Log in

View Full Version : Fight Club


djura
January 28th, 2009, 11:31 AM
in 1996 a guy called Chuck Palahniuk wrote a novel called Fight Club. I believe most of you did read it (it was a vary popular book after all), and those of you that didn't probably have seen the movie that came out in 1999.
Those of you that did neither, you have no idea what you are missing.

I know may will comment "it's only a movie", a (kick ass) story, etc., but the message is about something else (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuiKJ0rRTAo), and this is where it counts.

The ideas used in the book are mentioned as early as 16th century. During industrial revolution, while foundations of globalizing trends that ware to follow, ware taking shape, first worker movements emerged. They grew larger and stronger, until finally in late 19th and early 20th century, movement become so strong, every government in the world took socialistic ideas and communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist) seriously.

You all know how it all ended. Countries that still embrace this ideology are isolated, and are considered to be a treat to everyone else.
Weather or not this is a result of human nature itself, ideological misconception or something else, remains to be seen, and here is where I ask for your opinion.

What are the mistakes that ware made, and how come this doesn't work?

Studies say that wealthiest 2% of world population owns more then 50% total world wealth. top earning 10% own more then 85% total world money.
Bottom 50% world population owns but 1% total world wealth.

I think this sucks! Makes me a bit sick to my stomach. How about you?

rzm61
January 28th, 2009, 11:57 AM
<3 Fight Club :D

Tsar Phalanxia
January 28th, 2009, 12:03 PM
I've never seen Fight Club, although I do sympathise with your views. In the UK, far too few people hold far too much money, and the gap between rich and poor has widened, under a Labour Government no less! (For Americans, that's like as if radical, RADICAL Democrats got into power). As a result one in three children in the UK is growing up in poverty.

I'll repeat that again, just to stress what a fucking disgrace it is.

One in three children in the UK is growing up in poverty.

There comes a point, in politics, where no matter how good your political system is at generating wealth, no matter how much money individuals can make, no matter how succesful that country's economy can become, when certain consequences can render all that success meaningless. That statistic, is one such example.

rzm61
January 28th, 2009, 12:56 PM
I've never seen Fight Club.


Do yourself a favor and do it. :D

Also read the book.

tagnostic
January 28th, 2009, 12:56 PM
define wealth.
who earned it?

winwun
January 28th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Some hard facts bear on these issues:

Those who have money, want more.

Those who do NOT have money want it.

Those who have it, with a few minor exceptions, most likely didn't get it by sitting on their butts and whining, they got it by a judicious application of art, enterprise, and ambition.

For the most part, the have-nots lack the ability, drive, and ambition to succeed and become one of the "haves".

The "rich" man is NOT the enemy -- he is the one who owns the shops and factories we all work in.

How many poor men ever met a payroll ?

Our own society is to blame for fostering the atmosphere in which we quickly realize that no matter how hard we work, nothing really good is likely to come of it, and conversely, no matter how much we whine and cry and sit on our lazy butts, nothing very bad is likely to happen, due to the "safety nets" in place.

Also the prevalent and current fashionable idea of the "team" concept serves to stifle initiative and foster the idea that it is OK to be a slacker and ride the coattails of those who work, and to benefit from someone else's efforts, rather than our own.

The above being givens, where is the incentive to make something of oneself ?

Historically, all the welfare system has done is to stifle initiative through onerous taxation, and the UK is a prime example.

Ever wonder why there are so many windows bricked up in the UK ?

It is because, in desperation, the government taxes the number of windows, and one must wonder at the blatant disregard for the words of God when he said, "let there be light" . . .perhaps he should have appended, "if you can afford a window to get it through".

Also the Mansard roof was the result of taxation . . .

If you feed a dog regularly, he will not hunt, but let him miss a meal or two, and the incentive to eat becomes strong enough to stir him to action, and the same would apply to humans -- they would either work or steal, and if they elect the latter, well, we can take care of that, too . . .

tagnostic
January 28th, 2009, 01:20 PM
well said W,
you did omit
the U.S.A which
was also a product
of excessive taxation

Tsar Phalanxia
January 28th, 2009, 02:15 PM
define wealth.
who earned it?
The problem is, with Conservative government, you end up in a situation wherin it becomes very difficult for the children of the poor to succeed, and very easy for the children of the rich to succeed. A totally fair soceity is not one where everybody is equal, but where everyone has equal opportunities.
Those who have it, with a few minor exceptions, most likely didn't get it by sitting on their butts and whining, they got it by a judicious application of art, enterprise, and ambition.
Bullshit. Most wealth is inheirited, or being the children of well off paretns, they have a lot more money spent on them whilst being children, something the poor can't do.


