Topic: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism - page 2. (Read 9473 times)

Thanks for an introduction to the kind of religion you have.   

I think you'll find that you are talking about Goldman Sachs' religion there - not those that want an equitable share of wealth, power and opportunity.

 

1. badecker is a snake.

2. even badecker will tell you the earth was literally created.

3. badecker is a filthy deviant and the earth was created flat and motionless.

It often seems like Armstrong reads my posts. He and I are close to soul mates. I can basically read his mind and he can read mine:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/when-left-meet-right/

We both are computer programmers and we both did research in A.I. in the 1980s. He is several years older than me though, and got further along in applying A.I. to back-tested cyclical analysis.

DooMAD went to one of those sites that produces a political philosophy profile and I think this is a useful taxonomy. CoinCube would I guess be on the right, upper quadrant. Eric S Raymond would be closer to me I think.


Thank you. I think that chart is a reasonably accurate representation of my perspective. Thank for putting in the effort to make that.

I don't think it is accurate to say that I wouldn't praise some of the traits of those who are on the same side of either axis as myself, even though they are on the other side of the other axis from values. So while I might condone some of the social liberalism of Gandhi, I would disagree with the economic totalitarianism. Ditto while I admire some of Thatcher's views, I wouldn't agree with totalitarian restriction of social values. Having said that, I do admire some conservative social values, such as I think abortion and birth control are self-destructive on a statistical basis, but I am not going to join some religion which tries to control the freewill of people.

Note however, there is distinction between having these values and needing to interact in a society that for the most part doesn't share these values.

My values free me from needing to control what other people do on a societal level (might be different in my interpersonal relationships). Economic right means I accept the natural law will impact the outcome, so nothing I need to control. Ditto my interpretation of social liberalism is that we all reap what we sow. Abort your children, you'll likely end up in a life lacking meaning.

---

And r0ach and I contrasting our different perspectives...

I don't think I could be kept in a cage alive. I hope I don't get the opportunity to find out.

Doesn't work in the presence of great pain or great joy. I guess I am a kinda negative person. Why? I said the "great pain" first.

Stable only means that I can choose to adhere to it. It doesn't mean I can expect my offspring to adopt it. You'll need a very strong culture to be able to influence your offspring and a generation or two removed. Really you only get to impart your genes, culture is lost in time. R strategy seems much more effective.

I can even for example refuse socialized health care and die impoverished. It is a choice. And therefor it is stable if I choose it to be.

The society can do what ever it will ranging from tyranny of a king to tyranny of democracy, and I can continue to choose to drift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction which ever flavor of structure there suits me.

I can choose to retreat to the mountains or ingress to the city.

I am really a native American in my essence of being. My attitude is similar to Geronimo, who on his dying bed said, "I should not have surrendered". That is me. Until death do I part, I will be free because I choose to be, no matter what is the cost even death.

Even in death, I will be free. Free at last. Finally. Free from this daily poor health.

If you put a native person in a cage, his body is there but his spirit flew away.

I think had I not been given the skill to earn more in modern technological society, I would probably have been quite contented to live off the land. Probably still interested to do that someday, if I get the chance.

In this I believe you are simply factually incorrect which is rare for you.

To show this, however, will take some work which I do not have time for today. I will type up a more detailed rebuttal tomorrow.

Remember the Bible says, "you are not one with them. Come out of them". Or something like that.

Do not build Babylons.

It exists as a personal stable culture, akin to how the Jews are orthogonal to any nation-state.

I've been practicing it in my life so far.

I am not going to try to control what society does. Society will always self-destruct. Waste of time. That is why I have never voted and never will.

I don't tie/bind myself to the Titanic. The decision has trade-offs. Especially without a superstructure of like-minded friends who share the same values. I am trying to find them here, but they are few and far between. I had hoped you were one, but you are not. You want to build society. I understand. You are not incorrect. It is a choice. An evolutionary strategy.

Conservatism as you define it does not exist as a sustainable stand alone structure. It naturally morphs into Republicanism/Monarchism/Despotism unless it is built upon a stable superstructure.

Your examples were leftism. Republicanism isn't conservatism. They are all leftists to some degree, even including Trump. Conservatists advocate nearly no governance.

Again I ask for any counter argument?

(Trump is much more conservative than most though, yet he still advocates big government in the areas of military, police state, infrastructure, etc)

Conservatism is about letting people do what they want, except for egregious abuses. And for privatizing almost every function of the government.

Conservatism at least in our modern iteration also steals. It steals via command and control of the mechanisms of governance.

We see this everywhere here are just a few examples.

