Modern Day Slavery

[eyesinthedark]

It would seem that given a perfect distribution of wealth and what not, there would be no need for trade of anything

that doesn’t seem to be the case, i don’t think replacing property with possession entails perfect distribution of wealth, just more perfect or more even. there could be no disproportionate accumulation of vast sums of wealth. there would still be some localities with more of this resource, and some localities with more of that resource, and they could barter, but no man could control thousands of localities the way some men do now, just the one he is presently occupying. i’m not saying the moment a man leaves his house, it’s up for grabs, no, but if he’s gone for several months, fuck it, it’s up for grabs, or if you’ve been living in one spot and paying rent for the past 2 years, fuck it, it’s yours, you and your neighbours should just get together and say, no, we’re not paying rent here anymore, “landlord”, we own this fucking place, we’ve payed enough rent to you. really, there should be no such thing as rent, once you’ve payed the cost of the place, it should be yours.

but then that is not entirely true because such would facilitate the trade of information, as what is known would then be the only relatively valuable product. In other words learning and studying? Though it is likewise plausible that people would endorse in sharing useless tidbit of information like what they chose to have to drink in the morning and what they are doing every step of the way…The problem it would seem with the attempted execution of such in Russia is that the control of all things was left to the government and thus it became that really they owned things, and thus manipulated with it.

Right, there’s no such thing as state communism, or private/collective ownership of goods, it’s an oxymoron, like consensual rape or unfree equality. if everyone owns everything, that means, i own what stalin owns, i can walk into his house and use some of his stuff, and he can walk into my house and use some of my stuff, what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours, that’s communism, but state communism is, what’s stalin’s is stalin’s and what’s yours is stalin’s. total fucking bullshit, and so called democratic socialism, isn’t much better, the state still fundamentally controls everything, and the state doesn’t care about the voters, it cares about profits. if we want a true communist or possessionist revolution, the state must be abolished all at once, or gradually by ignoring it’s capitalist/fascist laws. don’t pay your taxes to the state, steal from the ultra wealthy and tell your friends to do the same, and the state will wither away.

Whereas their needs to be a form of equality of possession that is fair and not controlled by any entity that can take it over. i don’t know that such can be implemented given what we know and have at our disposal today, though i am open to suggestions. (then I question what would induce people to learn and study if it had no use given possession already of all that is needed…)

remember, i’m not talking about communism (everyone owns everything), although anarcho-communism is ok, better than statism, i’m talking about possessionism (what you possess, that is, what is in your hands, what you’re sitting on is yours, what’s in nobodies hands, what nobodies sitting on is up for grabs.

but given that such perfect possession is not possible it seems reasonable at least to direct towards more fair considerations of possession. It would be reasonable to do things like permitting companies to be owned equally by all who participate in them…with limitations on amount of possession and or influence on control… but overall care needs to be taken to insure that mobs of action do not form. for example such a business could be lead into a state where the people have a stupid idea that spreads due to social pressure rather than logicality, and thus they end up doing something or voting for something silly, as such it would seem some sort of moderator is needed, something to delay reactions and at least redirect things for reconsideration on the basis of seeming mob-ality, wherein it would seem important for that moderate to hold some form of separation from the mass opinion…IDK

i don’t like the idea of a moderator, the workers should democratically make decisions, not elect a moderator to make decisions on their behalf, but then, i suppose possessionism could manifest differently in different places, depending on the needs of the workers.

[eyesinthedark]

Yah, you don’t actually own any of the things you supposedly own anyways. It’s highly technical, and the payoff of ‘tinfoil hat’ is not enough for me to type it out.

Cool sidepoint: ‘real estate,’ like…80% of the English language, is a Masonic play on words. Cause there is most certainly false estate. Of course… we don’t call it that. That would be obvious.

Yeah, i hate masons, i’d like to tie a 32nd or 33rd degree mason down to a fucking chair and torture the bastard, 'till he confessed all his dirty secrets on tape, then end his life. if you have it in your heart to be a terroist, please, blow up a masonic lodge instead of a mall or school.

