an interesting notion was brought to my attention concerning the matter of capitalism and their army.
im talking about the actual physical army where conscription and volounteers supply its ranks
in a capitalist world where capital (money) determines how the burdens /benifits are spread out, why should someone of the lower class have to fight to maintain the benifits of others?
in my view “rich prople” are the ones who should be fighting because they are the only ones who have something to lose; why fight to maintain your own burdens?
No, if you want to follow a strictly capitalist model of a military then private forces would be used. The government would commission the most effective force. Of course this is unreasonable.
yes i was referring specifically to a draft scenario. in a communist society i can see why mandatory conscription would seem fair. but in the case of democracy whos freedom are you fighting for. your own or those elite few who dominate the economie and control the nation
Well if it is a true democracy then your fighting for your own reasons/freedom. I don’t see how a true democracy would ever result in war waged merely by the whim of the “elites”.
well the whim of the majority is what dictates democracy. what dictates the whim of the majority is dictated by what the majority believes (Redundant). who controls the thought of the majority? the media… who controls the media? cough satan cough…
no but seriously the media has us chasing cars and clothes; working jobs we hate to buy shit we dont need. (line stolen from fight club)
and what keeps the good little robots in line? the media… the american dream baby!
the u.s and canadian governments have its people between a rock and a hard place.
they have no choice but to climb on that exercise machine like a good hamster or risk having no food thrown into their cage at the end of the day.
i feel offended that i was born into law. i think that i should have a choice of whether the laws of this big group of people we call canada or the u.s necessarily apply to me. to be very honest alot of the time i would rather walk into the woods and life for myself than be subject to the petty laws and morals of this nation.
without ever having agreed to be a part of and subject to the ideas of capitalism, let alone democracy, this strange group of people whom have never met me can take me away and lock me up if they feel i do something that they dont agree with (at least they dont kill people so often anymore).
this may seem like a rant but it my genuine opinion, if anyone has opposing views or would like to refine or better explain my sentiments please do so
You can move to a different country, start your own business or go live somewhere remote in the harshness of nature, like the Amazon.
Change your nationality, people do it all the time. Society, however will bring far more benefits through the division of labour and mutual protection. In any society there needs to be laws. I hardly think the US and Canada are that strict. You can say what you want and pretty much do what you want. What laws don’t you want applied to you?
say i choose to grow a field of marijuana to smoke, and the government finds out… they arbitrarily decide me to be bad and lock me away.
say i want to build my own home… guess what… it has to conform to specific arbitrary building laws and i would probably end up having to pay money for a house i built myself.
say i want to go fishing for lobster… guess what , they have already overfished my area so hard core that you arent allowed to catch a friggin salmon without having to sign your life away.
hunting deer or rabbit? forget about it if the government says no.
why do i have to go through shit just to leave this country. i have to justify why i am leaving.
there is no free land anymore. any land that was once free is simply claimed by the nearest democratic installation.
thats all democracy really is… an installation. aside from the fact that it doesnt work, it is unjust for say 30% of a population of arbitrarily pass a law that means people on the other side of the country get thrown out of their homes because their land is important.
take the example of africville… (note there was no vote, it was an arbitrary decision resulting from democratic powers) in my very city (awhile back) the africans were once forced to live in a small community in our harbour. it was populated with africans of many origins. after about 90 years africville wasformed, they finally won the right to common services like running water and heat (though the city never acctually installed anything), but sadly africville was the preferred place for idustrial outfittings such as slaughter houeses, prisons and even a place to send their poop (literally)
it was the filthyest place in town and was commonly used as a dumping ground.
despite this the people of africville had a thriving beautiful community with many cultural facets. they were extremley strong willed and would fight bitterly what was about to happen to them.
one day someone said. let’s build a bridge
so after the africans who had been forced to live in africville were all of a sudden forced not to live there just as soon as they won the right to running water (kinda funny and sad at the same time).
literally one day some buldozers came and started ripping down houses. when some of the inhabitants refused to leave they were forcibly removed and or just buldozed the house anyway. the multi colored houses and people of africville were not compensated… they were evicted mostly to 2 places
mulgrave park and uniake square. (their posessions were brought there in dump trucks, not moving vans)
those 2 places to this very day remain heavily down trodden. they are 2 of the most dangerous places in the city filled with public housing (still) which is still occupied with broke families with absolutley no way out. it is a common place for drug dealers and murderers.
i know 2 wonderful kids who unfortunatley had to grow up in both of these areas. (they were the only places their mother could get accepted into a housing unit). one day they were sitting and looking out the window when a crack dealer tried to sell some crack to a padestrian. when the padestrian refused the man stabbed and killed him with a machete. this did not make the news.
last year a cab driver was shot in the back of the head for the princly sum of 52 dollars.
one of my good friends is now in jail because of a decision to destroy a community almost 50 years ago.
some of us may be lucky enough to have a choice but i thought democracy was about everyone having a choice… don’t make me laugh/
All that you have stated has happened after America died in 1929. The last time we had a capitalist in charge of our country was Coolidge. His “All liberty is individual†left with him. It was replaced with Hoover’s “a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot.†It was at this point capitalism died in America.
