had a part of where the step for communism wonderfulness were somewhat of having dicators and stuff like that. This is the speech of sacrifices, where many sacrificies are needed to get to that "point", libertarians have similar speech. But that point doesnt really exist, its an illusion created to justify, to create an illusion that the ends are the means.

And I dont think that the road to hell is really paved with good intentions, but rather with people who are excellent at masking other stuff as good intentions. Im also suspecting that this phrase is created to induce passivity. So that people trash these "fantasies" and dont over-react.
Click to expand...

There is only ambiguity if you don't read what these ideas actually are. Most people try to suggest what Communism is without reading Marx or Engles.

The problem with Marx is he was very good at analysing Capitalism but very bad at suggesting fixes.

Communism ultimately suggests there are to be no marriages and men and women pass each other around. That in itself shows Marx had very little idea about how human relationships work for a significant number of people.

Further more suggesting that a single individual should own all his labour doesn't work when you scale up industry.

A man builds a chair then he owns the labour of a chair. However an aircraft is a different matter. It needs parts so finely crafted if there is just a millimeter of difference between 1 part or another the plane will crash.

In electronics, no human can manually make a modern circuitboard for aircraft controls, its mass produced by machines. Who owns that? The machine? The owner of the machine? The maker of the machine? What if the maker of the machine is another machine?

The Communist Manfesto suggests the Vanguard rises up to replace leaders and Capitalists and who will then resign their position.

This assumes any human good enough to rise to power will then let go of that power and become like everyone else, average, not special, not rich.

That will never happen.

No human ambitious enough to lead a revolution will ever step down when the revolution has been achieved. And if one does, another more ambitious human will kill him and take his place, forming a dictatorship.

Democracy is our best, only chance of keeping dictators out of power. And the only way to keep Democracy function is through Capitalism because Capitalism encourages people to LEAVE power because when they leave they can get even more money and a more comfortable life being an Ex-Politician as they can staying in power.

If life after ruling isn't as good or better than life IN power, the ambitious and ruthless will never leave.

See also Term Limits.

Also Capitalism puts a check on the Military. In most Kingdoms he who controls the Military controls the Kingdom, that doesn't happen in Democracy because the Politicians control the Wealth so the Military serve the Politicians who have the Wealth. Remove the Wealth from the Politicians and the Military has no need to follow the Politicians and Dictators start again.

Democracy and Capitalism are linked, and to keep both fair and stable you need the other.
 
Last edited:
Vendrah said:
Im sorry, I need to disagree just a tiny bit?
I think that abandoning fantasys like that is something someone out there want us to do.
I read 25% of a, perhaps, stupid conspiracy book from the right-wing. Although the guy was one of the most reasonable libertarians I ever read. Interesting point: If I were to ask you and many americans, from north canada to south argentina, what communism/socialism is, most people would give us a different answer. Very few people have an accurate vision about what is (and I dont either). Then, he mentioned a part of the communist/socialism letter/"manifesto", that had a part of where the step for communism wonderfulness were somewhat of having dicators and stuff like that. This is the speech of sacrifices, where many sacrificies are needed to get to that "point", libertarians have similar speech. But that point doesnt really exist, its an illusion created to justify, to create an illusion that the ends are the means.

And I dont think that the road to hell is really paved with good intentions, but rather with people who are excellent at masking other stuff as good intentions. Im also suspecting that this phrase is created to induce passivity. So that people trash these "fantasies" and dont over-react.
Click to expand...

Also I am not a fan of Libertarianism.

Anyone who thinks government taxation is as bad as theft but also demand roads and police exist are a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

Worse are the ones who think it'd be fine hiring basically a private army with their money and basically being above the law and human morality.

The ones who believe in Liberty Neutral concepts, such as the idea that taxation for roads is balanced and can exist within a Libertarian system are fine, but I question why in that case they consider themselves Libertarian at all.

Its like a Christian who never goes to church, never prays, doesn't read the bible and isn't even sure God exists.

Or Slavic Nazis who worship Hitler.

Met some lovely Liberty Neutral Libertarians in my time but they're basically just Moderates in the long run, some with even Socialistic leanings.
 
Last edited:
mintoots said:
Yes but then we have to go back to trading. The tomatoes I grew aren't ripe yet and some insect keeps feeding on my basil. I also haven't raised chickens :(
Click to expand...
No! My damn utopian fantasy is greater than bartering! It's just humans tending to the needs of everyone around them. All humans so that no one goes without. Everyone has everything they need because others server others. Everyone living only to serve others. Seems so simple in my bean. Humans are a failure to my imagination. Myself included. Skeet skeet
 
Last edited:
90354872_3275046989196061_869428563281969152_n.jpg
 
Wyote said:
I think you mean bad intentions at the end there, but at any rate, it's both
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake, I edited and corrected it.
I mean that people are good at masking other stuff, sometimes bad or neutral intentions, as good intentions.

ReasonEnduring said:
Also I am not a fan of Libertarianism.

Anyone who thinks government taxation is as bad as theft but also demand roads and police exist are a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

Worse are the ones who think it'd be fine hiring basically a private army with their money and basically being above the law and human morality.

