There are a few problems they skipped.
First, that bigger pie is still finite, but we act as if it's infinite, pretending that one person having billions doesn't adversely effect others, but that's simply not true.
Second, it overlooked the fact that those countries going through industrial revolution often do so by using other non industrial countries resources, making it impossible to industrialize everywhere....we would need at least one more planet to harvest.
Third, it never pointed out that the GDP increases caused by industrial revolutions were met with massive increases in population, which decreases the per capita net worth significantly. Doubling GDP while tripling population makes the average person have less, not more.

I'm disappointed they didn't mention the French revolution, caused largely by the wealth disparity they're discussing.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.

This video seems to be a long winded version of 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.

Please read again...and write again, reading what you write before submitting. I can't follow your first paragraph. What little I can understand completely ignores what I wrote and makes stuff up to argue against.

I didn't say atheists have a monopoly on morality, I said morality doesn't come from religions, and atheists are more moral than religious people. I gave clear statistics about criminal behavior to prove my point.
EDIT:It seems you are saying if it's not religious in origin, the only thing left is political affiliation!? OMFG! That's so wrong I don't know where to start, I hope I just misunderstand you.
Reading/writing comprehension matters.
read my last paragraph in the post above...you exhibit those symptoms.

The answer to all your demographic questions, the religious group.
Religious 'morality' allows for murder, rape, and slavery of the non devout, and so is more responsible for the decline, and for many of the schisms in society.
You watch too much fox news, liberals don't 'control all major media and schools'. "Conservatives" (which are not conservative, they want to be more 'progressive' than liberals by "going back" to a time that never existed) never shut up pushing their insane, debunked ideas day and night. Their morality supports slavery and rape and wage disparity so disastrous that it may lead to class warfare. (how you treat the least of your brethren...etc.)
(EDIT: also investigate the saying 'eat the rich'-Jean-Jacques Rousseau )

More abortions for Christians than atheists, they can't be seen haveing out of wedlock children and many can't use birth control.
Abstinence only sex-ed actually promotes pre-marital sex (if you look at the results).
Christians have more adulterous affairs... for entertainment, and more divorce too.
Religious 'morality' is all 'morality decided by self'. (You don't stone non Christians or people who work on Sunday, do you? If not, you absolutely don't take your morality from the bible.)
Religion totally enslaves the poor.

Any other fallacies you need me to destroy?

That's one way of looking at it.

The other way is that if it wasn't for the law, the strongest would be fucking over the weak even more.

It's the old Hobbes V Rousseau argument.

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

The basic form of a social contract is the foundation for every state in the world. Every individual within the territory forfeits a set of rights and is imposed with a set of duties instead. That's a social contract as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du contrat social".

Doesn't help much with regards to Anglo-Saxon capitalism, does it? Beyond its most basic definition, social contract means, in theory, a recalibration of metrics beyond mere profit, within a society. Whatever metrics one might think would reasonably map progress towards the ultimate goal: the pursuit of happiness.

A concrete example would be the political-economic system of Germany, 1948 onwards, the so-called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft", wherein capitalism is (or was) constrained by agreements to the benefit of the whole of society. Not any individual, not any group, all members of society. Manifestations of it would be the safety net in all its forms and shapes, the health system, the pension system, the rejection of military interventionalism, the preservation of nature, no tolerance for fascism, etc. All specific policies that have their origins in an understanding of what society agreed upon would be best for everyone. The extent is subject to constant political debate, but the underlying concept remains untouched.

So the claim that there is no such thing as a social contract strikes me as a continuation of Thatcher's insistence that there is, in fact, no society. I don't subscribe to that notion, and as far as I can tell, neither does continental Europe as a whole.

If people prefer a system without a "society" beyond the very basic neccessities of a functioning state, go ahead. Do your thing. Competition of ideas and whatnot.

But I'm going to stay a member of this society, thank you very much. And as such, I take the liberty of leaving this "discussion" again. Cheerio.

Thank you.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I loved the gingerbread : You were with some distinguished company there! I think that Pollock, Mondrian, and dotdude were the three most successful projects, with an honourable mention to Rousseau.

I loved the gingerbread You were with some distinguished company there! I think that Pollock, Mondrian, and dotdude were the three most successful projects, with an honourable mention to Rousseau.

Why do people always think libertarians are anarchists? Just because I don't belong into either of these bullshit parties doesn't make me not believe in government. I do, however, believe that government is a social contract between you and me, and everyone else, and that contract has to be balanced since we all don't have the same opinion. With that said, I do not believe anything a democrat says, and I sure as hell don't believe anything a republican says. The sad part about these parties is that the only time in the last decade where they actually agreed unanimously at the house was right after 9/11. As for the people (fans), only sheep will agree with their party all the time.

As for size and function of government, this is dependent on the state of the country and the scope of government's responsibility (Federal vs State). If you read Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract (Du Contrat Social), you'd see that an exemplary government is one that focuses service, and not laws. If you have a serious drug problem, then you should get help, not get thrown in jail. Alas, we have an archaic emotional government. Republicans want to limit personal freedom, and democrats want to limit economic freedom. I see no point in either one of those as long as nobody is unfairly treated. That is THE bottom line.

