Then what is a group of people who systematically follow their leader orders, remove any and all signs of normal religions and, replace them with a religion in which Adolf Hitler is lord and god?
I'm pretty sure that all classifies them as "Godless, heathern bastards."
You may want to hit your history books again, bro.
Hitler's religious views don't define Nazism's religious views.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Then what is a group of people who systematically follow their leader orders, remove any and all signs of normal religions and, replace them with a religion in which Adolf Hitler is lord and god?
I'm pretty sure that all classifies them as "Godless, heathern bastards."
You may want to hit your history books again, bro.
You should.
Where in the history books does it say they worshiped Hitler as God?
They very clearly worshiped the Yahweh and felt it was divine providence they win WW2.
I DARE you to find any Nazi document that officially made Hitler a 'god.' If what you say is true there should be some kind of propaganda video like we have for Kim Jung Il http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7G_ZgbBzJ4
There's a leader pretending to be a god.
I'm no WW2 buff, but even I know that the Nazis were predominantly Christian.
When I explain myself, people complain I am too verbose, when I don't...
...sigh.
This quote chain isn't even in context... quit you're whining.
Edit: You're not even really making sense. You're trying to appeal to the sentiment of humanity working together to go forward and yet you find nothing objectionable with people profiting off of others?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Edit: You're not even really making sense. You're trying to appeal to the sentiment of humanity working together to go forward and yet you find nothing objectionable with people profiting off of others?
I'd call it "inefficient" but not "objectionable."
I'd call it "inefficient" but not "objectionable."
But, now you're just making me split hairs.
And how do you support this claim?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Which? That's its inefficient to have one guy with lots of money instead of lots of people with some money?
Well, Bill himself seems to think it would be better, hence him giving his money away to lots of people as apposed to just giving it to one person or keeping it.
But, I'd still not call what he did to get the money "objectionable."
The only thing that involves a collective in capitalism is the regulation, which seeks to protects individuals, not the collective.
Except trusts, which started as a form of death tax evasion away from the crown in England by placing familial wealth into a "trust" run by "other people" and then distributed to the family to by pass the government. Trusts have since evolved into corporations.
The building block of the nation-state is the family, which is traditionally where property is held, not so much the individual. The question between dynastic wealth is often to what proportionality of nepotism is necessary for collectivized advantage while retaining self-motivation and a degree of autonomy.
That we're a collectivist nation-state where identity is based on individual achievement measured through money, not an individualist nation-state where collective achievement is measured through money.
I'm aware we're a mixed economy, I don't need another one of Captain Morgan's famously unnecessary history lessons.
Not so much "history" more or less theory and corrective terminology. If you read much on corporate governance, leadership theories, and ect. after a while you'll see what I mean.
Which? That's its inefficient to have one guy with lots of money instead of lots of people with some money?
Well, Bill himself seems to think it would be better, hence him giving his money away to lots of people as apposed to just giving it to one person or keeping it.
But, I'd still not call what he did to get the money "objectionable."
How is it inefficient for a small group of people to be rich when a lot of people aren't (that) rich because they aren't great with money nor do they pioneer groundbreaking technological advancements? What is meant by "inefficient" in your context? Because it seems incredibly inefficient to give everyone money when their level of production with that money isn't known.
Except trusts, which started as a form of death tax evasion away from the crown in England by placing familial wealth into a "trust" run by "other people" and then distributed to the family to by pass the government. Trusts have since evolved into corporations.
The building block of the nation-state is the family, which is traditionally where property is held, not so much the individual. The question between dynastic wealth is often to what proportionality of nepotism is necessary for collectivized advantage while retaining self-motivation and a degree of autonomy.
It seems we're moving away from the "family unit" with every passing day and more towards people acting together for mutual benefit, i.e. the contrast between a farm in the late 1700s and early 1800s and a business today. Wealth is not made via the family, however wealth is often passed to the family upon death.
My family doesn't own our house, my mom and dad do. Same goes with everything. I agree that a family which raises strong individuals is crucial to the function of any individualist society (and even to an extent collectivist societies), but I see no connection with that and defining America as a collectivist nation because of it.
Trusts and corporations are nowhere near the same. Where are you even gathering this one from?
That we're a collectivist nation-state where identity is based on individual achievement measured through money, not an individualist nation-state where collective achievement is measured through money.
Prove this.
Not so much "history" more or less theory and corrective terminology. If you read much on corporate governance, leadership theories, and ect. after a while you'll see what I mean.
