Courtney Brown, The Future of Scientific Remote Viewing |421|

No, I mean in the opposition/neutralization of incompetence, chaos and malevolence - all three of which are the essential fabric of this realm. If you are to improve the lot of your fellow person, you will suffer. Money holds accountable - and with the exception of the condition of greed of course, the removal of accountability, is rarely a spiritual event.

However, what I have found is - Greed is: The desire to gain something for nothing, regardless of the price paid by someone else in such gain. So one can be rich or poor, and yet still be greedy.
Equally respectfully in reply. There is Greed indeed, which has dominated this western system as an attribute of success - clothed in religious/political conduct and recommended for getting God's help; as popular socio-biology via Dawkin's selfish gene; to cap it all with Ayn Rand's exemplary lie, aka 'looking after number one' so beloved of the british (lest we forget we originated as people/prisoners of mother england, steeped in colonial cruelty and arrogant greed) I despair.
Suffering may be inevitable, and I agree it makes a better person, but you don't need a bribe or threat to hold yourself accountable, if that is your spiritual journey.

When money ceases to be withheld and is recognised as a corruptible intrusion metered out by ministers, will be when we cease to bargain with it, as it would be worthless. How will we know unless we try.
 
No. You're just plain wrong. Millions of Vietnamese in the South did not want to be subjected to a brutal and oppressive communist rule. You said the US caused VN refugees by "invading" VN. I said the communists caused the refugees. You side stepped my factual observation, hand waved away the murderous brutality of the communists and then pretended to some secret knowledge of the cause of the US participation in the war that, of course, makes the US sinister.
Plainly we are interpreting history in lights informed by our values and beliefs. There is no fruitful purpose in continuing this line.

Michael thinks that headhunters were somehow more spiritual than modern Europeans/Americans. I think that's rubbish
That's not what I said.
I also take offense over your insistence that my culture and society is evil and inferior to cannibals and head hunters because they allegedly had some vague "contract with the cosmos" (whatever that is) that my culture allegedly doesn't and because my culture is allegedly uniquely guilty of "traumatizing" people whereas cultures that waged war on neighbors to capture slaves and sacrificial victims allegedly, based on what you're saying, didn't traumatize people - nor did all of the early deaths in those cultures by war, disease, child birth, malnutrition
I didn't say this either.

What are you talking about? Jews have succeeded in exactly the same culture that was "inflicted" upon the peoples of the Americas and Australia. In fact, Jews were oftentimes part of the inflicted culture.
Yes, but after intense persecution that lasted centuries in Europe and opposition that goes back millennia. They didn't face the same level of almost genocidal oppression as the indigenous people of our two countries faced. I don't know the depth go US history, but in Australia there was an actioned intent to eradicate opposition to our 'peaceful' settlement.

There is no equivalence.

None of it negates the fact the communist North invaded the South, the South asked for US aid and the US provided it because it wanted to stop the spread of communism - a good idea because communism had killed and oppressed untold million by that point.
I am no fan of communism. But I am also a fan not not projecting personal fears upon another country . Check out https://www.britannica.com/event/Geneva-Accords. You may find the US position acceptable. I do not.

I think this debate has outlived its value. We are plainly radically disposed on some things, and I can't see it is fruitful to continue this. Let's what we can agree on.
 
No. You're just plain wrong. Millions of Vietnamese in the South did not want to be subjected to a brutal and oppressive communist rule. You said the US caused VN refugees by "invading" VN. I said the communists caused the refugees. You side stepped my factual observation, hand waved away the murderous brutality of the communists and then pretended to some secret knowledge of the cause of the US participation in the war that, of course, makes the US sinister.
Eric, I see the Vietnam war (I was in my late teens and early 20's when it was going on) as the first example (unless Korea was another) of a whole string of pointless wars that President Trump has vowed to stop. Jumping into the middle of a civil war is a terrible thing for a large power to do.

The South Vietnamese president was considered so bad that Buddhist monks would set themselves on fire as a protest against him. Remember that this was not a suicide-murder as practised by Islamic terrorists.

All these wars have basically ended in failure, because there is little or no support for the invading army, that rapidly makes itself unpopular if it wasn't initially.