[Abstract]

@TheJoker

Once the psychological warfare is put into the practice the population becomes terrorized into mental and physical obedience to which the outcome becomes a controlled manipulative predictable coordination of directed behavioral activities. This is also called social conformity.

I would think that the original intention of morality and ethics were just in so far as supplying a means for people to see by way of things other than direct experience what might be most likely to lead to problems for the average Joe…

[Abstract]

@eyesinthedark

It would seem that given a perfect distribution of wealth and what not, there would be no need for trade of anything

that doesn’t seem to be the case, i don’t think replacing property with possession entails perfect distribution of wealth, just more perfect or more even. there could be no disproportionate accumulation of vast sums of wealth. there would still be some localities with more of this resource, and some localities with more of that resource, and they could barter, but no man could control thousands of localities the way some men do now, just the one he is presently occupying. i’m not saying the moment a man leaves his house, it’s up for grabs, no, but if he’s gone for several months, fuck it, it’s up for grabs, or if you’ve been living in one spot and paying rent for the past 2 years, fuck it, it’s yours, you and your neighbours should just get together and say, no, we’re not paying rent here anymore, “landlord”, we own this fucking place, we’ve payed enough rent to you. really, there should be no such thing as rent, once you’ve payed the cost of the place, it should be yours.

that seems to simply suggest that one might have a differing view as to what the value of things are. The question is how does one assert that being in position of a thing is “payment enough”, or whatever it would be called? One could say that wealth is merely a representation of possession and that rather it has come such that many are not holding as much representation of possession as is legitimately accurate with respect to what they should have or are entitled to.

@eyesinthedark

but then that is not entirely true because such would facilitate the trade of information, as what is known would then be the only relatively valuable product. In other words learning and studying? Though it is likewise plausible that people would endorse in sharing useless tidbit of information like what they chose to have to drink in the morning and what they are doing every step of the way…The problem it would seem with the attempted execution of such in Russia is that the control of all things was left to the government and thus it became that really they owned things, and thus manipulated with it.

Right, there’s no such thing as state communism, or private/collective ownership of goods, it’s an oxymoron, like consensual rape or unfree equality. if everyone owns everything, that means, i own what stalin owns, i can walk into his house and use some of his stuff, and he can walk into my house and use some of my stuff, what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours, that’s communism, but state communism is, what’s stalin’s is stalin’s and what’s yours is stalin’s. total fucking bullshit, and so called democratic socialism, isn’t much better, the state still fundamentally controls everything, and the state doesn’t care about the voters, it cares about profits. if we want a true communist or possessionist revolution, the state must be abolished all at once, or gradually by ignoring it’s capitalist/fascist laws. don’t pay your taxes to the state, steal from the ultra wealthy and tell your friends to do the same, and the state will wither away.

I would not advise steeling, such is not necessary. one might rather retrieve what has been taken from them. Or rather you can let them take everything get fat and die (metaphorically and perhaps not ) It is likewise not so wise i would think to take for the self so much as for the community. In other words Robin hood style. And ultimately such is dangerous as it can lead to increase of totalitarianism such as to combat that. Though such might have the tendency to only lead to more people joining the other side…away from the totalitarianism… I think that rather than considering them as steeling from you one might rather consider it as a form of oppression, that is thus justly combated by what means are best, though i would think there are other means then steeling. (if you are steeling that would seem to be a word most justly defined as taking what another rightfully ‘possesses’?)

@eyesinthedark

Whereas their needs to be a form of equality of possession that is fair and not controlled by any entity that can take it over. i don’t know that such can be implemented given what we know and have at our disposal today, though i am open to suggestions. (then I question what would induce people to learn and study if it had no use given possession already of all that is needed…)

remember, i’m not talking about communism (everyone owns everything), although anarcho-communism is ok, better than statism, i’m talking about possessionism (what you possess, that is, what is in your hands, what you’re sitting on is yours, what’s in nobodies hands, what nobodies sitting on is up for grabs.