We aren't collectivist, although we have had major collectivist leanings in history, most notably WWI, WWII, The New Deal, and today's welfare mentality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
@Taylor Sorry, let me be more clear. So, in this context, for someone to be financially successful, they have to be part of the top 8%?
Well, I am trying to frame this in the context of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, like I do to far too many things. I am trying to simplify the rather complex real word into something simpler I can get a handle on.
Really, I am trying to say "what would be the best, most optimal, choice for the individual/collective." For the system we have set up here in the US, in the context of the IPD, I was saying would it be better to be selfish/betray or better to be charitable/cooperate. To find out what was the BEST strategy, I was looking at top earners to see what THEY did.
It's like looking at the top 8 of a PTQ for deck ideas instead of and FNM. No offense, but(without you saying what % your parents are in) I question if they even won more than they lost, >50%, unlike Bill, who clearly won more than he lost.
For the context of the discussion as a whole, I am saying that in Collectivism the more optimal strategy would be to cooperate, while in Individualism betraying would probably be the better of the two. Seeing who did the best in our own system would help us get a handle on that. IMO we would want to make cooperating the better strategy.
Well, I am trying to frame this in the context of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, like I do to far too many things. I am trying to simplify the rather complex real word into something simpler I can get a handle on.
Really, I am trying to say "what would be the best, most optimal, choice for the individual/collective." For the system we have set up here in the US, in the context of the IPD, I was saying would it be better to be selfish/betray or better to be charitable/cooperate. To find out what was the BEST strategy, I was looking at top earners to see what THEY did.
It's like looking at the top 8 of a PTQ for deck ideas instead of and FNM. No offense, but(without you saying what % your parents are in) I question if they even won more than they lost, >50%, unlike Bill, who clearly won more than he lost.
For the context of the discussion as a whole, I am saying that in Collectivism the more optimal strategy would be to cooperate, while in Individualism betraying would probably be the better of the two. Seeing would did the best in our own system would help us get a handle on that. IMO we would want to make cooperating the better strategy.
i think we got off topic. If you define being financially successful in capitalism as being part of the top 8 percent than yes I suppose my parents couldn't be used as an example to prove my point. But I don't think to be financially successful in capitalism, you don't have to fall under the top 8 percent. I think being successful would imply supporting yourself and your family with no substantial issues. That would be the bare minimum of achieving financial success. So depending on how we define "success" in our capitalist system, then my parents could, or couldn't be considered evidence to support my side. And you still have yet to answer my question of what is stopping someone from being able to support themselves (like my parents), and at the same time doing something charitable.
I'm not sure why you spouted off into another discussion here, but it is certainly intriguing. I suppose if people were able to cooperate well enough to achieve a successful collectivist society then, it sounds good. But I think we are benefited greater when we look at each individual person. You can still cooperate in a individualist society. I mean, we cooperate all the time. We have mutual goals and we constantly work together to achieve them, but each of our goals are more important than the collective goal. If we start putting the collective well being above the individual well being then we create a state that punishes success, don't we? Bill Gates wouldn't have gotten where he has if him and his goals were treated less important than the collective's. That's not very fair. I should be able to do the best I can, without harming others. If I start hurting others, it's a different story, but If I'm just pursuing my goal than I can become a success. If I can't attempt to achieve my goal because it isn't as important than that's not right. The founders spoke of pursuing your own liberty. We can't very well do that if our own liberty doesn't mean anything.
We are all separate individuals, you can't change that.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
That the building block of each country begins with the family, rather than the individual. Humans are created through sex, a two person process or more, and reared with one or more parents. Therefore, humanity is built off of community more so than individuality by evolution.
The reason we've been able to conquer most of the inhabitable and semihabitable areas are because of our ability to trust and work with others. Egotism in the vein that "greed is good" goes counter to human socialization as it leads to antisocial behaviors such as hermeticism.
The very construct and evolution of a "trust" reinforces this, as people want to collective without distributing responsibility to the responsibility so it is instead given over to an abstract construct that through current legislation "counts as a person."
Stability is only achieved through collectivization coupled with Hobbesian leviathan to counter act avarice and ambition, while allowing a strict few channels such as voting, running for office, and ect. to act as a pressure valve for human emotions.
We are a unique specie in our ability to trust perfect strangers, that in and of itself is a foundational act for collectivism. Furthermore, the facts that we control actually very little of our own lives is further proof that we as a specie have created a world built off of mutual collectivism. No high cooperation and connectivity, no high capitalism.
i think we got off topic. If you define being financially successful in capitalism as being part of the top 8 percent than yes I suppose my parents couldn't be used as an example to prove my point. But I don't think to be financially successful in capitalism, you don't have to fall under the top 8 percent. I think being successful would imply supporting yourself and your family with no substantial issues. That would be the bare minimum of achieving financial success. So depending on how we define "success" in our capitalist system, then my parents could, or couldn't be considered evidence to support my side.