For the most part, the have-nots lack the ability, drive, and ambition to succeed and become one of the "haves".
I would dispute that. You can't just generalise like that. Besides, the more important question, if that is true, is why are they in that situation? Simply because they are poor? Or because they are neglected by the state?


The "rich" man is NOT the enemy -- he is the one who owns the shops and factories we all work in.

I'd like to stress this; I'm not a full blown socialist. Socialism IS inherently flawed, but that doesn't mean I don't aspire to the theroised goal. I'm a social democrat, which advocates the creation of a welfare state, the nationalisation of services (E.g, public transport, utilities) and progressive taxation.


Our own society is to blame for fostering the atmosphere in which we quickly realize that no matter how hard we work, nothing really good is likely to come of it, and conversely, no matter how much we whine and cry and sit on our lazy butts, nothing very bad is likely to happen, due to the "safety nets" in place.
The USA has hardly ANY "safety nets". The reason people give up is because the actual possibility of succeeding in a free market is so low.


Also the prevalent and current fashionable idea of the "team" concept serves to stifle initiative and foster the idea that it is OK to be a slacker and ride the coattails of those who work, and to benefit from someone else's efforts, rather than our own.
.
What team concept? If you're talking about the dole, then I advocate the cessation of unemployment benefit to people who aren't looking for work, or who refuse to do some kind of community service (E.g. picking up litter).


The above being givens, where is the incentive to make something of oneself ?
.
I advocate a mixed economy, where there is room for both private and public employment. In such a system, there would still be an incentive to be innovative and dorward thinking.


Historically, all the welfare system has done is to stifle initiative through onerous taxation, and the UK is a prime example.
.

How? In the UK, healthcare is cheaper, and more effective than in the USA, and it's even better in the rest of Europe. And we have many private companies and entrepenaurs, e.g. Richard Branson, Rareware etc. The difference is, instead of paying for insurance, everybody helps support one another, rather than looking out solely for yourself. This has it's advantages in that the money you pay in insurance which isn't spent on you, rather than going into company profits, instead goe into helping other people.

(Ona related note, why are so many moral conservatives against the Welfare State, and yet Pro-life, despite the fact that it saves more lives?)


Ever wonder why there are so many windows bricked up in the UK ?

I don't know what part of the UK you're talking about. Here, the only reason that windows are boarded up, despite being profitable businesses, is because of, uh, the financial crisis, caused by the free market...


It is because, in desperation, the government taxes the number of windows, and one must wonder at the blatant disregard for the words of God when he said, "let there be light" . . .perhaps he should have appended, "if you can afford a window to get it through".
Oh, the windows tax. That was only enforced 200 years ago, to pay for the war against Napoleon.


Also the Mansard roof was the result of taxation . . .
Who cares? That was 400 years ago, to feed the Sun King's appetite for conquest, rather than healthcare.


If you feed a dog regularly, he will not hunt, but let him miss a meal or two, and the incentive to eat becomes strong enough to stir him to action, and the same would apply to humans -- they would either work or steal, and if they elect the latter, well, we can take care of that, too . . .
Bad analogy. That assumes that everyone already has a basic standard of living, which they don't. The aim of social democracy is to provide a basic standard of living, so that the puppies of poor hunters have just as many oppourtunities to become good hunters as the puppies of the more succesful hunters.

well said W,
you did omit
the U.S.A which
was also a product
of excessive taxation

Not quite. Many people in the USA were happy with remaining in the UK, it was just the fact that the UK refused to represent them in Parliament (This was before the various Reform Acts, meaning that most people in the UK couldn't vote anyway.). Also, we taxed you to pay for our fighting in the Seven Years War, to protect you from the French :]

tagnostic
January 28th, 2009, 02:39 PM
The problem is, with Conservative government, you end up in a situation wherin it becomes very difficult for the children of the poor to succeed, and very easy for the children of the rich to succeed. A totally fair soceity is not one where everybody is equal, but where everyone has equal opportunities.

how would you implement that?


isn't that discouraging achievement, because the fruits of your labors go to complete strangers & the government?