This was confirmed by Stuart Chase in his volumes published referring to Keynes, the economist who approved of Hoover. He stated, “John Keynes tells us that in 100 years there will be no economic problem.†He continues, “Laissez faire rides well on covered wagons; not so well on conveyer belts and cement roads.†It only confirms at this point we changed our society to the thought that higher liberties could be achieved through collectivism.
This all comes from those that visited Stalin at this time. Baldwin wrote after this visit, “I am confident that far greater liberties than are tolerated are consistent with the maintenance of the Soviet regime, and even with the Party dictatorship.†Douglas also supported this stance.
It was not until this time the government controlled utilities, building codes or anything else you can name. Coolidge and those before him believed in the Adam Smith’s invisible hand. All of the things you have discussed and concerned with arrived after America died.
Well volunteers are not volunteers in the military. They are paid employees. Even when there is a draft those that are conscripted are paid… niether make a good living, they won’t get wealthy. Their families do not have to pay for medical in most cases. They can live cheaply on base in decent housing for the most part. The Base schools are superior academically to public schools if there is a base school. You can buy food cheaply on base, paid vacations, the Gov’t will help pay for college education or in some cases pay for it all. You get actual retirement pay, In case of nuclear or bio attack those that are in the military and their families get priority care and safety. There are drawbacks, plenty of them. But some of the pluses give the folks in the military a positive reason for being employed there. Its no worse and no better than the average job. In the USA the average military person will never be in the line of fire. The Average person works behind the lines in safety. I forget the ratio but I think its like 5 to 1… 5 support 1 fighter.
Why should people enlist? well cuz they like a steady weekly paycheck, health benifits, cheap housing, cheap food, education, and a real retirement package. etc… Sounds better than working for the private sector. Lets see working 2 crap jobs in the private sector versus one decent one,hmmmmmm. Not a hard choice. OK I am prejudice, My family tend to be lifers without regret.
It is easy to trade your freedom for a life of mercenary slavery when you are made to feel unable to make your own way in a world made intentionally difficult for people like you.
lol so now we have went from morally corrupt drafts and simply put a price on compliance. (i was talking about conscription and drafts you know). so basically the stinking rich dont even need to fight. why would they need a job or health benifits. all they have done is thrown a piece of steak down the democratic shit hole to keep the dogs happy.
the remark about paying the people they draft is like throwing a hundred dollar bill at someone then putting one bullet in a gun, spinning the barrel and shooting it at their head. in some cases when the gun goes off if noone is around to collect the hundred on the dead guys behalf, they will just pick it back up again and use it on the next guy
Well, the US is a republic, there is nothing arbitrary about those laws. You don’t like those laws you can try and get them changed. The first one might be quite easy in some states. You say it’s a capitalist snag, those laws are more about protecting the community, which is not a capitalist idea.
Well, I guess it should be 51% of the population. I understood that as the US is a republic, your local senator had some say. I can’t really comment much as I don’t know how the US works. In any democracy the mob rules, however I can’t think of a better solution bar a republic, which should stop mob rule.
Well, in a republic that shouldn’t be happening.
Everyone has a right to a choice but the majority has the final choice. You wouldn’t even need to move countries, just city or state. You say the city is run down, then why stay there?
i did not try to inferr that it was a capitalist idea, i was trying to show that it s an arbitrary law… that exists. it was more of a democracy thing than capitalist. and how are those laws not arbitrary. clearly tobacco is a greater threat than marijuana, and besides that i would be in no way trafficing drugs. the government may tell you its for your own good, but they are usually lying. want to know why weed is illegal? because its not bankable. tobacco is very bankable… but i can guarentee the u.s will make weed legal before its end. as soon as the moral high horsemen (as they like to think it) start losing all their money.
(around the 50’s weed was subject to quite alot of propaganda making it look evil, and the commercial after the slanderous one would be a 12 year old kid talking about the smoothe taste of laramee cigarettes.
when looking at the efectivness of voting lets first look at what actually takes place…
for starters not everyone votes. infact the percent of actual voters out of all eligeble voters is usually quite disturbing. one can undeniably attribute at least some of the non-voting to someone who might be in constant struggle or poverty. though maybe the most important thing they could do is vote, they are too wrapped up in their other more immediate problems. voting is not mandatory?? whaaaaaaa? even in a school classroom the teacher makes everyone vote
next lets look at campain advertising…
the various candidates are left to their own devices when securing adequate oppourtunity to get their name known about for proper consideration to vote (they think its proper). So in other words a politicans hype for election is only as good as his bank account. (there is a real concern that candidates who are sponsored pre-election then use their position to the intended benifit of various companies (profiteering).
