Re: Definition of "rich"?

nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:

The space race happened after Stalin had been busy purging the USSR
population for years. How does that fit in with your "motivation" model?

All that crap was done in secrecy. Stories surfaced of course, but it always
take a while until population fully react to a regime. The war ended only
12 years before Sputnik, and first couple years after war the accusations
about being saboteur or spy still had credibility with a population facing
foreign invasion on the doorsteps. If we substract first 6 years of post
war confusion from the 12 years timespan betwen end of WWII and Sputnik
we get only about 6 years for population to figure out the truth.
If you keep in mind that media was strongly controlled, and after war
the USSR actually went thru a humongous economic growth and dramatic
increase in life level it is perfectly explainable that many scientists and
engineers may still had high hopes in 57 when Sputnik blasted off.

Look at the current situation in US. After all that Republican
administration did to hurt the working and middle class, after the massive
failure in Iraq and all the failures or wrong doings there are still 33%
who approve this administration. And we are into the Internet era, where
free speech can travel from one corner of the country to another in
milliseconds not years. We have (a relative) free media. And there are
still 33% aproving this administration.

So yeah, I am confident that at that time the ideology was still strongly
believed and hopes fueled motivation.

With all that hope, nothing, not even genocide in the millions can stop
you!

Ever heard of a tautology?


In the end it is again about motivation. Free market in itself have
absolutely no value at all. Zero.

Strongly disagree.

And your argumentation for this are .................. ?

About the same as yours - none.

If is just a belief don't be surprised if I don't take it seriously.

Same to you.


What have value is the fact that people engaged in free market can sell
their creation for proffit, and this motivate them to create more.

This of course includes that people are competitive, and will strive to
rise above the neighbour and colleague, and that this is a factor for
progress and growth, one wihch you seek to disqualify.

No. I do not seek to disqualify at all. I am a centrist.
Yes, we need to maintain competition in order to increase motivation in our
society. HOWEVER, we should be smart enough not to use competition into a
brain damaged way that is going to hurt our society.

While competition is good, cooperation is good too. Imagine a family where
the husband and wife never cooperate but always fight. How long such a
family is going to survive ? How do you believe they will rise the children
and what education the kids get?

Before the industrial revolution and migration from villages to cities.
people used to leave in village where a model of family like cooperation
appeared and allowed the community to survive. It was always some sort
competition betwen villagers, but what boosted the society and allowed the
human kind to survive with almost no technology in hard situations was
exactly the balance betwen competition and cooperation.

The idiotic primitive attitude of "greed is good" which is the core belief
of libertarians did not evolve until relative recently when the old
community links were broken, the technology allowed survival without too
much cooperation and a gang of insane primitive minded greedy capitalists
grew in cities and needed to justify their antisocial primitive behavior.

So no sir. I do not disqualify at all the need for competition in order to
boost motivation but:
- "Primum non nocere", (first do not harm).
- do not be extremist, do not deny the need for cooperation in community
- do not be fanatic, there are things working better as a business and other
as a community service. Only a fanatic want all of them into the same pot,
regardless how they work best
- reward the one who deserve to be rewarded (the one who created) and not
only the one who loot, cheat and lie better (businessman)

So you're painting businessmen as liars and looters. That comparison
with be more in place with politicians.


This is also the reason why a completely free market is not going to be
functional on long run. Few large corporations will rule the market and
motivation is lost.

Only if those corporations are given de jure priviledges by the state.
When they are not, the free market reigns supreme.

This is a mythology. Go back to some of my postings in this thread where I
demonstrated how the monopoly IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN into a unregulated
market.

Again, you have some personal beliefs (BTW fundamentally flawed, steaming
from an obsolete ideology based on greed) and counteract a logical
assertion with propaganda. It is silly.

Look on this thread, I already wrote 2 postings about mass discounts.
Ancient word of wisdom: "The priest do not sing twice for a deaf old lady".