The question is what a better "winning strategy." I want to know choices the top 8 in the PTQ made, not the guy that finished in the middle.
And you still have yet to answer my question of what is stopping someone from being able to support themselves (like my parents), and at the same time doing something charitable.
I did, time. Every second they are helping someone else is a second they are not helping themselves. Thus, from an individual perspective, you're wasting that time.
So, while you might say "but they got by alright anyway" I am saying "but they probably could have gotten by BETTER." Likewise, I'm still doing ok in my PhD program wasting time typing this, but I would be doing BETTER if I was not.
There is no professional intensive for me to talk to you, and while I might get my PhD anyway, I am causing myself unneeded problems.
I'm not sure why you spouted off into another discussion here, but it is certainly intriguing. I suppose if people were able to cooperate well enough to achieve a successful collectivist society then, it sounds good. But I think we are benefited greater when we look at each individual person.
And I disagree. I have always looked at how multicelled organism seem to to better than single celled organism to determine that working together for the benefit of the whole is better than being a bacteria.
I went into that rather extensively here on another thread... that argument ended up going on for pages...
I mean, we cooperate all the time. We have mutual goals and we constantly work together to achieve them, but each of our goals are more important than the collective goal.
Right, but now your talking about a collective, which is what society is.
You can say "well if you help all individuals, you help the group" and I would not disagree... but at that point what are you saying?
Which is more important, America, or an single American. You can't have one without the other, no doubt, but should the single or the overall sum be given the higher priority?
If we start putting the collective well being above the individual well being then we create a state that punishes success, don't we?
Well, would punishing success hurt the collective or help it over all by promoting its parts? Because if so, collectivism would say we should not do that.
Bill Gates wouldn't have gotten where he has if him and his goals were treated less important than the collective's. That's not very fair. I should be able to do the best I can, without harming others. If I start hurting others, it's a different story, but If I'm just pursuing my goal than I can become a success.
But, did his success harm others? Not physically, but there are more ways to harm others than physically.
When he crushed a small business or innovator to promote his own company, did he "hurt" that innovator?
If I can't attempt to achieve my goal because it isn't as important than that's not right. The founders spoke of pursuing your own liberty. We can't very well do that if our own liberty doesn't mean anything.
So, if we care about everyone, IE the collective, we should not do that.
We are all separate individuals, you can't change that.
But at one point a group of single cells got together to form a Multicellular organism, so while I can change that, it can be changed.
Before you asked which was better for society. Since society is a collective, obviously collectivism is better for society than is Individualism.
It's a tautology.
Now, you're probably worried that collectivism would hurt the individual, and the claim would be that would hurt the collective, IE society. But I tell you that in collectivism you'd not want to hurt the collective, EVER. So, you'd NOT do that.
The question is what a better "winning strategy." I want to know choices the top 8 in the PTQ made, not the guy that finished in the middle.
Again, "winning" is an undefined term. I think someone who can support themselves and be charitable is a "winner" at life. What could be better than helping others while helping yourself?
I did, time. Every second they are helping someone else is a second they are not helping themselves. Thus, from an individual perspective, you're wasting that time.
No, from a SELFISH perspective it is wasting time.
So, while you might say "but they got by alright anyway" I am saying "but they probably could have gotten by BETTER." Likewise, I'm still doing ok in my PhD program wasting time typing this, but I would be doing BETTER if I was not.
Exactly. But it's your choice to be typing this. It's someone's choice if they want to try and cheat people to get to the top, or be charitable at the cost of some more success. There are plenty of people who choose the latter.
And I disagree. I have always looked at how multicelled organism seem to to better than single celled organism to determine that working together for the benefit of the whole is better than being a bacteria.
Yea, we work together all the time. Except if you only care about the benefit of the whole, then individuals mean nothing. We all have different goals, and want different benefits. So we work to get them, and when we want the same ones we work together.
Which is more important, America, or an single American. You can't have one without the other, no doubt, but should the single or the overall sum be given the higher priority?
A single American. They are what drives this country, they are what built this country.
Well, would punishing success hurt the collective or help it over all by promoting its parts? Because if so, collectivism would say we should not do that.
I think punishing success hurts everyone. If you can't succeed, then what the hell are you supposed to do? Your life shouldn't be tied to anyone else's life more than it already is. We are naturally tied to each other in various ways. My success shouldn't be dependent on yours. It's MINE.