1) Enforcement of laws limiting workers from working for a competitor. This has gone to such an extreme that Jimmy Johns sandwich recently blocked workers under threat of legal sanction to quit and work for subway.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5978180
They backed off only after getting sued. But this is the trend for most employers today.

2) Development loans and tax breaks given to favored industries

3) It's support of a debt based monetary system that impoverishes those without connections to the flow of new money and destroys the ability to save independently of government control.

4) Use of the threat of government violence and force in support of corporations collecting private debts.

Yes "Conservativism" has a better understanding of economic fundamentals and supports a strong police that can suppress dissent with force as needed. So perhaps it creates a more sustainable temporary order but this order is prone to violent revolution aka the French and Russian revolutions.

Now you can argue that somehow conservativism is something other than what I have described upthread or that the movement has been corrupted somehow. The fact remains that it is what a movement does rather than what it says that defines its character. As far as I can tell the modern "conservative" movement is just another form of collectivism that would prefer a different predator win the fight.

I believe the actual solution lies elsewhere.

The difference is that conservative is not going to add fuel to fire by proposing to steal back from the "1%" which always is an increase in public debt stealing from yourself (because the 1% will always control the government so they just give us the debt we want and pocket the profits from our social activism). The leftists are in a self-destruction mode.

The conservative is willing to go pull himself up by his own bootstraps and make due with what he can achieve.

We do have some objectivity. Compare Eastern Europe and other Communist societies to the USA during the 1800s and early 1900s. As my Belgium friend said, "at that time, everything you touched turned to gold in the USA because you could do what you want".

The leftists will burn everything to the ground. The conservatives will abort such a megadeath.

Can anyone make a counter argument?

It has been my experience that making something into a personal attack lowers the overall level discourse.

My earlier quote iamnotback were not intended to be seen as such an attack but see how it may have come across that way. To the extent that it was viewed as personal I apologize.

I regards to the recent back and forth between practicaldreamer and iamnotback I would also advise backing away from the personal as your fundamental disagreement is actually quite an interesting one and worthy of discussion on its merits.

Practicaldreamer argued that the current economic system is economically and morally untenable as seen by the massive concentrations of (undeserved) wealth and that it must change.

Iamnotback argues that the solution Practicaldreamer proposes leftist redistribution is also economically and morally untenable due to the economic flaws inherent in collectivism.

This is actually a very worthy topic of discussion and I would urge the two of you against making it personal.

To resolve the impasse it helps to understand that the status quo both in terms of our overall economic system of fiat currency as well as in the tremendous amount of economic activity that is centrally managed via government spending is also a leftist or collectivists system.

Thus much of the back and forth regarding the deserving nature of the capitalist who created the billion dollar industry and the deserving nature of the man who has little and contributes less is irrelevant for both are functioning and succeeding in a system that is inherently collectivists/Leftist.

In such an environment this argument is essential is a debate over the amount of spoils predator should receive. Such a debate has no solution because both parties are essentially at a fundamental level the same.

Our discussion has drifted off topic from the original theme of this thread. So I will end my comments in this thread with the following:

Put up or shut up. What is your background? Are you not man enough to share after you attack (belittle the experience of) others who share openly. You forced me to share, by declaring me as a spoiled rich kid. You violated my privacy with your slimy tactics.

I am also curious to know what turned you into an evil leftist.

I expect you are some Eastern European loser who blames his problems on the USA, when in fact his suffering was due to leftism amongst his own society. Jealousy is a common trait of leftists. All you know how to do is blame your problems on others and steal.

As if Americans should be ashamed for not being leftists and for being successful because of it. You Communists are suffering in your own mess because you reap what you sow.

The true conservatives in the USA, are isolationists and don't want a large external military. If we were consuming 25% of the world's resources at one point, it is to some extent because we were the most productive nation on earth and thus could afford to buy those resources. Yeah I know there was corruption in our government and large corporations, such as for example United Fruit Company in Latin America. But this is exaggerated propaganda. We were fed this leftist education in college. I remember it. And it wasn't until later in life I realized we were being duped.

I'm not going to brag about it on an internet forum.

That isn't very cool is it ?

You should know that - coming, as you did, from the street.

Leftists are good at making excuses. Another example of their duplicity and disingenuous evil.

And you avoided answering the question. How rough was your suffering specifically?

I didn't exactly choose. I did it because of love. And because the girl got pregnant and I had to honor my obligation and not abandon the girl as most foreigners do. And I didn't choose to have a father that abandoned my mother when I was 5 to go live in the Belize leaving us in relative poverty in Louisiana.