So, if the free market would naturally form monopolies, isn't this to be
expected in, say the utilities businesses (electricity, gas, water)?


In the end the regime having the democracy in his side will always win.
The regime ruling by oppression will always lose on the long run.
It is human nature.

Democracy is just another, more popular, kind of opression.

I showed you a logical demonstration about the advantages of democracy
as a motivation booster. And again, you reply with senseless propaganda
without a basis. Talibans did the same. Man ....

You've showed me only your personal bias and confidence in democracy.


Democracy offers *relative* freedom compared to the brutal dictatorships
or USSR, Cambodia, Chile and so on. But in the long run, these
dictatorships are just being replaced by an oligarchy of powerhungry
robbers called "elected politicians".

Ever heard of "When a politician promises to take from Peter, to give to
Paul, he can always count on the support of Paul"? Well, it's true.
Democratic politicians who condone and enforce plunder will always be in
the majority.

Word of wisdom: "If 2 people tell you are drunk, better go to sleep".
If a majority consider that a way is better for the society chances are
that it is better. Of course, accidents happen. A majority can make
mistakes. But hopefully they will get corrected in 4 or 8 years.

The only condition is for dramatic decisions to need stronger supervision
and oversight. Hitler rose to the power by democratic elections, but it was
the lack of oversight allowing him to get dictatorial powers. And when the
dictatorial powers were granted there was no democracy anymore.

Therefore, a strong oversight to prevent a president/party to take dramatic
actions against democracy it is required as an independent organ. While
democracy is not perfect, there is nothing better we are aware of.

You can call it tyranny if you like, but this won't change the reality.

No, because the reality IS that it is tyranny by the many. The american
founding fathers agreed with me.

But it is better than anything else.

Sure, when it comes to the amount og genocides, democracy is better than
say, the USSR dictatorship.

When it comes to organised looting of wealth in absolute terms, the
democratic welfare state is fucking worse than North Korea!


A democracy rule as the majority wants.

And thus, not what the minority wants.

Correct. But if the society is doing what the minority wants then that is
against what the majority wants. We have to select the worst of the worst
cases. And that is ..... democracy.

Have you ever heard of "minority protection"?



A majority identify their goals with
the goal of government. A majority is motivated to achieve that goal.

Yeah, we all saw where Hitler's motivations too us. He was after all,
democratically elected by the majority...

Correct, I also gave the same example above. The democracy need safety rules
not to allow anyone to screw it.

Even the Weimar republic has checks and balance, which even Hitler
managed to bypass. You can't make an idiot proof political system., the
idiots (politicians) will inevitable find a way around it.


Any other form of government will produce a minority of motivated people.

At least, people will know who their opressors are. Now, most people are
oblivious to the fact that their "own policians" are enslaving and
ripping them off.

This is due to the corruption (i.e. political lobby).

So, say, the Green political agenda, which calls for a maximum wage,
with associated 100% marginal taxes, is the result of corruption? How
about Hillary Clinton's claim that she would tke Bush's tax cuts away
from people "on behalf of the common good"?

Lobby it is a direct violation of the democratic rules.

How? t's a part of democracy. You get what you want.

How long US allow
payed political lobby, the US economy will be disfunctional and people like
Bush can get their way.

Money power isn't limited to Republicans, like a lot of people like to
think. Take a look at this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp

BOTH of your dominant political parties or up to their ears in campaign
contributions. It's your whole fucking political systems, only excluding
the Libertarians and Greens.


It is not democracy's fault. At fault it is the violation of democratic
rules.

Same thing.


Since motivation is important into achieving the goals
it is obvious that a democracy will always achieve the goal faster/better
since they have a majority of motivated people.

It is simple and logical.

Have you been attending any motivational seminars recently? You seem
very .... preoccupied with the concept.

Nope, I am just interested into a better society.

So am I.

And a better society imply motivated people working toward
the common goal of a better society.

Who's to decide what those common goals are? You?

--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk
http://liberterran.org
http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/
.