But, did his success harm others? Not physically, but there are more ways to harm others than physically.
When he crushed a small business or innovator to promote his own company, did he "hurt" that innovator?
What small business did he crush? He employed thousands of people, that's like the opposite of hurt.
So, if we care about everyone, IE the collective, we should not do that.
But at one point a group of single cells got together to form a Multicellular organism, so while I can change that, it can be changed.
Before you asked which was better for society. Since society is a collective, obviously collectivism is better for society than in Individualism.
It's a tautology.
Now, your probably worried that collectivism would hurt the individual, and the claim would be that would hurt the collective, IE society. But I tell you that in collectivism you'd not want to hurt the collective in collectivism, EVER. So, you'd NOT do that.
No offense, but now it seems like your going around in circles and rambling.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
No, from a SELFISH perspective it is wasting time.
What's the difference? Why would it be good from the individual perspective?
Can you answer that second question, in depth, without using a synonym for "collective?"
Like, without saying something like "I feel better when everyone around me feels better." Or "I do better when society does better."
If that's true then you'd never punish success in Collectivism.
Whatever is better for everyone is what you do in Collectivism.
I think the real question you should be asking is whether or not Individualism is the best form of Collectivism.
That the building block of each country begins with the family, rather than the individual. Humans are created through sex, a two person process or more, and reared with one or more parents. Therefore, humanity is built off of community more so than individuality by evolution.
Doesn't make us collectivist.
The reason we've been able to conquer most of the inhabitable and semihabitable areas are because of our ability to trust and work with others. Egotism in the vein that "greed is good" goes counter to human socialization as it leads to antisocial behaviors such as hermeticism.
Still doesn't make us collectivist. And no, individualism does not lead to hermeticism, nor does it promote the phrase "greed is good." Obviously in the context of your posts rational self-interest and greed are two entirely different things, not to mention you're ignoring the fact that acquisition of things is not the only motivator of a self-interested person.
The very construct and evolution of a "trust" reinforces this, as people want to collective without distributing responsibility to the responsibility so it is instead given over to an abstract construct that through current legislation "counts as a person."
Quite the contrary. A corporation exists in order to remove the liability of one person's actions from another, because in a normal partnership you are liable for everything your partner does (and this is done by regarding the corporation as its own legal identity). Also, people participate in the stock market because they want to make money, not because they want other people to make money. This is unarguably selfish.
Stability is only achieved through collectivization coupled with Hobbesian leviathan to counter act avarice and ambition, while allowing a strict few channels such as voting, running for office, and ect. to act as a pressure valve for human emotions.
No, stability is achieved via individuals working together to help each other out. There is nothing collectivist about this; everyone has something at stake.
We are a unique specie in our ability to trust perfect strangers, that in and of itself is a foundational act for collectivism.
Prove this.
Furthermore, the facts that we control actually very little of our own lives is further proof that we as a specie have created a world built off of mutual collectivism. No high cooperation and connectivity, no high capitalism.
What are you even talking about right now?
Quote from Taylor »
If that's true then you'd never punish success in Collectivism.
Whatever is better for everyone is what you do in Collectivism.
I think the real question you should be asking is whether or not Individualism is the best form of Collectivism.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Uh, what part do you want him to prove? That humans can trust strangers? That the ability to trust strangers is necessary to collectivism?
Learn to read:
We are a unique specie in our ability to trust perfect strangers, that in and of itself is a foundational act for collectivism.
First off he didn't even take the time to note that one might trust a stranger with something small (like holding something of little value) but not with something much greater (like asking a stranger to guard a pure gold watch with encrusted diamonds). And those examples are on a simple level for understanding, I haven't even gone into trust and family safety.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
As for trusts in general, it takes a fair amount of faith to believe that a piece of paper will be "worth more abstraction" in some period of time. Then to go through the various stages of ownership and trade for those pieces of paper to own a corporation.
Originally with trusts, the point was to give the monies to an external source after death and then have that money skip over the hands of the king and go to the individual's family. That requires a level of trust that the person's worldly possessions will not just be kept by the executors of the estate, and the dead person not having any ability to reinforce the contract. That's a rather large leap of faith to entrust one's families future to that of a group of other individuals.
First off he didn't even take the time to note that one might trust a stranger with something small (like holding something of little value) but not with something much greater (like asking a stranger to guard a pure gold watch with encrusted diamonds). And those examples are on a simple level for understanding, I haven't even gone into trust and family safety.