David
 
Suffering may be inevitable, and I agree it makes a better person, but you don't need a bribe or threat to hold yourself accountable, if that is your spiritual journey.

When money ceases to be withheld and is recognised as a corruptible intrusion metered out by ministers, will be when we cease to bargain with it, as it would be worthless. How will we know unless we try.
I realize this is an unpopular viewpoint. But... it is not armchair in its origin by any means.

I wish this ideal of 'no money' were so Alice - and believe it or not, we have tried this experiment as mankind many times. But the heart of man is incompatible with such a dream. The word money is derived from Latin monēre, which means to remind, warn, or instruct.

In my 30 years of doing strategy, I have found money to be a flashlight into one's soul, the soul of an organization, and the soul of a nation - both for self and for others to see, and not merely a bribe nor threat, as you frame it. Money itself is neutral. Inside the face of money you see revealed the heart of mankind, or even a man, not the essence of money - and it is easy to conflate the two as one thing.

Money must exist as long as individual man's heart is corruptible. The removal of money will in no way serve to make man a better spiritual being. In Star Trek - they live in a money-less society. Aside from the fact that is was fiction, they had no families, no disease, no local evil, no calamity, unlimited resources, unlimited locomotion, unlimited energy from nothing, and a replicator and holodeck which allowed them to instantly fabricate their every need. Plus they were only accountable for an hour a week in total. They bore no 'ass in the game'. In my thinking, an advanced spiritual being would laugh at such a charade.

Never confuse the appearance of virtue for spiritual depth.​

Grant me one miracle and I can make anything work in theory. Grant me a handful of miracles and I become god, without having served in its apprenticeship.​

Working inside money-less cultures has demonstrated this to me in spades. Upon its removal, the focus of avarice/greed simply shifts to another instrument. High school is a keen experiment into this, what is bartered in those school years is an example of what takes the place of money. Then that new instrument (popularity, disdain, vilification, teasing, manipulation, blame, stealing, bullying, appearances of virtue, ass-kissing, gangs, protection, turf, sex, telling, vigilantes, drugs, cliques) - that new instrument then becomes the standard of barter. Why else do you think that police and military are without exception, the largest employers in a socialist society? People live in muzzled fear and despair because these pseudo-instruments are not held to account nor standard. They are easy to cheat, scheme and manipulate. Money however, is the great equalizer against human evil - if it is not manipulated.

In the absence of a single standard of monēre, fear and love become the essential instrument of barter. But mostly fear. This experiment plays out in developing nations over and over and over - so it has indeed been tested. If our tribe expands beyond its inherent circle of love - then fear/conflict ensues. We must have a way of converting this fear into a trade-able and manageable commodity and common interest. So that all can work to alleviate it thereafter.​

For every action, ethical or evil ('good' is not a Wittgenstein logical object in this realm) - there is an equal and opposite reaction. Fame, power and gangs are examples of this pseudo-monēre which erupts in the place of money - And the measure for that reaction will always be tallied in the management of a human society.

There is and always will be a standard of barter. The issue (sad tho this reality may be) is to make the account/trade of this barter an incorruptible standard. Distributed ledger and a synthetic standard of currency. So that no one person nor mafia may cheat the system and make everyone else equal and destititute (the essence of socialism). Those with the strongest military (Russia and the US) don't rule by default. Those with the most minerals (Brazil or Australia) don't dictate from social luxury those who suffer versus live easy. Those with tons of crude oil (Saudi Arabia or Sweden) don't get to live lives of tyrranical worthlessness. It is this cheating today that you see embodied inside money-value-control. A desperate person who is held to account - must always cheat.

I use this principle in national strategies - "The flow of margin (not money - but it is still measured by money) must be equal and opposite the flow of value". The things which cause departure from this principle are crime, laziness, greed, corruption, gross inefficiency, waste, neglect, arrogance, ignorance. These all show up as 'inflation' in the monetary instrument of that group inside which such foibles are exercised. Turkey is a great example of this today - a great deal of grey market trade fraud houses itself and its trading mechanisms inside the Tyflocracy of the Turkish Government. Their inflation rate regularly ranges from 30% to 100% as a result. Evil causes suffering. Money exposes this.