Then your freedom to do such would technically be up for grabs? I would think there would have to be some form of limitation, for example a person could not take what was in another persons store. but then that requires defining a stare as in the possesion of a person. And then if that person was not there what would keep that store from being taken or destroyed or stolen from? It would seem that there needs to be some idea of respect for what tothers rightfully posses in so far as it is needed for their survival, otherwise chaos would ensue it would seem.

@eyesinthedark

but given that such perfect possession is not possible it seems reasonable at least to direct towards more fair considerations of possession. It would be reasonable to do things like permitting companies to be owned equally by all who participate in them…with limitations on amount of possession and or influence on control… but overall care needs to be taken to insure that mobs of action do not form. for example such a business could be lead into a state where the people have a stupid idea that spreads due to social pressure rather than logicality, and thus they end up doing something or voting for something silly, as such it would seem some sort of moderator is needed, something to delay reactions and at least redirect things for reconsideration on the basis of seeming mob-ality, wherein it would seem important for that moderate to hold some form of separation from the mass opinion…IDK

i don’t like the idea of a moderator, the workers should democratically make decisions, not elect a moderator to make decisions on their behalf, but then, i suppose possessionism could manifest differently in different places, depending on the needs of the workers.

I imagine it would be nice if the people could completely group act without mobbing, but it would seem some form at this current state of moralism is required to prevent such. likewise what would plausibly occur is that the people might group decide to have a monarch or some form of moderator… as such it would seem that the evolutionary psychology of the mob lends plausibly to evolution of such systems as we have now. given chance that such a decision is arrived at, it would be likewise plausible that things could result in problems. i think it is valuable to have a form of moderator but with limited capacity to be influenced or to over control…that was the original intention of democracy but it would seem that it may need improvement. Perhaps the question is how could some form of moderation or at least prevention of ignorant mobbing be arrived at?

[uglypeoplefucking]

@TheJoker

People say that it exists as phenomena yet as a structure in of itself it is so entirely inconsistent,imperfect, flawed, and contradictive that it makes one wonder why it even exists at all as a belief. What is the function of such inconsistent morality and ethics?

Morality and ethics are the most contradictive beliefs out there when it concerns the various deceptions as systematic ideologies.

The functioning in morality and ethics is not about some fictional “good” or “virtue” as it says that it exists for as it concerns it’s own contradictions of tolerating the direct opposite of those concepts will prove but if we study the ideologies long enough both in all reality are actually purely centered around initiated control only.

Both serve to control human behavior only and to direct the activities of people they impose themselves on.

Both seek to condition the human mind and behavior in directed control by those in power doing the conditioning.

Like any other belief morality and ethics is all about faith of convictions in winning over hearts or minds. Mind control? You decide.

So at the end of the day morality and ethics purely revolve around the tyranny of controlled manipulation.

Both are beliefs that prey upon people’s emotions, thoughts, goals, dreams, and aspirations when it concerns the controlled manipulations of their daily activities in a coordinated directed manner.

Enacted pain, violence, and punishment all in the service of manipulated “goods” or “virtues” are used in order to herd the masses into mental and physical submission.

With morality and ethics the threat of pain or punishment serves as a useful theatrical display of psychological warfare.

Once the psychological warfare is put into the practice the population becomes terrorized into mental and physical obedience to which the outcome becomes a controlled manipulative predictable coordination of directed behavioral activities. This is also called social conformity.

i think morality and ethics originate organically as people arrange their behavior in ways to correspond and compliment the behavior of others, or in ways that are useful to them. it is only later in the process that morals and ethics can start to be manipulated by those in authority (churches, governments, marketeers). that’s also when threats of punishment or retribution start to come into play. you are right that it is a form of conformity to behave in ways considered moral or ethical, but conformity is really a neutral thing in and of itself - i mean, you wear clothes right? does that mean you don’t think for yourself?

everybody has a moral or ethical sense - the belief that there is anything desirable in thinking for oneself is a moral one in a sense - the point would be to avoid dogma, not to avoid ethical behavior altogether. sometimes it’s useful just to behave in normal, accepted ways.