And what are these limited resources? gold? oil? theres no resource that humans need to survive that is limited, food is unlimited and water is unlimited anything else is a matter of want manolito #1 dator Brave hash balls
What do you think of this, yuri? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/opinion/a-cancer-treatment-in-your-medicine-cabinet.html
Corporations aren't inherently bad. However, their limited-liability status gives them incentive for reckless behavior and investing. Also, their ability to purchase legislation and political influence makes them incredibly dangerous. I'd say that as long as the state exits, corporations are insanely dangerous. Without the state, I don't know if a limited-liability status is possible - unless, however, that corporation has no CEO and no heirarchy in which to hold a single party accountable. Water is not unlimited. Water is finite. Food, for the most part is not finite. However, as far as our current understanding of science stands, energy and matter are finite. If we can assume or establish that energy and matter are not finite and are, in fact, infinite, then there is still the matter of harvesting and distribution. So, for all intents and purposes, scarcity does exist and does create problems for humanity.
distribution wouldnt be needed if everyine was self sustained, it would take years for everyone to have a decent cycle and enough to feed a whole town but i think itd be worth it manolito #1 dator Brave hash balls
I agree that self-sustainance is imporant - even the pinnacle of living. However, not all people are ready for self-sustainance, or desire it, or have the mental facilities or physical capability required for living such a lifestyle. Major metropolitan areas are too interdependent upon complex systems to produce self-sustained populations. Unless that is, you count the city itself as a self-sustained organism.
But our system doesn't require that. Its pretty easy in most developed nations to work part time, and enjoy an easy comfortable life free of materialistic desires. As for African nations. I think greed plays a role in keeping them down. But I don't think wealth = greed. With fair trade and technology, we could bring these nations up to our standard of living easily. We could do this without changing the system of free trade and competition. Think about this: is it a crime to live eextravagantly at the "expense" of others? I'd say yes. Our current problem with rich crooks, is that we don't consider predatory banking and buisnes practices crimes. People seem to want to blame our problems on greedy rich people, but really we just need to hold criminals accountable and not allow our leaders to bail them out at out expense. -yuri
Corporations are good in the sense that they provide desired goods and services for consumers. They're bad in the sense that they constantly plot and scheme about ways to maximize profits even if it exploit/hurt voters, consumers and people on the bottom.
im from london and would love to see nothin more than the city bein torn down, everyones so mixed up in money here its crazy, in my ideal world cities wouldnt exist, what bout you guys? manolito #1 dator Brave hash balls
Precisely, and this is already an occuring and observable trend. Population growth, employment, wealth creation, and GDP are down in developed countries while those same parameters are steadily increasing in developing countries. As long as developed countries and intelligence agencies and predatory banking institutions can stay the fuck out of Africa and free trade can flourish it will see major gains in the coming century. What would exist in its/their place? I don't have any problem with cities, I just want them to move toward renewable energy solutions and options for homeless individuals - not to mention housing prices that aren't astronomically and artificially high.
if they fixed what you mentioned plus a little more i wouldnt mind cities bit most people are just to busy to care about anything else apart from themselves, i dont lije cities anyway i the look and feel of nature cities are just dark an gloomy, london would be the ganja farm for all of england seein as londons just robbing the rest of englabd basically lol manolito #1 dator Brave hash balls
Government should get involved in the allocation of resources when it pertains to certain inelastic goods in my opinion. Mostly though the private sector should handle how resources are distributed. Corporations aren't inherently bad and they do a lot of good in this world. The problem becomes corporations doing short sighted things in their own interest that cause harm to the publics interests. Are you familiar with the idea of externalities. That being said corporations overall are a good thing for the most part. They create jobs and products and keep the world going round. Everyone has to take such an extreme position, corporations are bad no corporations are good. Like everything there's a mix of good bad and the middle ground. Overall though I think that economy should be about 80-90 percent private and 10-20 percent public.
food and water are not unlimited And.do.you really.want.to live in nature with no power or utilities? I.don't -yuri
Corporations in themselves aren't bad, no. Too much power in too few hands is bad no matter whose hands it's in, leads to imbalances in the political representation and power of whoever isn't in the "in" group. That's what I worry about more than the corps themselves. The idea of money as speech and corporate personhood I think has gone too far. Yes they deserve to be represented but each and every investor, employee or whatever already has voices and votes of their own so the idea of an additional one for the corp itself seems unnecessary, it's an artificial entity which represent people who already have voices and votes of their own. Imbalance itself concerns me more than if that imbalance is in corp, or elsewhere. If it is necessary to some extent, and I'd be willing to consider that, I'd still suspect that we've gone too far. The idea of wealth disparity has come up in threads a few times here, yesterday I ran across an article on a science site called phys.org, it's pretty good with the subject in general but normally skips social issues and I was a bit surprised to find the following article there. Might be relevant to the discussion I'd think. The stats aren't what most of us seem to think they are. http://phys.org/news/2014-11-advocate-optimum-unequality-economy.html
Asking people to assimilate a cognitive distortion. All or nothing thinking, over generalizing. Cognitive infiltration trying to create a case for allowing them to keep individual rights when we restore the old republic through Article V a lawful peaceful revolution. Many will have phase out as we change. Some corporations are very good and important to our existence. Our consumption needs to eventually be tailored towards sustainability and corporations will gain privileges by leading and following us into that.
it shows the importance of societal responsibility To me, trusting the government to watchdog the corperations, is as naive as trusting the corperations to watchdog themselves -yuri
What happens when there are more people than there are resources like water? They can't all be self.sufficient Some will die Are you suggesting we shouldn't have.plumbing? Instead everyone should have a well? I'm not sure where you are going wwith this line of reason Do you want a small scale.Communist Amish Paradise or something? -yuri corperations don't do that People do People also let them get away with it We just had a midterm election and 90% of Congress got reelected -yuri
This is why I support trial by peers with no laws Laws allow criminals to do.crime.legally.instead of allowing the jury to decide what is just -yuri
Well of course people do those things. Corporations are controlled by people. and you can't really blame the public for abuses by corporations. The wealthy rig the game so only their candidates can be voted for.
Sure, but what about the potential cure? I say tax funded research with some additional taxation penalties levied against big pharm.
The point you seem to want to get to I'd agree with, but I don't think a lack of laws would be the best way to get there. Mob justice has a pretty colorful history and I'd have real concerns about the idea of actual 'justice' getting more rare rather than less. A basic framework which applies to everyone can help remove prejudices and preconceived notions we sometimes aren't even aware that we have. The jury doing what's just, we already have that power, we just don't realize it. Jury nullification has been tested the whole way to the supreme court and has stood up to the test, the ultimate judge of if a law is fair and if that law is fair in this particular case is already in the hands of the jury and pretty much always has been. I think our biggest problem is that we keep looking for ways that the system will work with a minimum of involvement or effort on our part and that's where we keep failing. A democracy can't work without an educated, involved, and active public. We should know what the real wealth disparity numbers look like, we should know that jury nullification is an option, we should know all kinds of things that we don't know. I don't see a fix for any of it that doesn't start with us. We need to make sure we're better informed and debating facts rather than talking points, and right now we don't do anything of the sort.