not only must they fight and beg for money (the all corrupting force ) but they also fight eachother… literally… im sure the campain managers have some sweet sounding name for them, i call them smear or “talking out of your ass” campains. This is when one candidate puts fourth an advertisment (thats all it basically is) that attacks one of his compeditors in hopes to take away from his voters, perhaps increasing his own in the process. An example may be a shady looking black and white picture of a guy and a voice in the background saying in a scandalous tone “Did you know that…! blah blah blah” and then at the end it will say “paid for by the doink campain for president” where doink is the slanderous candidate in question. (hmm the 2 important S’s of campaining… slander and scandal)
these facts make the voting process one big joke. i mean… care to logically analyse a smear campain or a voting system where not everyone votes? or the fact that a candidate is only as good as his financial backing?
personally my favorite is the smear campain implications.
think about it. by only attacking your fellow candidate, all you are basically is saying that at least im not as bad as this guy.
2 pieces of shit could be arguing over who would make a better president and one shit might say “well at least i dont have a piece of corn lodged in my head”. to which the other shit might reply
" well your head is mostly composed of nuts and diarrhea". in which case all we have learned is that both pieces probably stink. Usually the race for president ends up being a 2 party system, so my example usually ends up being the case. again what is gained by devaluing you opponent?.. besides looking good by comparison or even simply looking good out of desperation?
combine the facts that not nearly everyone votes, candidates are in essence the slick ricks of the money world aswell as the governmental, and then throw in a majority system that is incomplete… you get a popularity contest not unlike that of children in grade school.
when i say majority vote, this is what i mean… lets pretend that everyone votes (thought it will never happen). there are 4 candidates, w, x, y and z
15 percent of the population votes for w, 25 percent votes for x, another 25 vote for y and the rest 35 percentile vote for good old mister Z. it is quite possible that the other 65 percent of the population do not want z to be president at all. but if Z can tempt enough minds (inn this case 35 percent of the voters was needed) then he wins, why has he won? because he wanted to. why did he want to win? from all the campaining that they do i have no dam clue why they won, only that they are always dissapointing.
in my mid a proper system of voting would be to eliminate the candidate who recieved the least amount of votes, and then start again until when you get down to 2 candidates you get an actual majority vote and not the illusion of one.
lol well it dun’ did
i have already demonstrated that 35 percent of the population can elect a candidate (clearly not the majority). and i did not say my city was run down, on the contrary it is a beautiful and historic city (Halifax), i said that those 2 places are the absolute worst spots in the city. the highest crime rates in the city are centered around those 2 spots… why? because they are between a rock and a hard place.
this all may sound alittle synnical or rantish but one mans trash can be another mans treasure, and whom is one mans king can be another mans worst enemy.
Yep , such is life in the world of Gov’t and in the world of private enterprise. Businessess do no less than that. Humans do no less than that. We use those that we do not know or care about in order to reach our objective if they accept our compensation then they made their choice. Humans do not have to accept the norm but, they do, being normal is easy it is the path of least resistance. Humans are lazy creatures as are all predatory species. Even those that follow are still predators. They can choose acceptance or disobedience. Can’t chain the will and the mind unless you allow it.
Even those that lead are prisoners to their own choices. Those that have the most tend to be less free than a slave with nothing.
we are all slaves to our own posessions. we are all slaves to the government.
so now i ask, whom has enslaved me. the first answer that comes to mind is myself… but why would i knowingly enslave myself. i conclude i must have been duped.
i then ask, well whom orcastrated the dupe?. well the first answer that comes to mind is qui bono?
qui bono? (who benifits). welll obviously the people whom are rich and who survive soley off the work of others just because they have a bunch a tokens that are suppose to be the same value as a cow.
but then i think, well maybe it was an accidental orcastration. besides rich people are too stupid anyway (no offense meant)
so then i ask well if it was accidental, how did it come about?
i examine the way the world works…
there exists a place wherein many many agents interact witheachother and are driven for the most part by self interest. some are gullable some are tricky, some are passive some are evil. some seem good some seem bad, and to top it all off they have the capability to inflict pain on one another and even to take away their life (the ultimate thing you supposedly do not want to happen to you…).
so what are the possibilities in a world with so many variables… well pretty much endless… i conclude it matters not how the accidental orcastration occoured, just that in all probability, it did occour.
even in a school classroom the teacher makes everyone vote 
) but they also fight eachother… literally… im sure the campain managers have some sweet sounding name for them, i call them smear or “talking out of your ass” campains. This is when one candidate puts fourth an advertisment (thats all it basically is) that attacks one of his compeditors in hopes to take away from his voters, perhaps increasing his own in the process. An example may be a shady looking black and white picture of a guy and a voice in the background saying in a scandalous tone “Did you know that…! blah blah blah” and then at the end it will say “paid for by the doink campain for president” where doink is the slanderous candidate in question. (hmm the 2 important S’s of campaining… slander and scandal)