[quote]
I would dispute that. You can't just generalise like that. Besides, the more important question, if that is true, is why are they in that situation? Simply because they are poor? Or because they are neglected by the state?

i concur with the generalisation,
but disagree that it is the "states" responsibility
somehow mankind managed without a "state" blanket
for quite a while, and since the "state" has been assumed
to be responsible, there has been no noticable improvement
in the have nots, most notably that there seem to be more of them.



I'd like to stress this; I'm not a full blown socialist. Socialism IS inherently flawed, but that doesn't mean I don't aspire to the theroised goal. I'm a social democrat, which advocates the creation of a welfare state, the nationalisation of services (E.g, public transport, utilities) and progressive taxation.

i'm a little confused as to your idea of the difference between Socialist & Social Democrat, could you pls elaborate..

The USA has hardly ANY "safety nets". The reason people give up is because the actual possibility of succeeding in a free market is so low.

the USA is a safety net
ask anyone on food stamps, wic, unemployment, axxis med care
oh and lets not forget the rest of the planet, ask any country who
gives them the most foreign aid

about the free market,
tell it to bill gates, donald trump, etc..


What team concept? If you're talking about the dole, then I advocate the cessation of unemployment benefit to people who aren't looking for work, or who refuse to do some kind of community service (E.g. picking up litter).

total concur


I advocate a mixed economy, where there is room for both private and public employment. In such a system, there would still be an incentive to be innovative and dorward thinking.

elaborate pls on how that would be implemented



How? In the UK, healthcare is cheaper, and more effective than in the USA, and it's even better in the rest of Europe. And we have many private companies and entrepenaurs, e.g. Richard Branson, Rareware etc. The difference is, instead of paying for insurance, everybody helps support one another, rather than looking out solely for yourself. This has it's advantages in that the money you pay in insurance which isn't spent on you, rather than going into company profits, instead goe into helping other people.

(Ona related note, why are so many moral conservatives against the Welfare State, and yet Pro-life, despite the fact that it saves more lives?)



I don't know what part of the UK you're talking about. Here, the only reason that windows are boarded up, despite being profitable businesses, is because of, uh, the financial crisis, caused by the free market...


Oh, the windows tax. That was only enforced 200 years ago, to pay for the war against Napoleon.


Who cares? That was 400 years ago, to feed the Sun King's appetite for conquest, rather than healthcare.


Bad analogy. That assumes that everyone already has a basic standard of living, which they don't. The aim of social democracy is to provide a basic standard of living, so that the puppies of poor hunters have just as many oppourtunities to become good hunters as the puppies of the more succesful hunters.



Not quite. Many people in the USA were happy with remaining in the UK, it was just the fact that the UK refused to represent them in Parliament (This was before the various Reform Acts, meaning that most people in the UK couldn't vote anyway.). Also, we taxed you to pay for our fighting in the Seven Years War, to protect you from the French :]


sorry will finish response later
need sleep before work

ps, excellent post Tsar +5

Dementis
January 28th, 2009, 02:42 PM
It is unfortunate that wealth is distributed so unevenly. However, in some cases, most from what i can tell, people have either worked or not for their fortune. Its all about the motivation.

Tsar Phalanxia
January 28th, 2009, 07:36 PM
how would you implement that?

Through education, providing employment in deprived areas, making sure that decent food is available, all in deprived areas (N.B. Although the last one may seem puzzling, diets among the working class in Britain are atrocious, mainly because fast food is so expensive, and healthy food is the opposite In theory, if you penalised and subsidised them respectively, you might be able to balance the books.)

Remember, in the UK, there is unfortunately a formidable class system. For example, from my college (In Wigan, a very working class town) only 9-12 students last year went to Oxford, despite the fact that we have the best state college in the UK, and second best overall, and yet over 50 students went to Oxford from Eton (Despite being 9th best overall). It also happens to be ultra-posh, and a key link in the "Old Boy's Club".

This is evidence of the fact that if you are born to wealthy parents, you have more chance of being successful than if you are born to poor parents. IHMO this works against capitalism, as the talent and enterprise that you speak of isn't being fully utilised, as it lies unused in the working class, unable to escape the confines of poverty.


isn't that discouraging achievement, because the fruits of your labors go to complete strangers & the government?