Or that man is capable of both altruism and selfishness, such as pangs of obligation which further doesn't exactly create a "selfish impulse" as the "body" is "pulling" the entity to "act for another despite self interest."
Which furthermore, places the social construct for survival on collectivism. Between modern supply chains and the government, there's really almost nothing artificial that hasn't touched another person's hands before it settles into your own.
To get specific, functional and successful groups require a group identity and sacrifice from each of the participants. The social contract that binds them may very well be and probably is entered according to individual will, however we enter the stage where humans act differently in groups than in individual moments. This is called "code-switching," the ability to act differently in different circumstances. This shows a biological and sociological imprint on the human psyche to act in a group construct. Furthermore, people will also react to propaganda and social cues from those within their vicinity, again another reason why advertising is a true American art. The mechanics are there for an individual to subordinate themselves to the will of the group.
A human in an unfamiliar environment with other humans around them will look to others to behave. Hell, the entire term "socialization" is built off of the concepts found on collective actions.
So beyond philosophy, really how individual are we humans truly built and behave? Really, how much control do you have over your own actions?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
As for trusts in general, it takes a fair amount of faith to believe that a piece of paper will be "worth more abstraction" in some period of time. Then to go through the various stages of ownership and trade for those pieces of paper to own a corporation.
Originally with trusts, the point was to give the monies to an external source after death and then have that money skip over the hands of the king and go to the individual's family. That requires a level of trust that the person's worldly possessions will not just be kept by the executors of the estate, and the dead person not having any ability to reinforce the contract. That's a rather large leap of faith to entrust one's families future to that of a group of other individuals.
Honestly, what other choices did people have back then? For most people, royalty were perceived as the most accountable of all sources for storing and giving wealth upon death.
A person's word is honestly all he has in many cases, so people often assume that the same urgency of being honest applies to everyone, especially the government they live under. Notice that when that faith is disturbed and people are threatened, they defend what really matters to them.
Or that man is capable of both altruism and selfishness, such as pangs of obligation which further doesn't exactly create a "selfish impulse" as the "body" is "pulling" the entity to "act for another despite self interest."
Arguably a person is only capable of altruism if they completely forgo their own identity, or kill their self-consciousness. I would argue that acting out of an inward compulsion is inherently selfish, despite not having an immediately visible benefit, tangible or not.
Which furthermore, places the social construct for survival on collectivism.
It does? Perhaps you and I aren't talking about the same collectivism. I'm referring to the collectivism that, in its "purest" form, requires people to forgo their wants and desires for the wants and desires of the whole. The philosophy that places a duty upon people towards other people whom they have never sworn an oath to simply because they exist in proximity and are human. The idea that one life isn't worth a thousand.
Between modern supply chains and the government, there's really almost nothing artificial that hasn't touched another person's hands before it settles into your own.
This has nothing to do with collectivism. Why on earth are you making the false assumption that individualists can't work together and avoid doing so at all costs? If that were the case I'd be living in a hut fashioned from mud and sticks in the middle of the woods.
To get specific, functional and successful groups require a group identity and sacrifice from each of the participants. The social contract that binds them may very well be and probably is entered according to individual will, however we enter the stage where humans act differently in groups than in individual moments. This is called "code-switching," the ability to act differently in different circumstances. This shows a biological and sociological imprint on the human psyche to act in a group construct. Furthermore, people will also react to propaganda and social cues from those within their vicinity, again another reason why advertising is a true American art. The mechanics are there for an individual to subordinate themselves to the will of the group.
As far as I can tell it applies to weak minded people. Not the adaptation to other groups, per se, but the need to fit in. Maybe because I don't seek satisfaction through the approval of others despite whoever they may be, I have a different mindset than you and many other Americans.
But then again, most Americans act like children.
A human in an unfamiliar environment with other humans around them will look to others to behave. Hell, the entire term "socialization" is built off of the concepts found on collective actions.
And if I wanted to learn accounting, I'd read an accounting book. What's your point?
So beyond philosophy, really how individual are we humans truly built and behave? Really, how much control do you have over your own actions?
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
The part you guys are missing is the WHOLE POINT of collectivism is to do what's best for EVERYONE.
Also called "the collective."
What's best for one person isn't always best for another. The "WHOLE POINT" of collectivism is to place the goals of the whole above the goals of individual. It's been tried. It's failed. Every time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Bzzzzzzzzz
Naziism had nothing to do with atheism.