Money measures our evil and shines a spotlight upon it. Not as a bribe nor threat. What we choose to do with that knowledge, is up to us thereafter.

This is the riddle of money.
 
Last edited:
I wish this ideal of 'no money' were so Alice - and believe it or not, we have tried this experiment as mankind many times.
But the heart of man is incompatible with such a dream.
Do you have any modern example other than Star trek that I could look into? Apart from M Tellinger's 'Ubuntu Contributionism' of creating a moneyless society, the strategy of which it is hard to pin down, unless you read his book apparently, I haven't. Or maybe if communes had succeeded they would be an example, but I haven't heard of a moneyless society as an "experiment..many times". The cultures that have a long past with no money are the indigenous peoples who persist in not belonging to the modern culture. Even in modern indigenous culture there remains a comprehension of collective ownership of land and it's wealth, the principles of political public consensus and cooperation. And their children (the Australian Aboriginals) even play games that have everyone a winner, not the winner and losers that we grew up with.. So i don't think we are "incompatible with such a dream"
Money must exist as long as individual man's heart is corruptible.
This doesn't follow. Money is the corrupter, so to insist it exists torment-like some addictive temptation, always just out of reach, is callous.
True, we could use shells, but notes pack better. The 'standard of barter' is only a vehicle for your incorruptible standard for value, is not the thing. I don't argue with having an object to exchange. I object to the unequal distribution of it, so that while it was invented to make things available, it actually puts a (insurmountable for some) barrier to actually getting what you need.
Working inside money-less cultures has demonstrated this to me in spades. Upon its removal, the focus of avarice/greed simply shifts to another instrument. High school is a keen experiment into this, what is bartered in those school years is an example of what takes the place of money.
Agreed, but schools are a false construction of society, like prisons, bound to create social tensions and opportunities for extortion and hierarchy. And there is apparently little effort put in to teach the virtues of ethical, moral, social and political wisdom in the syllabus. Possibly because the monied culture wants people to be easily-regulated ignorant slaves, with false hopes of somehow getting hold of more than just enough money.
Evolution includes now, because these psychological conditions like avarice/greed are created by stress, competition and the pursuit of whatever is the current currency.

It's a self-perpetuating cycle of course, like any good commodity-based consumer product, the system relies on being able to manipulate by (and you know I am no economist) inflation, interest and taxes. And if we assume those ministering the money are corruptible, then the distribution method is also faulty, and another must be found. We also forget, in the relentless pursuit of money, that the raw material behind it is finite and the methods of production are polluting.
Money however, is the great equalizer against human evil
I don't know how you work that out. Money is not a great equaliser, poverty probably is, and it does not regulate evil. It creates it.
There is and always will be a standard of barter. The issue (sad tho this reality may be) is to make the account/trade of this barter an incorruptible standard. Distributed ledger and a synthetic standard of currency. So that no one person nor mafia may cheat the system and make everyone else equal and destititute (the essence of socialism).
If money was invented to create an incorruptible standard, then surely it hasn't worked. True Social-Democracy, not the extremes of Capitalist or Communist, with social values of equality, education and ethical care of a society and its resources, is the essence of socialism.
Evil causes suffering. Money exposes this.
No. Money hides this.
The things which cause departure from this principle are crime, laziness, greed, corruption, gross inefficiency, waste, neglect, arrogance, ignorance.
These are the consequences of a centralised control of the distribution of our collectively owned global wealth. Where there is no collaboration, there is little interest or responsibility, and the intelligence of the people is not accessed for input. It is easy to speak from within the (current) ruling class with access and influence to this conditional system. Without participation there can be no cooperation.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any modern example other than Star trek that I could look into?
Star Trek was not an example of an attempt at a money-less society, it was an example of how our popular fantasy of such works. We are being instructed to believe fairy tales socially. Star Trek is a fantastic example of this teaching.

This doesn't follow. Money is the corrupter, so to insist it exists torment-like some addictive temptation, always just out of reach, is callous.

True, we could use shells, but notes pack better. The 'standard of barter' is only a vehicle for your incorruptible standard for value, is not the thing. I don't argue with having an object to exchange. I object to the unequal distribution of it, so that while it was invented to make things available, it actually puts a (insurmountable for some) barrier to actually getting what you need.
I am confused by this apparent mismatch - because money is an 'object to exchange'. Money is the problem? or The unequal distribution of it? Both?