I don't advocate a totally socialist economy (See later comment). But services such as health, education, public transport, utilities (E.g. Water, Energy) should be owned by the government, with private systems available (As in the UK) for those available to pay for them.

I'll finish it later; I'm tired

rmw
January 29th, 2009, 12:54 AM
Tsar, how are colleges and universities subsidized in the UK? In the US, if you're a resident of the state you attend college in, your tuition is partly picked up by the taxpayers, while out-of-state students pay more. And if you go to a private college, it certainly helps to be a legacy, and have parents pull down six figures a year (each).

sudikics
January 29th, 2009, 02:30 AM
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.

Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

This planet has — or rather had — a problem, which was this: most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

Perna de Pau
January 29th, 2009, 10:01 AM
Being European I tend to agree more with Phal than with Tag or Winwun.

For me government (any government in any part of the world) has only two tasks:


first it has to ensure an environment which leads to the creation of wealth
second it has to ensure a fair redistribution of that wealth

Given the fact that capitalism is the only model which works the difference between governments is the emphasis on the first or the second task.

The problem is that many conservative/right wing governments concentrate on the creation of wealth and forget about redistribution and many socialist/left wing governments try to redistribute wealth but forget its creation.

The perfect government would maximise the creation of wealth and optimise its redistribution.

tagnostic
January 29th, 2009, 10:11 AM
Perna, I concur with 90% of what you say,
my respectful disagreement is with what
you say are the priorities of government
security, is i believe the most important
function of any government, to be secure
in your person, property is paramount
without wich the accumulation would be
irrelevant, thereby there would be nothing
to redistribute.
the other problem is, if your going to
redistribute it, then what is the motivation
for making any? why not just wait for
someone else to do the labor and you
reap the rewards?


ps. where have you been?
slacker, hehehehe
i see ya lurkin
how about
more
postin?
I enjoy your reparte'

winwun
January 29th, 2009, 12:33 PM
I agree with Tag -- he sounds as if he's been there and done that . . .

Accumulation of wealth automatically insures the redistribution of it, for if it wasn't redistributed, then the accumulator could not accumulate more of it.

Econ. .001:
Ten persons in a row, each, (except the one on the far left) owing the person on their left $ .50.

The only one in the crowd that has any money is the one on the extreme right, who has an old half-dollar in his pocket.

In a desire to be out of debt, the one on the right passes the $.50 to the person on his left, who passes it to the one on his left, etc, untill the half dollar reaches the end of the line and goes into the pocket of the person on the end, who now has accumulated $.50.

What has happened here is that, by keeping the money moving, $.50 has done $5.00 worth of work, freeing ten people of their debt.

If at any point along the line, someone had elected to keep the $.50 and not pass it along, then their "macro economy" would have gone stale.

Money has to keep moving, or be redistributed, or whatever you want to call it, for the economy to work.

Perna de Pau
January 29th, 2009, 02:53 PM
Tag, you are right about security. I include it in ensuring an environment which leads to the creation of wealth.

As for the redistribution I do not mean an even but a fair redistribution. This would be to take from those who have (through taxation) but not to the extent of discouraging them from creating more and use it to correct imbalances (ex: education, social security) but not to the extent of discouraging those who benefit from it from relaxing on the state and doing nothing for themselves.

The difficulty lies in finding the right balance, which may shift from one place to another and from one period to another.

Winwun, I do not think that your example (which is correct) indicate that accumulation of wealth automatically insures the redistribution of it. It would be the case if all the wealth belonged to the same person but this extreme situation is impossible to occur in real life.

Tag, thanks for your comment. I've been around but I am not a big poster (see the quotation in my sig :icon_lol: )

Tsar Phalanxia
January 29th, 2009, 03:03 PM
Damn it, I'd be posting more in this thread, but it's so much easier to actually speak about this than it is to type it -.-

tagnostic
January 29th, 2009, 03:40 PM
type with your mouth?

(and keep the keyboard very clean)

rzm61
January 29th, 2009, 03:41 PM
Damn it, I'd be posting more in this thread, but it's so much easier to actually speak about this than it is to type it -.-



YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB! :icon_mad:

djura
January 30th, 2009, 09:57 AM
I'm glad this thread took off. And I'm glad we don't entirely agree on some points. First of them being...

define wealth.
who earned it?