-----------------------
Child of Alara - 60 Land Shenanigans
Progenitus - 5 Color Control
Mangara - MWC
Drana - MBC
Ashling - 50 Mountain Death
Karn - Typical Karn deck
Kresh - Sac + Tokens
Kamhal Fist of Krosa - Ramp + Eldrazi
Sakashima - Morph and Wizard themes
Flying Hippo - Spirit / arcane jank
Teeg -30 disenchants
---------------------------
Dismantled
Sen Triplets - Boring Control
Uril - Enchantment Voltron
I'm calling the war machine of Hitlers Germany a pack of Godless, heathern bastards.
They believed in a man who made himself a god.
They did not believe in my God.
Hitler's religious views don't define Nazism's religious views.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
When I explain myself, people complain I am too verbose, when I don't...
...sigh.
No, I don't. They where neither pagan nor atheists. You should.
Where in the history books does it say they worshiped Hitler as God?
They very clearly worshiped the Yahweh and felt it was divine providence they win WW2.
I DARE you to find any Nazi document that officially made Hitler a 'god.' If what you say is true there should be some kind of propaganda video like we have for Kim Jung Il
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7G_ZgbBzJ4
There's a leader pretending to be a god.
I'm no WW2 buff, but even I know that the Nazis were predominantly Christian.
This quote chain isn't even in context... quit you're whining.
Edit: You're not even really making sense. You're trying to appeal to the sentiment of humanity working together to go forward and yet you find nothing objectionable with people profiting off of others?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
And how do you support this claim?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Which? That's its inefficient to have one guy with lots of money instead of lots of people with some money?
Well, Bill himself seems to think it would be better, hence him giving his money away to lots of people as apposed to just giving it to one person or keeping it.
But, I'd still not call what he did to get the money "objectionable."
Except trusts, which started as a form of death tax evasion away from the crown in England by placing familial wealth into a "trust" run by "other people" and then distributed to the family to by pass the government. Trusts have since evolved into corporations.
The building block of the nation-state is the family, which is traditionally where property is held, not so much the individual. The question between dynastic wealth is often to what proportionality of nepotism is necessary for collectivized advantage while retaining self-motivation and a degree of autonomy.
That we're a collectivist nation-state where identity is based on individual achievement measured through money, not an individualist nation-state where collective achievement is measured through money.
Not so much "history" more or less theory and corrective terminology. If you read much on corporate governance, leadership theories, and ect. after a while you'll see what I mean.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
How is it inefficient for a small group of people to be rich when a lot of people aren't (that) rich because they aren't great with money nor do they pioneer groundbreaking technological advancements? What is meant by "inefficient" in your context? Because it seems incredibly inefficient to give everyone money when their level of production with that money isn't known.
It seems we're moving away from the "family unit" with every passing day and more towards people acting together for mutual benefit, i.e. the contrast between a farm in the late 1700s and early 1800s and a business today. Wealth is not made via the family, however wealth is often passed to the family upon death.
My family doesn't own our house, my mom and dad do. Same goes with everything. I agree that a family which raises strong individuals is crucial to the function of any individualist society (and even to an extent collectivist societies), but I see no connection with that and defining America as a collectivist nation because of it.
Trusts and corporations are nowhere near the same. Where are you even gathering this one from?
Prove this.
We aren't collectivist, although we have had major collectivist leanings in history, most notably WWI, WWII, The New Deal, and today's welfare mentality.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Well, I am trying to frame this in the context of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, like I do to far too many things. I am trying to simplify the rather complex real word into something simpler I can get a handle on.
Really, I am trying to say "what would be the best, most optimal, choice for the individual/collective." For the system we have set up here in the US, in the context of the IPD, I was saying would it be better to be selfish/betray or better to be charitable/cooperate. To find out what was the BEST strategy, I was looking at top earners to see what THEY did.
It's like looking at the top 8 of a PTQ for deck ideas instead of and FNM. No offense, but(without you saying what % your parents are in) I question if they even won more than they lost, >50%, unlike Bill, who clearly won more than he lost.
For the context of the discussion as a whole, I am saying that in Collectivism the more optimal strategy would be to cooperate, while in Individualism betraying would probably be the better of the two. Seeing who did the best in our own system would help us get a handle on that. IMO we would want to make cooperating the better strategy.
i think we got off topic. If you define being financially successful in capitalism as being part of the top 8 percent than yes I suppose my parents couldn't be used as an example to prove my point. But I don't think to be financially successful in capitalism, you don't have to fall under the top 8 percent. I think being successful would imply supporting yourself and your family with no substantial issues. That would be the bare minimum of achieving financial success. So depending on how we define "success" in our capitalist system, then my parents could, or couldn't be considered evidence to support my side. And you still have yet to answer my question of what is stopping someone from being able to support themselves (like my parents), and at the same time doing something charitable.