Three things should be considered essential to our future economy:
1) Education
2) Healthcare
3) Science Projects / Environment

I'd vote for anyone who is willing to throw everything else under the bus for reconsideration - regardless of partisanship. The reason I brought the politician's case to pay their own healthcare and get a pay cut is not to save money - You can't consciously deny others free healthcare when you yourself have it. That's what's happening in congress today.

I like your statement about the legalizing and taxing Marijuana; however, Marijuana can't be taxed as most people would grow it at home - I say just legalize it and stop wasting DOJ resources. I don't mind taxing the shit out of oil, use of plastics, tobacco, and alcohol.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?




You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.
No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.
Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.
It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.
Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.
Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.
Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

>> ^Gallowflak:


The fact that there is worse abuse is not an excuse for this brutal and disgusting behaviour.
The fact that she is being excused by people who seem to be intimately familiar with childhood abuse is, at the very least, disturbing and rather eye-opening.
The brutality that the mother is willing to resort to, no less than traumatizing her own child, is revolting. This bitch doesn't need your defence, nor should she have it; we have a word for people who display such malignancy... we call them sociopaths.

I'll go so far as to say this woman is probably reaping what she sowed. A certain amount of bad behavior is learned from bad parenting. But if you think children are raised in a perfect world where they listen to everything you say without question and never act out, and that the solution is rationalizing and giving them a hug then you're living in a dream. Seriously, you were sold some tsunami insurance for property in Colorado and the best part is you don't even know it. What f*cking Rousseau wet dream did you slurp off the floor? I dare you to raise a kid without limits and not call him a sociopath. Pull your head out and try a cold shower with some hot sauce. It's not bad. At the very least it's not worth your judgement. Half the world's population would beg for fresh water and hot sauce on a regular basis, this kid gets it for punishment. This was not trauma. This was a kid wailing because he got caught. What this kid got was discipline and structure. If you can't recognize the difference then God help your kids, because you can't.


But this is all moot. The woman broke no law, left no physical mark, and was within her rights as a parent. That means all willing to cast stones should put their nose someplace else. Gallowflak's "Fuck you" is a nice warm steaming pile to start with.

Hahaha! So much fun, so little embarassment.

So, Canadians, Britains, and the rest of the western world lives under tyranny. It's dumb bullshit like this thats tells people not to take you seriously. FYI I have read Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle ad nauseum, but to be perfectly honest I prefer Rousseau.

You're argument reminds me of this woman.

Nice Plato quote - here's one of my own: He who trivializes terms like 'tyranny', has no understanding of the world beyond his own national borders, and throws around terms like "gun-point" with ease is a rigid idealogue who probably thinks kids should be home-schooled and that society would be so much safer if everyone carried a gun.

Check this out - I dedicate it to you.

Drax! Thank God someone else gets it! That show really was the best! There's a whole series of novels, including what the fifth season was supposed to be. Frigging heart wrenching. Okay, Notarobot. You know how on Star Trek, they encounter some Klingons in some uncharted territory, and the whole episode is really tense, and then they find some key at the last minute, and then everyone goes home and noone dies? That doesn't happen on Bab5. Instead of dink and dunk episode plots, the story arcs take entire seasons to develop, but when they get it on, whole fleets, casualties in the thousands. Body parts and debris floating through space. Entire friggin planets, decimated. In Star Trek, nobody dies. In Bab5, everyone in clinging by their bloody fingernails and the skin of their teeth the whole time.
With the high hair Centauri and the red eye Narn, from what I recall the Narn were an intelligent, but semi developed culture until the Centauri came along, hooked them up with some interstellar technology, gave them the smallpox blankets and slavery treatment, and the whole thing degenerated in to an orgy of slaugher. The guy ol whatshisname (high hair guy in the clip there was the nerd in Animal House) answers to is one of my all time favorite characters in anything: Ambassador Londo Mollari, who is a backstabbing Machivellian scumbag diplomat (who just so happens to have a tiny glimmer of a conscience that utterly rips him to shreds). Crap, one station cancelled it halfway through, and they managed to pick up with another, so the whole time their telling this GENIUS story, they're putting 75% of their effort into just surviving their own executives, so at a glance it's easy to laugh at the hair, and the already Ed Wood looking tech and all, BUT DON'T LET THAT FOOL YOU. Rather than either trying to start from season one, or not watching any of it, I suggest watching season 3, (SPOILER HERE!!!) which is civil war with Earth (and Earth's $%&%$^ douchebag dictator), and you'll be hooked well enought not only to sustain all five seasons, but hunt down the novels afterward. Bab 5 is better than the total sum of all Star Treks and Battlestars put together. I love this show and I'm not even into the genre! Bab 5 really is as f-ing awesome as great stories get. (There's even a hot crustacean lady played by the gal who plays Rousseau in Lost). Drax, you posted this? I love you!
Hey. Londo's in that clip down there, G'Kar's epiphany.
Also! One of my all time favorite quotes is from this show: "The avalanche has already begun. it is too late for the snowflakes to vote." -Ambassador Kosh