Well, it's rather complicated...
Wealth is rather defined by accumulation of access capital within a economic system. This system needs to define environmental variables in such way that economy actually works, and capital could be accumulated.
Imagine for instance, you had no economic system, you couldn't put a price on product you sell - than money would have no meaning.
In such system, Sony PSP would cost less then a can of beans, because you can't eat or wear video game console, so you don't really need it.
Now, system that actually determines what is needed in a society is not created by individuals, but rather by all the people on earth. Therefor, reach people are reach only because all people on Earth work to create a system where otherwise insignificant things hold value.
And let's face it - significant things in life are free.
So to dispute a question of who earns the wealth - all of us do, and by submitting to rules of a system, we are the ones responsible for uneven distribution of it.
And make no mistake, I'm not promoting anarchy, but rather hold a strong belief that there has to be a better way, and somehow, people are better then this horribly unjust system.

I'll post more on this subject latter, right now I need to go sell some shit!

Tsar Phalanxia
January 30th, 2009, 10:43 AM
Well, there's the definition between a necessity (E.g. Food, medicine, shelter), a semi-luxury (e.g. butter, juice) and luxuries (Your PSP, jewellery). The problem arise as to how you define a necessity, and which is the best way to get them to as many people as possible.
From, an Economics student.

tagnostic
January 30th, 2009, 10:51 AM
easy, give them the means to be productive
so they can Earn it
if they choose not to
they don't deserve or want it

Perna de Pau
January 30th, 2009, 11:42 AM
easy, give them the means to be productive
so they can Earn it
if they choose not to
they don't deserve or want it

What about those who did not choose not to but simply could not do it (for instance for health reasons)?

tagnostic
January 30th, 2009, 11:48 AM
What about those who did not choose not to but simply could not do it (for instance for health reasons)?

that's where family & neighbors step in
it doesn't require government,
just humanity
imho

djura
January 30th, 2009, 12:09 PM
that's where family & neighbors step in
it doesn't require government,
just humanity
imho

Then, why do we need any government? If no one is willing to take care of these who need help, why do all of us need to be a part of this system?
It should not be up to someones free will to help someone else - this is why government is being chosen in the first place.

tagnostic
January 30th, 2009, 12:16 PM
Then, why do we need any government? If no one is willing to take care of these who need help, why do all of us need to be a part of this system?
It should not be up to someones free will to help someone else - this is why government is being chosen in the first place.

IMHO

government is only there to protect the civilized who take care of themselves, their family & their neighbors
from the uncivilized who want
to take

winwun
January 30th, 2009, 01:04 PM
Government is/was instituted and propagated by those who want to govern, NOT by those who are being governed.

Consider the situation from a "natural" view -- we are contradicting nature when we keep alive a person that nature clearly doesn't want to live.

We are doing our species no favor by attaching "value" to aberrant genes that, from birth, doom a person.

A fawn, born with goldenrod allergy, placed in a secure hiding place by its mother, sneezes and a coyote hears it and says, "helloooo, lunch" and nature has insured that the deer population will not be contaminated by a goldenrod allergy.

Process of natural selection -- priceless, and thank you, Carl.

Tsar Phalanxia
January 30th, 2009, 03:10 PM
Government is/was instituted and propagated by those who want to govern, NOT by those who are being governed.

Consider the situation from a "natural" view -- we are contradicting nature when we keep alive a person that nature clearly doesn't want to live.

We are doing our species no favor by attaching "value" to aberrant genes that, from birth, doom a person.

A fawn, born with goldenrod allergy, placed in a secure hiding place by its mother, sneezes and a coyote hears it and says, "helloooo, lunch" and nature has insured that the deer population will not be contaminated by a goldenrod allergy.

Process of natural selection -- priceless, and thank you, Carl.
That is bullshit. I'm sorry, but you can't apply laws like that to humanity. The thing is, you say "We are contradicting nature when we keep a live a person that nature clearly doesn't want to live", when poverty, in the Western World at least, is caused by HUMANS, not nature. The thing is though, humans can solve problems that humans create (Most of the time).

tagnostic
January 30th, 2009, 03:23 PM
Government is/was instituted and propagated by those who want to govern, NOT by those who are being governed.