The ones who believe in Liberty Neutral concepts, such as the idea that taxation for roads is balanced and can exist within a Libertarian system are fine, but I question why in that case they consider themselves Libertarian at all.

Its like a Christian who never goes to church, never prays, doesn't read the bible and isn't even sure God exists.

Or Slavic Nazis who worship Hitler.

Met some lovely Liberty Neutral Libertarians in my time but they're basically just Moderates in the long run, some with even Socialistic leanings.
Click to expand...

ReasonEnduring said:
There is only ambiguity if you don't read what these ideas actually are. Most people try to suggest what Communism is without reading Marx or Engles.

The problem with Marx is he was very good at analysing Capitalism but very bad at suggesting fixes.

Communism ultimately suggests there are to be no marriages and men and women pass each other around. That in itself shows Marx had very little idea about how human relationships work for a significant number of people.

Further more suggesting that a single individual should own all his labour doesn't work when you scale up industry.

A man builds a chair then he owns the labour of a chair. However an aircraft is a different matter. It needs parts so finely crafted if there is just a millimeter of difference between 1 part or another the plane will crash.

In electronics, no human can manually make a modern circuitboard for aircraft controls, its mass produced by machines. Who owns that? The machine? The owner of the machine? The maker of the machine? What if the maker of the machine is another machine?

The Communist Manfesto suggests the Vanguard rises up to replace leaders and Capitalists and who will then resign their position.

This assumes any human good enough to rise to power will then let go of that power and become like everyone else, average, not special, not rich.

That will never happen.

No human ambitious enough to lead a revolution will ever step down when the revolution has been achieved. And if one does, another more ambitious human will kill him and take his place, forming a dictatorship.

Democracy is our best, only chance of keeping dictators out of power. And the only way to keep Democracy function is through Capitalism because Capitalism encourages people to LEAVE power because when they leave they can get even more money and a more comfortable life being an Ex-Politician as they can staying in power.

If life after ruling isn't as good or better than life IN power, the ambitious and ruthless will never leave.

See also Term Limits.

Also Capitalism puts a check on the Military. In most Kingdoms he who controls the Military controls the Kingdom, that doesn't happen in Democracy because the Politicians control the Wealth so the Military serve the Politicians who have the Wealth. Remove the Wealth from the Politicians and the Military has no need to follow the Politicians and Dictators start again.

Democracy and Capitalism are linked, and to keep both fair and stable you need the other.
Click to expand...

I have been fooled in my life sometimes, but way too more times than I wish.
Not only with experience, but with other stuff that sometimes not even I understand, I learned how to detect some of these traps. Im not actually impying that you are doing one of them, I truly dont believe you are, but I want to point want that a part of your text suggest you may have stepped one of these mines.

Democracy is our best, only chance of keeping dictators out of power. And the only way to keep Democracy function is through Capitalism
Click to expand...

Constraining and linking are different stuff. I understand, as reading your whys, that you think that democracy is constrained to capitalism.
However, regular history tell us that democracy had appeared in Greece, before capitalism. So, democracy and capitalism are not constrained. You dont need a stock market to have democracy (or vice versa).

This train of thought inducing you to think that this constrain exists is the danger here.
There is not just capitalism or socialism or old-style-kingism or facism. Nothing really stops another system to exist out of these - even if I cant point out one. So, you need to pay attention to these constrains made to the capitalism because a lot of them are unrealistic and they are induced.

A second one you ended up mentioning before I posted was perhaps one of the most reasonable versions of "capitalism is the creator of modern technology". Describing its general form in short, its a train of thought that describes aspects of capitalism and then tells how essential these aspects are for the creation of technology. Well, when I stepped with this for the second time in a comment section, I asked the guy this question: If capitalism is the only way for these complex technology, then how the Soviet Union was the first country in the world (it was already in communism/socialism) to launch a rocket with a man in space? Well, the answer is that capitalism isnt actually the only way, and that doesnt really depend on how ones build argument on that. However, this is one dangerous setting made to steal/despise the merit of people who works and people who invent stuff, which was one of @Milktoast Bandit points: In concrete terms its still people´s work, materials and inventors who design, creates and builds the airplane. However capitalism transform these in "funds" or stuff like that (something capital related), and then this trap induces you believing that these funds, capital or major company´s is what does the airplane, and that a big "head" guy, the guy that holds (or held for a long time) the funds, capital or the company is the one responsible for the whole creation, and hundreds or thousands of people were mere "expendable assistants". Simple example is Steve Jobs and/or Bill Gates. If you were to give these guys all the resources, and 0 "expendable assistants", they would take decades or centuries to create qnd build a MS Windows System or an Apple MAC/iOS system on their own.

If life after ruling isn't as good or better than life IN power, the ambitious and ruthless will never leave.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you dont realize, but the actions after that thought is you supporting the optimization of the life of the ambitious and ruthless. And that optimization is something related to these ambitious, giving something to feed it, and in order to do that you still need some form of support for them (even if indirectly), which is exactly what these guys want you to do. In abstract and generic terms, this is the trap of the "necessary evil", where you are led to believe that only a demon is the one able to handle your task and you need to satisfy and serve (the word serve here is quite important) the demon for the sake of the task. Of course, demon is the exaggeration form and word, which in the context is replaced by "ambitious and ruthless". There are other contexts where this is used, the idea of abstract and generic is to show the "archetype" form of the trap.

