rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[NotLambchop]

You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I hope we're not expected to be proud of our parasites.

They certainly think we should adore them.

Love us or die.



  ~Your Beneficent Reptilian Overlords.

[1714496243]

1714496243

[1714496243]

1714496243

[1714496243]

1714496243

[1714496243]

1714496243

[1714496243]

1714496243

[1714496243]

1714496243

[Erdogan]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government). 

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government). 

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

[Erdogan]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government). 

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

[Erdogan]

A government is equal to a mafia, but which has secured total power over some area, and has been able to relax the violence to achive higher taxable output from the governed. The tools are to make the subjects obediant and conformant, and create the illusion that the state creates more value than is extracted from the subjects.

If the Islamic State can hold on to their power, you will see this development taking place in real time.

[NotLambchop]

^^

[Erdogan]

^^

Hating the fatherly government is ok, as long as you stay conformant.

[NotLambchop]

^
Be fruitful and multiply--hate whoever you wish.  Tasty earthling.



  ~Your Beneficent Reptilian Overlords.

[Alonzo Ewing]

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

What is your definition of "government"?

I'm not asking for what governments should be or should do, but rather, what they are.  If an alien was watching the Earth from above, how would he describe this thing humans call "government"?

[NotLambchop]

...how would he describe this thing humans call "government"?

Give clueless aliens this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government



  ~Your Beneficent Reptilian Overlords.

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

[JayJuanGee]

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

What is your definition of "government"?

I'm not asking for what governments should be or should do, but rather, what they are.  If an alien was watching the Earth from above, how would he describe this thing humans call "government"?

This thread of the discussion began with Rptiela asserting that taxes needed to be abolished b/c there were NO societal benefits brought from such and inferring that some how voluntary institutions would take care of these issues, once government is removed.

In this regard, it is NOT my burden to establish what the parameters of this discussion are.  I am merely asserting that such broad and sweeping statements in that direction are baloney and meaningless b/c they fail to involve any plan about how supposedly we would transition from the current state of affairs to some pie in the sky governmentless (taxless) society.

Generally speaking, though, government does seem to encompass a large variety of community institutions to potentially address public infrastructure and health and welfare issues that would be difficult to address individually.. and in any event government has become very complex b/c it functions on so many levels and services overlap and are intertwined in many aspects of society.... .

[Alonzo Ewing]

Way to ignore my question.

[Erdogan]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

[JayJuanGee]

Way to ignore my question.

I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. .

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences. 

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

[explorer]

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussionbludgeon.

FTFY.  People will ferociously back their meal ticket, sustainable or not. 

[Erdogan]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

[NotLambchop]

... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.