Consider the situation from a "natural" view -- we are contradicting nature when we keep alive a person that nature clearly doesn't want to live.

We are doing our species no favor by attaching "value" to aberrant genes that, from birth, doom a person.

A fawn, born with goldenrod allergy, placed in a secure hiding place by its mother, sneezes and a coyote hears it and says, "helloooo, lunch" and nature has insured that the deer population will not be contaminated by a goldenrod allergy.

Process of natural selection -- priceless, and thank you, Carl.

that viewpoint is scarey
whats next?
no health care for the elderly
and the terminally ill?
follow "natural selection"
to it's natural conclusion
and it's 'kill or be killed'
i had hoped we had
gotten beyond that

Perna de Pau
January 30th, 2009, 04:20 PM
Government is/was instituted and propagated by those who want to govern, NOT by those who are being governed.

Consider the situation from a "natural" view -- we are contradicting nature when we keep alive a person that nature clearly doesn't want to live.

We are doing our species no favor by attaching "value" to aberrant genes that, from birth, doom a person.

A fawn, born with goldenrod allergy, placed in a secure hiding place by its mother, sneezes and a coyote hears it and says, "helloooo, lunch" and nature has insured that the deer population will not be contaminated by a goldenrod allergy.

Process of natural selection -- priceless, and thank you, Carl.

I agree with the previous posters that we cannot apply "natural law" to human beings, nor go back to ancient Rome and kill those with disabilities (google Tarpeian rock).

This does not mean that humans no longer follow the process of natural selection (survival of the fitest). You have however to take account of the group, not just separate individuals.

The "fittest" may well be the group which cares better for its members.

tagnostic
January 30th, 2009, 04:25 PM
I agree with the previous posters that we cannot apply "natural law" to human beings, nor go back to ancient Rome and kill those with disabilities (google Tarpeian rock).

This does not mean that humans no longer follow the process of natural selection (survival of the fitest). You have however to take account of the group, not just separate individuals.

The "fittest" may well be the group which cares better for its members.

i concur with the last statement the most
which (I digress) is why i'm concerned
about family values, the 'group' starts
with Parents, extends to family,
then friends & neighbors
when the group(s) disolve
your back to kill or be killed.

Perna de Pau
January 30th, 2009, 04:54 PM
i concur with the last statement the most
which (I digress) is why i'm concerned
about family values, the 'group' starts
with Parents, extends to family,
then friends & neighbors
when the group(s) disolve
your back to kill or be killed.

I do not disagree with that.

In older times family and neighbours cared for those who could not care for themselves.

Public authorities took some of this and started to provide for health care, education, etc. In my opinion they were right in doing so.

Unfortunately some people reached the wrong conclusions, for instance that it is the state responsibility to educate their children, not their's.

tagnostic
January 30th, 2009, 05:08 PM
I do not disagree with that.

In older times family and neighbours cared for those who could not care for themselves.

Public authorities took some of this and started to provide for health care, education, etc. In my opinion they were right in doing so.

Unfortunately some people reached the wrong conclusions, for instance that it is the state responsibility to educate their children, not their's.

wish i had more time,
who are public authorities?
why are they necessary
if everyone is taking care
of their family why are they here?
would love to elaborate, will later
duty calls

(ps, big fun, Perna)

rmw
January 31st, 2009, 01:15 AM
Government is/was instituted and propagated by those who want to govern, NOT by those who are being governed.

Consider the situation from a "natural" view -- we are contradicting nature when we keep alive a person that nature clearly doesn't want to live.

We are doing our species no favor by attaching "value" to aberrant genes that, from birth, doom a person.

A fawn, born with goldenrod allergy, placed in a secure hiding place by its mother, sneezes and a coyote hears it and says, "helloooo, lunch" and nature has insured that the deer population will not be contaminated by a goldenrod allergy.

Process of natural selection -- priceless, and thank you, Carl.

In that case, let's stop all medical progress, and better yet, stop medicine all-together. If someone has cancer or a baby is born prematurely, or even allergies, apparently, then, according to your logic, then nature should just be allowed to take its course and they should suffer (to varying extents) and/or die, because that's the way nature intends things to be. Human civilization still has a long way before it can be truly civilized, and this sort of logic certainly sets things back.

djura
January 31st, 2009, 09:02 AM
Government is/was instituted and propagated by those who want to govern, NOT by those who are being governed.