The crux of how we differ is this, I surmise: I contend that Crony (Capitalism) and Mafia (Socialism) sequestration of money, is the problem - but do not contend that it should be handed out to all equally. When money is flooded equally into a society without a measure-of-value against which to post it, inflation ensues. This is the same problem as with Crony-Mafia - they hold more money than their value would merit. Handing out equal money is simply doing the same thing in a different way. All we have done was changed crime bosses.

Inflation is a condition wherein dishonest people thrive and honest people suffer. Backasswards. Money does not make people dishonest - it is the excuse - this is the entire lesson of this spiritual realm = facing your evil and not blaming it upon something or someone else.

Modern Turkey is a great example of this. Islamo-socialism rules, and Turkey is becoming fast the seat of mafia trade corruption globally. I just got off a trade call where we exposed a fraudulent Turkish trader (under a pseudonym), probably the 3rd one in a month - we have conducted background checks on, and found them to be mafia. See Turkey's Inflation Rate. Russia is another great example of mafia socialism creating a horrible legacy burden of crime upon the world. Who needs a Devil when you have Russia?

Only crude oil, or mineral rich countries can undertake an equal distribution of money (Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Canada, etc) without introducing abusive inflation. And even those societies all decay from the money-value mismatch. I have done studies in Saudi Arabia and they are disintegrating as a culture/people. It is just a matter of time. This condition is repeating worldwide, as we fall for the fairy tale of Globo-Socialism.
 
Last edited:
Star Trek was not an example of an attempt at a money-less society, it was an example of how our popular fantasy of such works. We are being instructed to believe fairy tales socially. Star Trek is a fantastic example of this teaching.



I am confused by this apparent mismatch - because money is an 'object to exchange'. Money is the problem? or The unequal distribution of it? Both?

The crux of how we differ is this, I surmise: I contend that Crony (Capitalism) and Mafia (Socialism) sequestration of money, is the problem - but do not contend that it should be handed out to all equally. When money is flooded equally into a society without a measure-of-value against which to post it, inflation ensues. This is the same problem as with Crony-Mafia - they hold more money than their value would merit. Handing out equal money is simply doing the same thing in a different way. All we did was change crime bosses.

Inflation is a condition wherein dishonest people thrive and honest people suffer. Backasswards. Money does not make people dishonest - it is the excuse - this is the entire lesson of this spiritual realm = facing your evil and not blaming it upon something or someone else.

Modern Turkey is a great example of this. Islamo-socialism rules, and Turkey is becoming fast the seat of mafia trade corruption globally. I just got off a trade call where we exposed a fraudulent Turkish trader (under a pseudonym), probably the 3rd one in a month - we have conducted background checks on, and found them to be mafia. Russia is another great example of mafia socialism creating a horrible legacy burden of crime upon the world.

Only crude oil, or mineral rich countries can undertake an equal distribution of money (Sweden, Canada, etc). And even those societies decay (Saudi Arabia). I have done studies in Saudi Arabia and they are disintegrating as a culture/people. It is just a matter of time. This condition is repeating globally.
TES,
A big mistake that people of the socialist persuasion make when they discuss their perception of unequal distribution of money is the assumption that an economy has a finite amount of money such that if someone has more then there is less for others.

Money reflects value created and value saved. The amount of money in a society is not finite. More money is created as more value is created. If you don't have sufficient money, it is because you're not creating sufficient value.

Simply handing people money is not the solution because it is, in effect, turning society upside down. It is assigning value to not creating value. It incentivizes low value production.

Now someone like Alice will state that the person who mops the floor creates much value and should not be struggling to pay his bills and the guy that produces movies and who has a $billion isn't really doing anything so useful for society. She will say that the value structure is all screwed up.

However, that value structure was largely democratically evolved (i.e. "free market"). People like the producer's movies. So lots of people pay money to see them. Any dope can mop floors. As a result, we don't pay much for that.

The only solution to democratically decided value is a top down state directed economy. We all know how that turns out. The human spirit is broken and the economy is destroyed.

People like Alice say they're not socialists of the Stalin type, but that is merely because (giving them the benefit of the doubt) they don't understand the logical progression of policies in the attempt to lead to their desired state (everyone has equal money).

We can have a society in which everyone is free to pursue as much money as they desire knowing that some will succeed, some will fail, some will rig the system - or we can have a society that rewards slacking, incompetence and failure in which all but the leaders at the very top are poor and oppressed. There is no Star Trek utopia and there never will be because it doesn't correlate with human nature.
 
Last edited:
Let me give you an example.

I was tasked with a nation's infrastructure strategy back in 2013. We observed the development of mineral resources by the Western powers, China and Russia. The export market for mineral wealth was on the order of $6 billion per year. Yet the country drew down only a $300 million total economic strength, and a $600 million sovereign debt capacity (which had already been tied up). The $6 billion alone should have generated $1.5 billion in activity for schools, roads, power, food, healthcare, tradeschools etc. But corrupt socialist ministers had to ensure that 'everyone was equal in outcomes'. And the way to make sure of that is to enforce the rule that no one had access to wealth, save for the ministers or outsiders - and to that end, they entered into under the table agreements with the Chinese and Russians to extract wealth 'outside the context of a nation'. The ministers were paid off to allow all this to occur. Had they been able to regulate the extraction of wealth, the leveraging for the nation would have been

$1,600,000,000 x 10x Swiss exchange multiple = $16 billion in sovereign debt available for development of schools, roads, ports, police, health clinics, agriculture, etc. Instead, they were impoverished from a $600 M sovereign debt which was locked up inside worthless Chinese directed projects.​
But because the presence of that $16 billion would have made the citizens who developed the infrastructure 'unequal' (and 'unequal' was a no-no) then no one was allowed to conduct development work, because that would make some of them suddenly own money, = a threat to the Chinese and Russians. They would have demanded human rights, set royalty and taxation charters in place, developed a constitution, developed a free press, etc. All kinds of threats to the socialist Sino-Russian profit gravy train.

My team recommended a 15% royalty and 10% excise tax structure for the nation (very reasonable). I was almost killed by the Chinese for doing this.
powerful stuff! I've been a casual, outside observer to this stuff for a long time but never heard it broken down like this. thanks.
 
powerful stuff! I've been a casual, outside observer to this stuff for a long time but never heard it broken down like this. thanks.
Alex,
It is indeed a powerful example.

It's what the fighting is all about in today's politics; why Trump is so hated.

There is a global socialist movement. It requires a One World govt. The Pope is in on the plan as are most world leaders. It is highly advantageous, in the short term, to a few elites who are already out in the global economy as well as a few elites in govt that see it as the path to massive expansion of their power.

Counter these forces are people who enjoy their freedom as citizens of specific countries with a localized distinct culture. Such people are deemed deplorable. They are imagined to be racists for not wanting a borderless world controlled by faceless bureaucrats in some distant land and their globalist corporate elite cronies. They are said to be "haters" for not wanting their hard earned money to be transferred to endless waves of newly arrived unskilled, uneducated poor people.

The globalist movement must be atheist as religion can serve as a source of division. The globalist must be socialist as unequal wealth distribution can be divisive. In short, the globalist movement is a mix of Soviet style top down authoritarian socialism + fascism repackaged as something more reasonable and noble such that the bleeding hearts can get on board with it. Think of that awful, but catchy, little diddy by John Lennon "Imagine". It could be the anthem for the movement.

This whole political discussion kicked off with some people bemoaning the destruction of tribal cultures. The same people do not bemoan the destruction of countries and cultures by a massive globalized movement. Lots of unspoken values and biases here.
 
Last edited:
Eric, bro, I'm not going to use my (precious to me) time refuting your negatively judgemental assumptions about me (and the value-structure is screwed up) except to say..it is paltry conduct, invented I think in the US, to slander without evidence anyone who's argument or existence you (apparently) feel threatened by. I see where you're coming from, and I don't care for it.

I'm ready to talk when you've dropped that shit
 
TES,
You'll have to excuse me, I don't get paid much for what I do and I'm way off retiring, so my time is limited for extended, in-depth conversations.

I don't advocate 'handing out money' but of eliminating the need for it, of something so blatantly up for all the 'evil' traits humans can do with and for it. Getting rid of it as a barter or replacing it with a representative is beside the point. But it's possibly hard for you to imagine the non-existence of something you are clearly so deeply involved in.

I advocate the provision of essentials - nice shelter, good food, useful tools etc equally available to all without the need to negotiate with self-elected ministers doling out or withholding it within a conditional arbitrary value-laden economic system, enforced indeed by an expensive military mafia-style police force. A system that creates criminals, then charges them for it.
facing your evil and not blaming it upon something or someone else.
Precisely, then you blame a small bunch of guerrilla-gangsters in Turkey, a quick ref to Islamo-socialism, then (yet another) dig at Russia..what is it with the US about Russia? Don't you find all these events are rife in America?

I am against any system that quickly rotates into close-knit circulation of global-wealth, derived from our planet, benefiting an exclusive few while others have crumbs or 'trickle-down'
I have done studies in Saudi Arabia and they are disintegrating as a culture/people. It is just a matter of time. This condition is repeating worldwide, as we fall for the fairy tale of Globo-Socialism.
How about Saudi Arabian culture/people is disintegrating since America became so deeply influential in the Middle East? That condition is indeed repeating worldwide.

Yes, the One World govt global order fantasy will fall (it doesn't work for all and produces too much rubbish) to be replaced by Globo-Socialism - a conscientiously-driven, high-aspirational alternative option, run by faeries.

Obviously I haven't nutted out all the details and am open o any input from the People ;;/?
 
I don't advocate 'handing out money' but of eliminating the need for it. I advocate the provision of essentials - nice shelter, good food, useful tools etc equally available to all without the need to negotiate with self-elected ministers doling out or withholding it.
Now this is a change from the original point you made. You are now opposing mafia-socialists here. Good. Your original point with which I took umbrage, and the point we have been discussing all along up and to now, pertained to this contention you made:

Are we not all equals? If so, then the distribution of wealth (Earth and all her raw materials) is not over until we all have an equal share.
You won't understand spirituality until you get this vital point.
Since we cannot safely and environmentally cart barrels of oil and tonnes of ore to each person's physical location to deliver that to them - then this has to be done by means of a single standard of exchange medium. So in order for 'all to have an equal share' you have to then create shares (money is an equity 'share' in the wealth of a nation).

Suggest something else which does this...???

The right to obtain a basic set of human needs however, is a totally different conversation. Everyone is working on this goal. Please don't straw man others as being against this; as that may create artificial bad guys in your head. (Note the case examples I have given you thus far - involve REAL bad guys - violent mafias who steal from the destitute millions they rule over, for their power and hoarding of wealth. Neither does this mean that I accept/support US Crony Capitalists who are increasingly doing the same thing).

But it's possibly hard for you to imagine the non-existence of something you are clearly so deeply involved in.
Yes, just like I am deeply involved in glucose each day... I have not yet spiritually evolved to the point where my cells are able to function with absolutely no common exchange medium for energy. Friggin Capitalists. :) So in the mean time I am stuck having to consume glucose while I work to benefit society.
 
Last edited:
The right to obtain a basic set of human needs however, is a totally different conversation. Everyone is working on this goal. Please don't straw man others as being against this; as that may create artificial bad guys in your head. (Note the case examples I have given you thus far - involve REAL bad guys - violent mafias who steal from the destitute millions they rule over, for their power and hoarding of wealth. Neither does this mean that I accept/support US Crony Capitalists who are increasingly doing the same thing).
TES,
The divergence from the topic of RV began with a discussion around the virtues of tribal people. It then morphed into a general hatred of the USA and capitalism in general. Now it's about everyone being equal and entitled to equal stuff + the abolition of money (all a fantasy homage to tribalism circa 5000 BCE) - and yet there is a call for everyone to have equal "basic" stuff like modern housing, modern medicine, access to food (presumably in grocery stores).

I have a feeling that if a solution was proposed in which those who like capitalism could live as they do now and those who don't like capitalism could have large swaths of currently uninhabited land, some loin clothes, spears, bone fish hooks attached to twine and flint tools - and they could live in caves or fashion their own huts out of whatever materials are available, hunt their food and use herbs or whatever for medicine, that the self-proclaimed tribalists wouldn't be happy with the arrangement.