--

I actually didnt even really build arguments over what you said, I only wanted to point out the likely traps (some of these are quite imminent).
 
Last edited:
Vendrah said:
Sorry, my mistake, I edited and corrected it.
I mean that people are good at masking other stuff, sometimes bad or neutral intentions, as good intentions.

I have been fooled in my life sometimes, but way too more times than I wish.
Not only with experience, but with other stuff that sometimes not even I understand, I learned how to detect some of these traps. Im not actually impying that you are doing one of them, I truly dont believe you are, but I want to point want that a part of your text suggest you may have stepped one of these mines.

Constraining and linking are different stuff. I understand, as reading your whys, that you think that democracy is constrained to capitalism.
However, regular history tell us that democracy had appeared in Greece, before capitalism. So, democracy and capitalism are not constrained. You dont need a stock market to have democracy (or vice versa).

This train of thought inducing you to think that this constrain exists is the danger here.
There is not just capitalism or socialism or old-style-kingism or facism. Nothing really stops another system to exist out of these - even if I cant point out one. So, you need to pay attention to these constrains made to the capitalism because a lot of them are unrealistic and they are induced.

A second one you ended up mentioning before I posted was perhaps one of the most reasonable versions of "capitalism is the creator of modern technology". Describing its general form in short, its a train of thought that describes aspects of capitalism and then tells how essential these aspects are for the creation of technology. Well, when I stepped with this for the second time in a comment section, I asked the guy this question: If capitalism is the only way for these complex technology, then how the Soviet Union was the first country in the world (it was already in communism/socialism) to launch a rocket with a man in space? Well, the answer is that capitalism isnt actually the only way, and that doesnt really depend on how ones build argument on that. However, this is one dangerous setting made to steal/despise the merit of people who works and people who invent stuff, which was one of points: In concrete terms its still people´s work, materials and inventors who design, creates and builds the airplane. However capitalism transform these in "funds" or stuff like that (something capital related), and then this trap induces you believing that these funds, capital or major company´s is what does the airplane, and that a big "head" guy, the guy that holds (or held for a long time) the funds, capital or the company is the one responsible for the whole creation, and hundreds or thousands of people were mere "expendable assistants". Simple example is Steve Jobs and/or Bill Gates. If you were to give these guys all the resources, and 0 "expendable assistants", they would take decades or centuries to create qnd build a MS Windows System or an Apple MAC/iOS system on their own.

Perhaps you dont realize, but the actions after that thought is you supporting the optimization of the life of the ambitious and ruthless. And that optimization is something related to these ambitious, giving something to feed it, and in order to do that you still need some form of support for them (even if indirectly), which is exactly what these guys want you to do. In abstract and generic terms, this is the trap of the "necessary evil", where you are led to believe that only a demon is the one able to handle your task and you need to satisfy and serve (the word serve here is quite important) the demon for the sake of the task. Of course, demon is the exaggeration form and word, which in the context is replaced by "ambitious and ruthless". There are other contexts where this is used, the idea of abstract and generic is to show the "archetype" form of the trap.

I actually didnt even really build arguments over what you said, I only wanted to point out the likely traps (some of these are quite imminent).
Click to expand...

Firstly Ancient Greece ran on Slavery and only landowning Men could vote, so comparing Ancient Greek Democracy to Modern Democracy isn't really comparable.

Secondly, Ancient Greece still had a Mercantile class and worked through trade of goods for money which is basically a lower form of capitalism. Loans still existed. Trade still existed. What did Ancient Greece NOT have which we do have today that make us Capitalist and them not? Banks? Theft was extremely common and the Greeks carried money in their mouths. Also building major projects like roads was very difficult and pretty much impossible without Slavery. Today its not perfect but your average American or British builder has a much better life than an Ancient Greek Slave. Also they didn't have the population of a modern nation. Greece was less than 5 milllion people. Modern nations have 10 to 200 or more times that.

Third. how did the Soviet Union put Rockets into Space? Sergei Korolev. This man was a hero right? Actually he had to be dragged out of Gulag where he was imprissioned. He also died young because of possible complications after being in said Gulag.

Dictatorships don't respect science, and the RARE instances they do, its because they want weapons or superiority over a foe.

Democracy allows Science to florish in many directions. Dictatorships tend to silence science they don't like (See also the Great Firewall of China).

Also the Soviet Union is a perfect example of how a country that followed Socialist ideas became rulled by a single man, So did China. And Veitnam. And North Korea.

Social Democracy is fine but it still uses Capitalism. See the Nordic Countries, they are all still very Capitalist despite using Socialist programs.

If someone comes up with a superior version of Capitalism with none of the drawbacks of pure Socialism I will welcome it. Until they, hypothetical non-exisitance possibilities are no good to the real world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top