Consider the situation from a "natural" view -- we are contradicting nature when we keep alive a person that nature clearly doesn't want to live.

We are doing our species no favor by attaching "value" to aberrant genes that, from birth, doom a person.

A fawn, born with goldenrod allergy, placed in a secure hiding place by its mother, sneezes and a coyote hears it and says, "helloooo, lunch" and nature has insured that the deer population will not be contaminated by a goldenrod allergy.

Process of natural selection -- priceless, and thank you, Carl.

I'm not even going to comment that one...


government is only there to protect the civilized who take care of themselves, their family & their neighbors
from the uncivilized who want
to take

I disagree. Government should not be made of police and military, simply because life is about much more than just being safe.
And besides that, following the stream of logic, you could say that your employer that pays you as little as possible, is the uncivilized one trying to take. The point is this: when someone brakes into your house he wares a mask, but employer wares a suit, but both of them are after the same thing - your money. This is why a government is needed to pass the laws needed to protect it's citizens, and enforcing these laws takes a lot more than brute force.
Another thing that really bothers me is the amount of weaponry in the US - second country in the world @ number of firearms per resident. First one is Israel as you might expect, and some of them have tanks in garages, everyone has 3 year military service (woman included), and for reasons I need not state, don't really pass for democracy.
Does that mean that US government is doing a poor job of protecting it's own citizens?
I don't live in the US so I don't really know, but from here seems there are other things involved.

rmw
January 31st, 2009, 02:52 PM
There's also a sort of cultural war going on in the US as to what kind of role government should play. There are those who would like to see government take a smaller role in things, and let the private market sort it out. Then there are those who would like to move closer to some sort of European model and see a larger role of government. Healthcare, education, national defense and security, all of these and more--government does have a role in them, the question is what kind of role should they have?

Perna de Pau
January 31st, 2009, 04:47 PM
wish i had more time,
who are public authorities?
why are they necessary
if everyone is taking care
of their family why are they here?
would love to elaborate, will later
duty calls

(ps, big fun, Perna)

In a democracy public authorities are those whom the population choose as the most apt to organise their group/society.

They are necessary because human societies have grown far too big to be "self organised". In addition there are (and always have been) those who prefer to steel from the weaker rather than creating something themselves. The weaker need protection and another role of public authorities is to protect them.

It is always fun to discuss with you Tag. Looking forward for your next elaboration.

Ryder
February 4th, 2009, 06:02 PM
wish i had more time,
who are public authorities?
why are they necessary
if everyone is taking care
of their family why are they here?
would love to elaborate, will later
duty calls

(ps, big fun, Perna)

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, WHO WERE CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THE STATE OF MATTERS FOR THE BETTER AND THEY USUALLY FAIL AT THEIR DUTIES.

THEY ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE WE NEED SOME IDIOT TO REPRESENT AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE, BECAUSE WE DON'T TRUST OURSELVES.:icon_cool:

rzm61
February 4th, 2009, 06:09 PM
Please learn where your caps lock key is and use it. I don't want to take the time in having to edit your posts.

Dr Goofy Mofo
February 4th, 2009, 07:51 PM
What is the First rule of fight club?

...Thread over!

rzm61
February 6th, 2009, 12:51 PM
What is the First rule of fight club?

...Thread over!


http://bbs.311.com/forums/images/dark_vb/smilies/clap.gifhttp://bbs.311.com/forums/images/aphblack/smilies/cody.png

tagnostic
February 6th, 2009, 03:19 PM
What is the First rule of fight club?




Win

Dr Goofy Mofo
February 6th, 2009, 03:57 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/thankyouthankyou.gif

djura
February 6th, 2009, 06:32 PM
What is the First rule of fight club?

...Thread over!
that was not wary polite :)

tagnostic
February 6th, 2009, 07:00 PM
i believe he was implementing
Rule #1

rzm61
February 6th, 2009, 08:33 PM
that was not wary polite :)


I think someone hasn't seen the movie or read the book. That's okay, your ass might be a wad of cookie dough right now, but after a few weeks, you'll be carved out of wood.