Because they know better and are not honest about what they actually want; which is really everything modern people have and plenty of it, regardless of ability or effort or value add. This is, of course, the very definition of socialism even if those calling for it deny that they're socialists.

Economics is complicated once you move beyond a primitive society of 30 +/- immediate members and once you plan for the future in meaningful ways. Society cannot progress without a division of labor and the ability to store wealth (once a gold and silver and now as $s). Being successful in the tribal world takes a lot of tough grunt work. It is low brain power work for the most part. Just follow the traditions. Being successful in the modern world takes a lot of brain power and mental effort. Not everyone can do that. This is evidenced by statements by its opponents that don't seem to have a coherent view of how it works and/or how an alternative might work (or not work as the case may be). The mental effort either hasn't been applied or is insufficient for other reasons.

Every time I have this discussion with proponents of socialism, etc. it ends up with me concluding that they really don't understands the concepts involved, are internally inconsistent, overly emotional and definitely haven't thought it through. Of course, they demonize me as some sort of ideologue for capitalism; which I am not. I am open to alternatives that result in a net utility gain in the long run. I just haven't heard anyone yet that is able to propose such a viable thing.

I saw a show once wherein Eskimos were interviewed. They were asked what they would do with a non-productive member of their society who just caused trouble. The answer was that they'd probably push him off an ice flow. There are no societies where a valued contribution isn't required. There are no societies where everyone is equal. Even the Eskimos recognize the more capable. Such people get more and better mates, have more and better homes, have more and better food and more status generally. They get to make the decisions as chiefs, members of the tribal council, etc.

The real decision here is what to do with those who can't cut it given the requirements of modern life. The decision is further complicated due the those who are unable to cut it being able to understand what is going on. They want what they want and when they don't get it, they label those they see responsible in negative ways. Since these people get to vote, they can be bribed by power seekers. I am not sure that any of these people would have a seat at the tribal council.
 
Last edited:
The fair distribution of wealth is the provision of essentials and monetary wealth is backed/made possible by the exploitation and consumption of raw materials. It is you and Eric who assumed I mean wealth as money for 'hand outs' Clearly this is an anxiety for both of you, maybe needing some discussion together on how to get over this judgemental lack of generosity, which will compromise your spiritual development.
And I never proposed sharing barrels of oil between countries. There are alternatives to fossil fuels.
But do enjoy the false sense of abundance while you both can.
 
Last edited:
The fair distribution of wealth is the provision of essentials
No, it is not. Those are two different things. C'mon Alice. :)

It is you and Eric who assumed I mean wealth as money for 'hand outs' Clearly this is an anxiety for both of you, maybe needing some discussion together on how to get over this judgemental lack of generosity, which will compromise your spiritual development.
No you said "distribution of wealth until we all have an equal share" - I never said 'hand outs' anywhere. I work to support programs for the disabled and chair a foundation which serves university scholarships for the income disadvantaged. 'Hand outs' (as you call them, not me) are a necessary part of a free operating society.

So, now that you are shifting to personal disparagement, this discussion will end. :)

I have a mature grasp of what spiritual development is - and 'everyone gets equal division of the wealth', is not developed spiritually in the least.
 
Last edited:
I saw a show once wherein Eskimos were interviewed. They were asked what they would do with a non-productive member of their society who just caused trouble. The answer was that they'd probably push him off an ice flow. There are no societies where a valued contribution isn't required. There are no societies where everyone is equal. Even the Eskimos recognize the more capable.
I have never worked with an Inuit population. That would be very interesting. Every strategy or relief effort I have worked in, involved hot hot hot weather. Either deserts, humidity, lions or mosquitoes. No snow/ice. :(
 
If you are going to come to Eric's defence, then you'll have to accept an association.
:)
So you think there's a consensus (in heaven maybe?) that I am evil? Well bless your heart. See? You're already more than equally receiving of the bounty of life. By virtue of you superior spirituality you have been appointed by the highest of highs as the judge of all morality. Please forgive a poor sinner like me. I'm just a wayward soul trying to find my way home. Please teach me more.
 
Top