I'm not sure why you spouted off into another discussion here, but it is certainly intriguing. I suppose if people were able to cooperate well enough to achieve a successful collectivist society then, it sounds good. But I think we are benefited greater when we look at each individual person. You can still cooperate in a individualist society. I mean, we cooperate all the time. We have mutual goals and we constantly work together to achieve them, but each of our goals are more important than the collective goal. If we start putting the collective well being above the individual well being then we create a state that punishes success, don't we? Bill Gates wouldn't have gotten where he has if him and his goals were treated less important than the collective's. That's not very fair. I should be able to do the best I can, without harming others. If I start hurting others, it's a different story, but If I'm just pursuing my goal than I can become a success. If I can't attempt to achieve my goal because it isn't as important than that's not right. The founders spoke of pursuing your own liberty. We can't very well do that if our own liberty doesn't mean anything.
We are all separate individuals, you can't change that.
That the building block of each country begins with the family, rather than the individual. Humans are created through sex, a two person process or more, and reared with one or more parents. Therefore, humanity is built off of community more so than individuality by evolution.
The reason we've been able to conquer most of the inhabitable and semihabitable areas are because of our ability to trust and work with others. Egotism in the vein that "greed is good" goes counter to human socialization as it leads to antisocial behaviors such as hermeticism.
The very construct and evolution of a "trust" reinforces this, as people want to collective without distributing responsibility to the responsibility so it is instead given over to an abstract construct that through current legislation "counts as a person."
Stability is only achieved through collectivization coupled with Hobbesian leviathan to counter act avarice and ambition, while allowing a strict few channels such as voting, running for office, and ect. to act as a pressure valve for human emotions.
We are a unique specie in our ability to trust perfect strangers, that in and of itself is a foundational act for collectivism. Furthermore, the facts that we control actually very little of our own lives is further proof that we as a specie have created a world built off of mutual collectivism. No high cooperation and connectivity, no high capitalism.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I did, time. Every second they are helping someone else is a second they are not helping themselves. Thus, from an individual perspective, you're wasting that time.
So, while you might say "but they got by alright anyway" I am saying "but they probably could have gotten by BETTER." Likewise, I'm still doing ok in my PhD program wasting time typing this, but I would be doing BETTER if I was not.
There is no professional intensive for me to talk to you, and while I might get my PhD anyway, I am causing myself unneeded problems.
And I disagree. I have always looked at how multicelled organism seem to to better than single celled organism to determine that working together for the benefit of the whole is better than being a bacteria.
I went into that rather extensively here on another thread... that argument ended up going on for pages...
Yes, but what incentive do you have to do so?
Certainly, from a purely individualistic perspective, I can see no reason .
Right, but now your talking about a collective, which is what society is.
You can say "well if you help all individuals, you help the group" and I would not disagree... but at that point what are you saying?
Which is more important, America, or an single American. You can't have one without the other, no doubt, but should the single or the overall sum be given the higher priority?
Well, would punishing success hurt the collective or help it over all by promoting its parts? Because if so, collectivism would say we should not do that.
But, did his success harm others? Not physically, but there are more ways to harm others than physically.
When he crushed a small business or innovator to promote his own company, did he "hurt" that innovator?
So, if we care about everyone, IE the collective, we should not do that.
But at one point a group of single cells got together to form a Multicellular organism, so while I can change that, it can be changed.
Before you asked which was better for society. Since society is a collective, obviously collectivism is better for society than is Individualism.
It's a tautology.
Now, you're probably worried that collectivism would hurt the individual, and the claim would be that would hurt the collective, IE society. But I tell you that in collectivism you'd not want to hurt the collective, EVER. So, you'd NOT do that.
Again, "winning" is an undefined term. I think someone who can support themselves and be charitable is a "winner" at life. What could be better than helping others while helping yourself?
No, from a SELFISH perspective it is wasting time.
Exactly. But it's your choice to be typing this. It's someone's choice if they want to try and cheat people to get to the top, or be charitable at the cost of some more success. There are plenty of people who choose the latter.
Yea, we work together all the time. Except if you only care about the benefit of the whole, then individuals mean nothing. We all have different goals, and want different benefits. So we work to get them, and when we want the same ones we work together.
A mutual goal.
A society is a collection of individuals.
A single American. They are what drives this country, they are what built this country.
I think punishing success hurts everyone. If you can't succeed, then what the hell are you supposed to do? Your life shouldn't be tied to anyone else's life more than it already is. We are naturally tied to each other in various ways. My success shouldn't be dependent on yours. It's MINE.
What small business did he crush? He employed thousands of people, that's like the opposite of hurt.
No offense, but now it seems like your going around in circles and rambling.
Can you answer that second question, in depth, without using a synonym for "collective?"
Like, without saying something like "I feel better when everyone around me feels better." Or "I do better when society does better."
If that's true then you'd never punish success in Collectivism.
Whatever is better for everyone is what you do in Collectivism.
I think the real question you should be asking is whether or not Individualism is the best form of Collectivism.
Doesn't make us collectivist.
Still doesn't make us collectivist. And no, individualism does not lead to hermeticism, nor does it promote the phrase "greed is good." Obviously in the context of your posts rational self-interest and greed are two entirely different things, not to mention you're ignoring the fact that acquisition of things is not the only motivator of a self-interested person.
Quite the contrary. A corporation exists in order to remove the liability of one person's actions from another, because in a normal partnership you are liable for everything your partner does (and this is done by regarding the corporation as its own legal identity). Also, people participate in the stock market because they want to make money, not because they want other people to make money. This is unarguably selfish.
No, stability is achieved via individuals working together to help each other out. There is nothing collectivist about this; everyone has something at stake.
Prove this.
What are you even talking about right now?
This makes no sense. Not even remotely.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Learn to read:
First off he didn't even take the time to note that one might trust a stranger with something small (like holding something of little value) but not with something much greater (like asking a stranger to guard a pure gold watch with encrusted diamonds). And those examples are on a simple level for understanding, I haven't even gone into trust and family safety.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Originally with trusts, the point was to give the monies to an external source after death and then have that money skip over the hands of the king and go to the individual's family. That requires a level of trust that the person's worldly possessions will not just be kept by the executors of the estate, and the dead person not having any ability to reinforce the contract. That's a rather large leap of faith to entrust one's families future to that of a group of other individuals.
Or that man is capable of both altruism and selfishness, such as pangs of obligation which further doesn't exactly create a "selfish impulse" as the "body" is "pulling" the entity to "act for another despite self interest."
Which furthermore, places the social construct for survival on collectivism. Between modern supply chains and the government, there's really almost nothing artificial that hasn't touched another person's hands before it settles into your own.
To get specific, functional and successful groups require a group identity and sacrifice from each of the participants. The social contract that binds them may very well be and probably is entered according to individual will, however we enter the stage where humans act differently in groups than in individual moments. This is called "code-switching," the ability to act differently in different circumstances. This shows a biological and sociological imprint on the human psyche to act in a group construct. Furthermore, people will also react to propaganda and social cues from those within their vicinity, again another reason why advertising is a true American art. The mechanics are there for an individual to subordinate themselves to the will of the group.
A human in an unfamiliar environment with other humans around them will look to others to behave. Hell, the entire term "socialization" is built off of the concepts found on collective actions.
So beyond philosophy, really how individual are we humans truly built and behave? Really, how much control do you have over your own actions?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Honestly, what other choices did people have back then? For most people, royalty were perceived as the most accountable of all sources for storing and giving wealth upon death.
A person's word is honestly all he has in many cases, so people often assume that the same urgency of being honest applies to everyone, especially the government they live under. Notice that when that faith is disturbed and people are threatened, they defend what really matters to them.
Arguably a person is only capable of altruism if they completely forgo their own identity, or kill their self-consciousness. I would argue that acting out of an inward compulsion is inherently selfish, despite not having an immediately visible benefit, tangible or not.
It does? Perhaps you and I aren't talking about the same collectivism. I'm referring to the collectivism that, in its "purest" form, requires people to forgo their wants and desires for the wants and desires of the whole. The philosophy that places a duty upon people towards other people whom they have never sworn an oath to simply because they exist in proximity and are human. The idea that one life isn't worth a thousand.
This has nothing to do with collectivism. Why on earth are you making the false assumption that individualists can't work together and avoid doing so at all costs? If that were the case I'd be living in a hut fashioned from mud and sticks in the middle of the woods.
As far as I can tell it applies to weak minded people. Not the adaptation to other groups, per se, but the need to fit in. Maybe because I don't seek satisfaction through the approval of others despite whoever they may be, I have a different mindset than you and many other Americans.
But then again, most Americans act like children.
And if I wanted to learn accounting, I'd read an accounting book. What's your point?
A lot more than you think.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Being charitable makes some people feel good.
Yet it does.
What?
Also called "the collective."
What's best for one person isn't always best for another. The "WHOLE POINT" of collectivism is to place the goals of the whole above the goals of individual. It's been tried. It's failed. Every time.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited