NationStates Jolt Archive

The other day I noticed a ridiculous number of shopping carts left floating around a parking lot, and it got me thinking about the prevalence of petty selfish actions in contemporary American society (and quite possibly other societies, though I haven't spent enough time in any of them to know). There seem to be a very large number of people who don't see any reason to walk the extra 15 feet to put the shopping cart back, to find a trash can rather than just leaving trash wherever they're standing, to hold doors open for people only a few feet behind them rather than letting them slam, and so forth - actions that take only very minimal time and effort and save others trouble.

So my question is, do you believe this phenomenon is relatively new and/or confined to certain regions of the world, or is it just a fundamental part of human nature - and, if it's the former, what causes it?

That seems like a case of being a lazy-ass.

The problem is that the majority of Americans (can't speak for anyone else), have grown up in a soft world where everything is provided. Not only is caring about equals forgotten about, but caring about the poor and the hungry is forgotten about.
I've been to Washington, DC and seen beggars on the streets. If people dripped a dime in there, 1/5 of the price of a fucking candy bar, they could probably make that man very happy. However, nobody does. People are trained to ignore the poor man, ignore others, and think only of themselves. When the poor, the downtrodden, and the hungry are cared for, then the rest will take care of itself. But until that is done, nothing will ever happen.
Rich bastards in their NYC offices, making millions of dollars a year, will cut 10,000 jobs if their twenty bucks behind last years profits. However, when they report record profits, I never see anything in the paper about jobs opening up. If nobody looks after each other on the larger issues, nobody will do it for the smaller, either.

The other day I noticed a ridiculous number of shopping carts left floating around a parking lot, and it got me thinking about the prevalence of petty selfish actions in contemporary American society (and quite possibly other societies, though I haven't spent enough time in any of them to know). There seem to be a very large number of people who don't see any reason to walk the extra 15 feet to put the shopping cart back, to find a trash can rather than just leaving trash wherever they're standing, to hold doors open for people only a few feet behind them rather than letting them slam, and so forth - actions that take only very minimal time and effort and save others trouble.

So my question is, do you believe this phenomenon is relatively new and/or confined to certain regions of the world, or is it just a fundamental part of human nature - and, if it's the former, what causes it?
Its one of those things that you only notice when it happens; I worked in a grocery store for about 6 months when I was in High School and while people do leave carts outside, considering the traffic in those places most are usually pretty good about putting them in the corral. Although I do remember once someone had the courtesy to park right in front of the corral with a shit ton of carts trapped inside.

At any rate, I wouldn't attribute these actions to selfishness, but rather towards general laziness or haste. Life is pretty fast-paced nowadays and it only makes sense that putting the shopping carts away won't be number one on everyone's priority list.

Also, you should be careful just what you decide "causes others trouble" from an employment standpoint, because God knows my manager would find something else for me to do if all the carts were already put back, and chances are it would be less pleasant.

Also, you should be careful just what you decide "causes others trouble" from an employment standpoint, because God knows my manager would find something else for me to do if all the carts were already put back, and chances are it would be less pleasant.

Heh. Fair. At the same time, though, I know that when an acquaintance of mine worked at Wal-Mart, he hated nothing more than chasing down carts that had rolled away to the far side of the parking lot. One man's meat is another man's poison, I suppose.

Rich bastards in their NYC offices, making millions of dollars a year, will cut 10,000 jobs if their twenty bucks behind last years profits. However, when they report record profits, I never see anything in the paper about jobs opening up.
That’s because the newspapers don’t report it. Why report good news when they can make so much more money yelling that the sky is falling? Oh, and those 20,000 jobs they cut? That saves the jobs of the other 80,000 employees in the company. If the business doesn’t turn a profit, everyone eventually loses their job.

The problem is that the majority of Americans (can't speak for anyone else), have grown up in a soft world where everything is provided. Not only is caring about equals forgotten about, but caring about the poor and the hungry is forgotten about.
News flash: overeating is a bigger problem in this country than starvation. The very system that has "forgotten about" the poor and the hungry has provided for them a higher standard of living than anywhere else on the globe.

I've been to Washington, DC and seen beggars on the streets. If people dripped a dime in there, 1/5 of the price of a fucking candy bar, they could probably make that man very happy. However, nobody does.
A dime? Are you serious? How much experience do you have with bums? Besides, they can generally find food on their own [that's why they're still alive], most of the money you give them they're saving for a 40. Also, DC is a pretty extreme example to use; ironically it's one of the worst cities in the US as far as poverty goes.

People are trained to ignore the poor man, ignore others, and think only of themselves. When the poor, the downtrodden, and the hungry are cared for, then the rest will take care of itself. But until that is done, nothing will ever happen.
First: we're not trained by anyone to 'think only of themselves,' we do it primarily because it's our [and every other animal's] main perogative.

Second: What do you mean by "nothing will ever happen?" Are you honestly trying to tell me that society can't make progress unless every hobo in it is fed and clothed?

Rich bastards in their NYC offices, making millions of dollars a year, will cut 10,000 jobs if their twenty bucks behind last years profits. However, when they report record profits, I never see anything in the paper about jobs opening up. If nobody looks after each other on the larger issues, nobody will do it for the smaller, either.
But you do notice it when you turn on a light or flush a toilet or go to the drive through for a sandwich. See this picture over here on my wall? It's a lot bigger.

Hey hey hey, my MOTHER already has the engine running and is already backing up the car! If I take the extra 15 feet I'll probably have to take the extra 3 miles back home too!

The other day I noticed a ridiculous number of shopping carts left floating around a parking lot, and it got me thinking about the prevalence of petty selfish actions in contemporary American society (and quite possibly other societies, though I haven't spent enough time in any of them to know). There seem to be a very large number of people who don't see any reason to walk the extra 15 feet to put the shopping cart back, to find a trash can rather than just leaving trash wherever they're standing, to hold doors open for people only a few feet behind them rather than letting them slam, and so forth - actions that take only very minimal time and effort and save others trouble.

So my question is, do you believe this phenomenon is relatively new and/or confined to certain regions of the world, or is it just a fundamental part of human nature - and, if it's the former, what causes it?

AAGH! A COMMUNIST DISSENTER!!! :p

It's just thew case of Americans being spoiled brats. (Except me)

That?s because the newspapers don?t report it. Why report good news when they can make so much more money yelling that the sky is falling? Oh, and those 20,000 jobs they cut? That saves the jobs of the other 80,000 employees in the company. If the business doesn?t turn a profit, everyone eventually loses their job.
Very true. If a plane lands safely, it's not news.

That seems like a case of being a lazy-ass.

To a certain extent, yes. As another example, though, back when I was in high school, I remember being one of only a very few people who bothered to push their chairs back under the table after standing up. If the students did not do so, the cafeteria workers had to. Someone once asked me why I always pushed in my chair, and I said, "Why wouldn't I? It's not like it takes any effort." She answered, "Well, yeah, but the cafeteria ladies can do it."

This is the attitude that puzzles me. If something requires no real effort on your part, why does it make a difference that someone else could do it instead of you?

Also, you should be careful just what you decide "causes others trouble" from an employment standpoint, because God knows my manager would find something else for me to do if all the carts were already put back, and chances are it would be less pleasant.

Funny, I was moaning to a friend a while ago, about people dropping litter in the street and he said the crap people drop employs road sweepers, so they're doing someone a favour.

First: we're not trained by anyone to 'think only of themselves,' we do it primarily because it's our [and every other animal's] main perogative.
I will give you that; however, I will counter with americans are raised with that perogative NURTURED instead of discouraged. They are encouraged to be selfish and think only of themselves.

Funny, I was moaning to a friend a while ago, about people dropping litter in the street and he said the crap people drop employs road sweepers, so they're doing someone a favour.
Where the hell do YOU live? I havt never seen a road sweeper except on a show about england. I think they might have them in some of the tourist attraction cities in massachusetts

Ihatevacations']I will give you that; however, I will counter with americans are raised with that perogative NURTURED instead of discouraged. They are encouraged to be selfish and think only of themselves.

Do you think it's just an American thing? If so, what do you think it is about our culture that encourages selfishness where others do not?

its thoughtlessness. we are in a hurry or lost in our own heads and we just dont think about how much better it is to do things right.

it honestly just occurred to me the other week that the reason the sinks in public bathrooms are always wet is because people dont wipe them after they wash their hands. so, at age 48, i have just started using the paper that i dry my hands with to wipe the area around the sink i just used.

thoughtlessness.

Do you think it's just an American thing? If so, what do you think it is about our culture that encourages selfishness where others do not?
I live in america genius. In a southern state none the less.

To a certain extent, yes. As another example, though, back when I was in high school, I remember being one of only a very few people who bothered to push their chairs back under the table after standing up. If the students did not do so, the cafeteria workers had to. Someone once asked me why I always pushed in my chair, and I said, "Why wouldn't I? It's not like it takes any effort." She answered, "Well, yeah, but the cafeteria ladies can do it."
Well, there's a couple good reasons for this, both of which are pretty similar: high school kids are idiots. On one hand, you have the general pushy haste associated with getting up and back to class after lunch [even if you're not very thrilled with doing it], coupled with an almost inherent distaste for anyone who works at your school. A lot of kids enjoy making work for these people, which is why there's so many jackasses in High School.

I think the American Education system is one of the only remaining vestiges of Fascism, clinging to our culture like a leech on a pig's ass.

This is the attitude that puzzles me. If something requires no real effort on your part, why does it make a difference that someone else could do it instead of you?
The answering rationale would probably be something along the lines of 'well, if it's no effort for me, it's no effort for him either,' but both sides are flawed since my example fails to account for future circumstances and the argument for doing it yourself is probably guilty of making a big philosophical hubbub about nothing. Technically, when you get right down to it, a High School janitor probably has little else to do but push in chairs and change lightbulbs all day--it's his [i]job.

There's not really a point to making the other guy do it, but there isn't a point to nitpicking the issue to death either. I'm not saying to be obnoxious about it, but goddamn it when you're having a team of teachers crawling up your ass about last night's homework, you'd better be allowed to drop a wrapper on the floor every once in a while.

Ihatevacations']I live in america genius. In a southern state none the less.

I'm sorry; I think you misunderstood me. I was just asking what you think the root cause is. I'm American myself.

The problem is that the majority of Americans (can't speak for anyone else), have grown up in a soft world where everything is provided. Not only is caring about equals forgotten about, but caring about the poor and the hungry is forgotten about.

Not quite true. It's not FORGOTTEN about. "Forgotten" implies unintentional. No, this is quite intentional and malicious, so it isn't simply forgetting. It is a lack of caring, a lack of feeling, a lack of concern or compassion...these people have grown up with the smug assurance that "it could never happen to them." Well, in my opinion, it couldn't happen to more deserving assholes if it did! I went thru a chicago winter with no goddamn heat when I was a twelve-year-old kid, and my family of four once subsisted on one chicken for a freaking week! I know what it is to goddamn not eat.

I've been to Washington, DC and seen beggars on the streets. If people dripped a dime in there, 1/5 of the price of a fucking candy bar, they could probably make that man very happy. However, nobody does. People are trained to ignore the poor man, ignore others, and think only of themselves. When the poor, the downtrodden, and the hungry are cared for, then the rest will take care of itself. But until that is done, nothing will ever happen.

On the other hand...a lot of these panhandlers and whatnot on street corners ARE scam-artists, or are looking to score some money for a litle booze or some drugs, so you can't necessarily blame people for not giving these guys MONEY...I usually won't, either. But I'll give them food. If I happen to have a blanket I don't need, I'll give them that, too. I'll do what I can to help them without giving them money, and thus, the means to further destroy themselves. It's sad, for the ones who really ARE legitimate, who really ARE down on their luck through no fault of their own...and for those who really ARE just trying to survive until they can manage to pull themselves off the shitheap. but we live in a very cynical society now, and everyone always assumes the worst in everyone else now. So you are trained that the panhandler is a slacker, a fake, a degenerate who just doesn't wanna work, or is a bum who blasted himself away with booze or drugs. It's not always that way, but that is what we are trained to assume, isn't it?

Not only that, but we ARE selfish, and we think, geez, what can I get FOR ME with that 50 cents instead of helping the poor guy on the corner? But mostly, it is just the cynicism that says that the guy on the corner is a scam-artist, rather than out and out meanness or selfishness.

Then, too, it is harder and harder to make ends meet than it ever was, we are all working longer and harder than ever to stay in the same place, and the first thing that gets cut is any unnecessary expense, and charity is often seen as an unnecessary expense. "It's someone else's problem," we tell ourselves..."It's the government's responsibility," we tell ourselves, all the while screaming for more tax cuts, so as to buy out of society. No one wants to PAY for government services anymore, but everyone sure as hell wants the services! I'm old enough to remember when trash collection was free! You didn't pay for it. That was one of those municipal services that your taxes paid for! Not anymore! So go on, keep screaming for more and more tax cuts, guys...and watch more and more services become fee-for-service, and watch how, eventually, you pay MORE for the same things you used to get for free with your tax bill. But you won't care, though, will you, because it isn't TAXES!! Right?? You'll pay two to three times what your old tax bill was, just to get the same services you used to enjoy...and that'll be fine with you because at least they don't call it TAXES.

Me, I'd prefer the higher taxes, and the lower overall cost of services. Used to be that the garbageman, for example, came on the same day, every week, got everyone's trash in the entire neighborhood, and that was that. Now, you got 3 to 4 different private companies picking up trash...all with different trucks, on different days...and so collection is not nearly as efficient, and therefore it costs more...and who picks up that burden...YOU DO!!! There are SOME THINGS that government is better at than the private sector.

Rich bastards in their NYC offices, making millions of dollars a year, will cut 10,000 jobs if their twenty bucks behind last years profits. However, when they report record profits, I never see anything in the paper about jobs opening up. If nobody looks after each other on the larger issues, nobody will do it for the smaller, either.

But of course!! Can't let them poor CEO's and white-collar assholes go only having Filet Mignon six nights a week...or have to go TWO years between new BMW's!!! Come on...you know better than that! The poor and the workers will always and forever be the only ones to "take it on the chin" when profits are down...but will never share in the benefits when the profits are up! No, they will just work the people they already have that much harder, and screw the people who are out there needing work. See, the executives have already quit seeing people as people, anymore...there are only numbers, and only a ledger. Nothing else matters. Not to them, anyway. Don't you understand employees are a LIABILITY?? Heaven forbid, you actually have to (gasp!!) PAY them to work!! Remember the good old days, when the skilled worker was considered a valuable asset to the company? Those days are gone, gone, gone. and they may never come back, because too many people refuse to stand up for themselves, and allow themselves to be walked all over, because they fear losing their jobs if they don't allow themselves to be walked on....and then they end up worked to death for less and less money...or they end up out on the street with the bums.

Subconciously, people know it can happen to them. They don't want to believe it can, though. You can't really hate people like that...those who have no pity, mercy, or compassion...or feeling...you can only pity them and hold them in contempt. you just hope that one day, those assholes "get theirs" and wind up in circumstances they never thought could befall them...and hope you are around to see it when they get their comeuppance, so you can laugh yourself silly at them. Bastards, all of them.

Ihatevacations']


Where the hell do YOU live? I havt never seen a road sweeper except on a show about england. I think they might have them in some of the tourist attraction cities in massachusetts

I live in er..............England. Most of it is mechanised but we still have the good old road sweeper slopping up and down, shouting at the kids and chasing paper bags.
http://www.punchstock.com/image/imagesource/4794375/large/is135-032.jpg

Anyway, it's all part of the 'me first' syndrome.

I'm sorry; I think you misunderstood me. I was just asking what you think the root cause is. I'm American myself.
oh, well. The root cause is the nurturing of the radical individualism - it encourages selfishness. I have seen and heard people say they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools, not because of the corrupt systems or anything, no, but because they don't know anyone that goes to that school.


I live in er..............England. Most of it is mechanised but we still have the good old road sweeper slopping up and down, shouting at the kids and chasing paper bags.
Yeah, well in the us, people just throw shit on the side of the road, no one picks it the hell up, it just blows along in the breeze or sits on the side of the road, or in the cities sits mildewing in corners or in occasional bits of ground

Ihatevacations']oh, well. The root cause is the nurturing of the radical individualism - it encourages selfishness. I have seen and heard people say they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools, not because of the corrupt systems or anything, no, but because they don't know anyone that goes to that school.

I've heard people say that, too. It doesn't seem to occur to most people that their acquaintances will mostly tend to be from the same socioeconomic brackets as themselves, which would leave relatively well-off people paying only for those who need the money least. Oops. I can understand (although I don't agree with) not wanting to pay taxes supporting public schools because you disagree with the current school system or the principle of public education, but not wanting to pay because it doesn't directly and immediately impact you is rather sad.

I wonder if there's a middle ground to be found in which one could celebrate individualism without promoting a me-first mentality, or if the one inevitably leads to the other. Thoughts, anyone?

I wonder if there's a middle ground to be found in which one could celebrate individualism without promoting a me-first mentality, or if the one inevitably leads to the other. Thoughts, anyone?
There's nothing wrong with a me-first mentality; this is the mentality that brings us cool stuff like cell phones and computers and ....ta da! internet. Individualism should be encouraged because every adaptation of nature from lioncloths on up was the product of individual thought and innovation. A me-first mentality is a natural product of our existence and should not be shunned; to do so will only encourage malcontent.

I think that there is some truth about America having a culture of selfishness, but that's no news. What America has is a culture of POINTLESS selfishness. Selfishness has a point when it's really something you need, or want. Selfishness is pointless when you can't be arsed to carry a candybar wrapper to the nearest trashcan, which takes no effort.

But, this in itself is, again, not so out of the ordinary, again. Added with that, America has chronic difficulties in dealing with this.

For example, I'm used to forfeits. Shopping carts are kept each inside each other, connected by a locked chain. You need to insert a 1-euro coin to a lock, which unlocks your shopping cart. When you return, you can get the euro back only by locking the shopping cart back into place. Suprise surprise, no rampant shopping carts.

Similarly, the price of a bottle or can is 15 cents, which you can get back only by returning the said container to the store.

There's nothing wrong with a me-first mentality; this is the mentality that brings us cool stuff like cell phones and computers and ....ta da! internet.Individualism should be encouraged because every adaptation of nature from lioncloths on up was the product of individual thought and innovation. A me-first mentality is a natural product of our existence and should not be shunned; to do so will only encourage malcontent.
How so? Apparently encoruaging it encourages malcontent: against your fellow man. People should not be taught to respect themselves and only themselves and say fuck every one else, they arn't me. People should be encouraged to be themselves but also encoruaged not to be selfish jackholes which is what happens in America

Similarly, the price of a bottle or can is 15 cents, which you can get back only by returning the said container to the store.
Wish we had that in america. In america, its buy can of soda for 25 cents to a dollar (25 cents if you find a machine selling chek cola or one of those REALLY off brand name colas which are only stocked once a month), but the cans can only be returned for 5 cents in like 5 states and 10 cents in minnesota

There's nothing wrong with a me-first mentality; this is the mentality that brings us cool stuff like cell phones and computers and ....ta da! internet. Individualism should be encouraged because every adaptation of nature from lioncloths on up was the product of individual thought and innovation. A me-first mentality is a natural product of our existence and should not be shunned; to do so will only encourage malcontent.

First off, it's obviously inaccurate to attribute every triumph of technology to individual effort - the proverb that two heads are better than one exists for a reason, and at this point, nearly all research and development, be it for a cell phone or a cure for cancer, is done by research teams. Furthermore, at least for the past few centuries, pretty much every achievement made by an individual has required preexisting work done by other individuals, who could easily be argued to be a team separated by time and space, but nonetheless a team.

That being said, I have no problem whatsoever with individualism in and of itself - it's good to encourage self-reliance, self-confidence, and so forth, and to celebrate oneself and one's own uniqueness. However, I wonder if those positive traits are necessarily accompanied by the attitude that one is somehow intrinsically more important than anyone else, which to my mind serves little useful purpose.

I think that there is some truth about America having a culture of selfishness, but that's no news. What America has is a culture of POINTLESS selfishness. Selfishness has a point when it's really something you need, or want. Selfishness is pointless when you can't be arsed to carry a candybar wrapper to the nearest trashcan, which takes no effort.

But, this in itself is, again, not so out of the ordinary, again. Added with that, America has chronic difficulties in dealing with this.

For example, I'm used to forfeits. Shopping carts are kept each inside each other, connected by a locked chain. You need to insert a 1-euro coin to a lock, which unlocks your shopping cart. When you return, you can get the euro back only by locking the shopping cart back into place. Suprise surprise, no rampant shopping carts.

Similarly, the price of a bottle or can is 15 cents, which you can get back only by returning the said container to the store.

I've seen forfeits (although I've never heard that term for them) at one or two stores in the U.S. The primary problem with that idea, and (I assume) the reason they've never really caught on here, is that most of them have very simple mechanisms that accept quarters and only quarters, and if you only have dimes and nickels or something, you're simply out of luck. I suppose if this system became universal, though, people would simply learn to make sure they had a quarter when they went shopping. I certainly wouldn't object.

I like your distinction between useful and pointless selfishness - the former makes perfect sense; it's just the latter I fail to understand.

First off, it's obviously inaccurate to attribute every triumph of technology to individual effort - the proverb that two heads are better than one exists for a reason, and at this point, nearly all research and development, be it for a cell phone or a cure for cancer, is done by research teams. Furthermore, at least for the past few centuries, pretty much every achievement made by an individual has required preexisting work done by other individuals, who could easily be argued to be a team separated by time and space, but nonetheless a team.
Yes, but all those achievements were done by people seeking their own interest, even if they worked together to do it. In a society were individualism is discouraged, creativity languishes, because there is no chance to make a buck or a name for yourself. I ask you, which had more inventions, the USSR, or the USA?

Yes, but all those achievements were done by people seeking their own interest, even if they worked together to do it. In a society were individualism is discouraged, creativity languishes, because there is no chance to make a buck or a name for yourself. I ask you, which had more inventions, the USSR, or the USA?
the usa when COMPETING with the ussr, and the ussr didnt have much "innvoation" due to it being a fascist state, not because it discouraged individualism. An inventor inventing to further his own interests is a sad inventor indeed. Inventors invent to invent, not because it will win them fame or fortune. Individualism doesnt encourage innovation and anti-individualism doesn't stifle it, competition nurtures innovation, competition and crazy inventors

Ihatevacations']the usa when COMPETING with the ussr, and the ussr didnt have much "innvoation" due to it being a fascist state, not because it discouraged individualism. An inventor inventing to further his own interests is a sad inventor indeed. Inventors invent to invent, not because it will win them fame or fortune. Individualism doesnt encourage innovation and anti-individualism doesn't stifle it, competition nurtures innovation, competition and crazy inventors
How naïve.
First off, you honestly think that every American company and individual was in competition with the USSR? That is just sad.
Second, fascists (they were communists, by the way) discourage individualism and put the state before the individual, and there was no chance of reward for the average person, even if they came up with something great.
And third, the idea that inventors invent for its own sake is foolish. Sure, many are driven by curiosity, but that doesn’t stop them from profiting from it and continuing to invent because they know it will bring them money and recognition in their scientific circle. Honestly, do you think Mr. Ford came up with an assembly line for his Model T’s because he wanted to “invent”?

There's nothing wrong with a me-first mentality; this is the mentality that brings us cool stuff like cell phones and computers and ....ta da! internet. Individualism should be encouraged because every adaptation of nature from lioncloths on up was the product of individual thought and innovation. A me-first mentality is a natural product of our existence and should not be shunned; to do so will only encourage malcontent.
I would disagree with that statement. The AK-47, one of the best weapons ever made and the 1st assualt rifle was only designed due to its creator's patriotism and love for his country. I would not say that individualism is a virtue, I would say that hard-work and determination are the virtues. It was not individualism that necessarily invented many things at all, it was our desire to make these things for whatever purpose(which could even be our desire to help others).

I do not think that the me-first mentality is a good thing. We must learn to be content with serving our masters and lords. I think that purpose is what people truly need, not some mindless ambition.

There's nothing wrong with a me-first mentality; this is the mentality that brings us cool stuff like cell phones and computers and ....ta da! internet. Individualism should be encouraged because every adaptation of nature from lioncloths on up was the product of individual thought and innovation. A me-first mentality is a natural product of our existence and should not be shunned; to do so will only encourage malcontent.

No, the pursuit of personal gain is not the only motivation. Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW and refused to patent it. Look how much open scource software is available to us. It's not only greed that drives 'progress'.

Individualism is clearly not the only possible motivator to invent or do anything. What needs to be done is that we need to encourage patriotism and other virtuous motivators so that way greater benefit could be received by everyone in a society including the inventor.

Individualism is clearly not the only possible motivator to invent or do anything. What needs to be done is that we need to encourage patriotism and other virtuous motivators so that way greater benefit could be received by everyone in a society including the inventor.

*blink* Since when is patriotism inherently virtuous?

I do not think that the me-first mentality is a good thing. We must learn to be content with serving our masters and lords. I think that purpose is what people truly need, not some mindless ambition.
This is the kind of garbage that collectivists truly wish for. They are not content with a world of individuals, because individuals are harder to bend to one's will than cogs in the machine.

...I went thru a chicago winter with no goddamn heat when I was a twelve-year-old kid, and my family of four once subsisted on one chicken for a freaking week! I know what it is to goddamn not eat. ...
you obviously have no knowledge of nature. you can grow food in the ground, hunt. even in a city, there is rats and such(which really aren't quite so desieased as you people say, and when correctly prepared, you can get rid of almost any desease it might have). squirrels are really delicious too! my grandmother could make really good squirrel stew, it isn't that hard, i've made it myself, just grow some potatoes and carrots(and onions too, if you like them) and put them in boiling water with some squirrel meat. all you would need to grow vegetables is just a cardboard box and put soil in it, and grow some seeds in it. a suprising amount of food can be grown in a small space.

there is no reasone for anyone to be starving like that or anything. if they are in such a state then it's cause they're lazy or unfit to live.

The very system that has "forgotten about" the poor and the hungry has provided for them a higher standard of living than anywhere else on the globe.
Of the 17 OECD countries, the US rates 17th or dead last in poverty rates.

Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html)

Last time I checked, the US ranked 8th on the UN listing for best country in which to live. Norway was first.

Over 45 million Americans do not have basic health insurance.

Individualism is clearly not the only possible motivator to invent or do anything. What needs to be done is that we need to encourage patriotism and other virtuous motivators so that way greater benefit could be received by everyone in a society including the inventor.
absolutly! progress is the one most important aspect of a nation!
why would an inventory not recieve benifits though? seems like they would get the ability to use their own invention along with trading other people their invention for goods.

This is the kind of garbage that collectivists truly wish for. They are not content with a world of individuals, because individuals are harder to bend to one's will than cogs in the machine.
you would think that wouldnt you..

there is no reasone for anyone to be starving like that or anything. if they are in such a state then it's cause they're lazy or unfit to live.

No, people with your attitude are unfit to live.

you obviously have no knowledge of nature. you can grow food in the ground, hunt. even in a city, there is rats and such(which really aren't quite so desieased as you people say, and when correctly prepared, you can get rid of almost any desease it might have). squirrels are really delicious too! my grandmother could make really good squirrel stew, it isn't that hard, i've made it myself, just grow some potatoes and carrots(and onions too, if you like them) and put them in boiling water with some squirrel meat. all you would need to grow vegetables is just a cardboard box and put soil in it, and grow some seeds in it. a suprising amount of food can be grown in a small space.

there is no reasone for anyone to be starving like that or anything. if they are in such a state then it's cause they're lazy or unfit to live.

What a charming thing to say. Remind me to keep all mentally/physically disabled people away from wherever you live, since you've taken it upon yourself to determine who is "fit to live."

I'm also amused by your suggestions for someone starving during a Chicago winter. It's sort of hard to grow food in January, I have no idea how anyone would even go about hunting a rat, boiling water requires a working stove (which costs money) or a fire (generally not allowed within city limits), and even during the summer, seeds to grow vegetables cost money. There exist situations in which circumstances beyond an individual's control could leave them without the means to eat, and to say otherwise makes little sense.

Second, fascists (they were communists, by the way)

You still have problems with english don't you?

By your idea Germany was never Fascist but only National-Socialist.

I asked this before, but the conversation seems to have gotten sidetracked. Is what was termed "pointless selfishness" a necessary byproduct of an individualistic culture, or can the latter exist without the former?

*blink* Since when is patriotism inherently virtuous?
Serving your society is virtuous because it is your group of people. Serving your society is more virtuous than serving the society that is enemies of your society. After all, your society is meant to help you so long as you help it.

I asked this before, but the conversation seems to have gotten sidetracked. Is what was termed "pointless selfishness" a necessary byproduct of an individualistic culture, or can the latter exist without the former?
Depends on the level of individualism. If you live in a purely individualistic society(everyone is insane and does whatever the hell they want) then yes, however, if you are talking about a society with individualistic leanings then no. Pointless selfishness is part of individualism taken to an extreme (anything that helps society without offering personal gain is by its nature more collectivist) however, a mildly individualistic society can encourage certain virtues while not caring about others.

What a charming thing to say. Remind me to keep all mentally/physically disabled people away from wherever you live, since you've taken it upon yourself to determine who is "fit to live."

I'm also amused by your suggestions for someone starving during a Chicago winter. It's sort of hard to grow food in January, I have no idea how anyone would even go about hunting a rat, boiling water requires a working stove (which costs money) or a fire (generally not allowed within city limits), and even during the summer, seeds to grow vegetables cost money. There exist situations in which circumstances beyond an individual's control could leave them without the means to eat, and to say otherwise makes little sense.
first of all, i'm not deciding who's fit to live so much as you're saying what you're saying. it's just what is.

peas are planted during january, hunting a rat is really easy, even a rock works(i've gotten one with one) you don't even need to cook the meat so long as you dry it out. seeds don't cost anything, you can pick them off dead plants, and winter's the best time to do it. since when has fire been illegal within a city? it's not around here, you people have odd laws. fire's pretty much nesicary to live!

Serving your society is virtuous because it is your group of people. Serving your society is more virtuous than serving the society that is enemies of your society. After all, your society is meant to help you so long as you help it.

But what if your society promotes non-virtuous activities? The obvious example would be Nazi Germany - was it more virtuous for a German to support a system engaging in and endorsing things which I think we can all agree were evil, or to stand against their society?

(Argh, I'm hijacking my own thread... :p )

Serving your own society simply because it is your society is self service.

you obviously have no knowledge of nature. you can grow food in the ground, hunt. even in a city, there is rats and such(which really aren't quite so desieased as you people say, and when correctly prepared, you can get rid of almost any desease it might have). squirrels are really delicious too! my grandmother could make really good squirrel stew, it isn't that hard, i've made it myself, just grow some potatoes and carrots(and onions too, if you like them) and put them in boiling water with some squirrel meat. all you would need to grow vegetables is just a cardboard box and put soil in it, and grow some seeds in it. a suprising amount of food can be grown in a small space.

there is no reasone for anyone to be starving like that or anything. if they are in such a state then it's cause they're lazy or unfit to live.

Like to see YOU eat a rat! Except there's laws against cannibalism, ain't there?

You tell me why anyone should HAVE to be in such a position as to have to eat a rat...what the hell, are you so selfish and cruel that you couldn't give a little something so that, when added with what other people give...that someone could maybe have a clean, nutritious meal of REAL FOOD that won't give them diseases? Man you are just sick. One more post like that and you will have earned a place on my ignore list. I don't have the time to read posts from sick, heartless people.

Serving your own society simply because it is your society is self service.

What if you are a German Jew in 1937 or so?

What if you are a German Jew in 1937 or so?

That's my point. It's mere self service to serve your own community. A German Jew would have had every right to not be loyal to the National Socialist government, as would have any non fascist German.

The problem is that the majority of Americans (can't speak for anyone else), have grown up in a soft world where everything is provided. Not only is caring about equals forgotten about, but caring about the poor and the hungry is forgotten about.
I've been to Washington, DC and seen beggars on the streets. If people dripped a dime in there, 1/5 of the price of a fucking candy bar, they could probably make that man very happy. However, nobody does.

Those guys make enough money to buy themselves a bottle of Boone's Farm everytime they sober up, trust me. And if you try to give them change they won't take it. The last thing they need is a peice of metal to carry around.

It is not self-service to serve your government. It is noble because you are supposed to be loyal to that government, by acting on those nobler impulses you help society. The german jew idea is not exactly the same because I did not say that society determines morality or anything of that nature. If your society is too immoral by your standards then you can disown it. If you disown your society it is in your best interests to move to another society that you can agree with. Pretty much if you live in a society you should respect the lawful lords of that society as your lawful lords, if you refuse to do that move to another society, if you agree with your society then serving it is a good thing to do.

Like to see YOU eat a rat! Except there's laws against cannibalism, ain't there?

You tell me why anyone should HAVE to be in such a position as to have to eat a rat...what the hell, are you so selfish and cruel that you couldn't give a little something so that, when added with what other people give...that someone could maybe have a clean, nutritious meal of REAL FOOD that won't give them diseases? Man you are just sick. One more post like that and you will have earned a place on my ignore list. I don't have the time to read posts from sick, heartless people.
i HAVE eaten rat before. and muskrat, too. kind of chewy, and not much meat. i'm assuming what you're calling "real" food is just some proscessed plastic stuff, like most of what people eat.

anyone has the capability to earn a living themselves, and those that don't aren't any help to the population. the individual doesn't matter, only the whole of the people.
you are sick for believing that people should be given things for doing nothing.

anyone has the capability to earn a living themselves, and those that don't aren't any help to the population. the individual doesn't matter, only the whole of the people.
you are sick for believing that people should be given things for doing nothing.

What, then, should society do about quadraplegics or people with Downs syndrome? If they can't earn a living, is it just because they're lazy?

What, then, should society do about quadraplegics or people with Downs syndrome? If they can't earn a living, is it just because they're lazy?
as i said before, they are of no use to society, therefore shouldn't get food.

as i said before, they are of no use to society, therefore shouldn't get food.
Although cruel, such an idea does make logical sense.
After all, giving to receive is often an important societal ideal.
We give to society and we receive physical goods and emotional goods.
Society gives to us and it receives labor and ideas.
If one side breaks the chain then the other side does not give aid either.
Ultimately, those who can not or will not give will not receive because of the contract behind such reasoning.

as i said before, they are of no use to society, therefore shouldn't get food.

Wow.

So you're officially endorsing eugenics?

Wow.

So you're officially endorsing eugenics?
i can't officially endorse it, i'm not in the head of a government.

well, my nationstates government i am, heheheh.

that's not exactly what i had ment, i had ment more on a short term scale, but it is a side affect of that, which is better than it is worse.

i can't officially endorse it, i'm not in the head of a government.

well, my nationstates government i am, heheheh.

that's not exactly what i had ment, i had ment more on a short term scale, but it is a side affect of that, which is better than it is worse.

Gah. I have a mental disorder and also have many Jewish and homosexual friends. For some strange reason, I'm a little scared of people who like eugenics, ridding society of "undesirables," and related ideas. Can't imagine why.

You also seem to believe that one can only contribute to society through economic means, which I dispute. A quadruple-amputee probably can't do much work, but that doesn't mean he's not valuable to his family, friends, and acquaintances - and to himself. Somehow I doubt any of the above would support starving him.

Gah. I have a mental disorder and also have many Jewish and homosexual friends. For some strange reason, I'm a little scared of people who like eugenics, ridding society of "undesirables," and related ideas. Can't imagine why.

You also seem to believe that one can only contribute to society through economic means, which I dispute. A quadruple-amputee probably can't do much work, but that doesn't mean he's not valuable to his family, friends, and acquaintances - and to himself. Somehow I doubt any of the above would support starving him.
i'm sorry to have offended you then.

and someone who is unable to do physical work is still capable of mental work, also.

i HAVE eaten rat before. and muskrat, too. kind of chewy, and not much meat. i'm assuming what you're calling "real" food is just some proscessed plastic stuff, like most of what people eat.

anyone has the capability to earn a living themselves, and those that don't aren't any help to the population. the individual doesn't matter, only the whole of the people.
you are sick for believing that people should be given things for doing nothing.

You are sick for believing people should be reduced to being forced into eating rats if they happen to be down on their luck. Goodbye. Welcome to my ignore list, I've no time to read posts like yours.

The other day I noticed a ridiculous number of shopping carts left floating around a parking lot, and it got me thinking about the prevalence of petty selfish actions in contemporary American society (and quite possibly other societies, though I haven't spent enough time in any of them to know). There seem to be a very large number of people who don't see any reason to walk the extra 15 feet to put the shopping cart back, to find a trash can rather than just leaving trash wherever they're standing, to hold doors open for people only a few feet behind them rather than letting them slam, and so forth - actions that take only very minimal time and effort and save others trouble.

So my question is, do you believe this phenomenon is relatively new and/or confined to certain regions of the world, or is it just a fundamental part of human nature - and, if it's the former, what causes it?


Fundamental part of human nature. Because we are stinkin' weasals.

I was remarking the other day that when I first started my job (16 years ago), people would NEVER think of interrupting you during your dinner. They would poke their head around the corner and as soon as they saw your dinner in front of you they would say "ah, oops, sorry to disturb your meal, we'll come back later". Today, customers don't give a damn whether you are eating your meal or not. Now, they say "ah, you're having dinner! How is it? Just a few questions for you...what's the weather supposed to be like tomorrow? If you were going to spend two days in the city, what would you go see? Really? And where is that? Can you draw it on my map? And what are the hours of operation? I wonder, could you look it up on the internet for me? Oh, and another thing..." all the while the dinner is going limp and cold, right there in front of them.

I should qualify that: British and European people still come back later if you are eating. It's North Americans who no longer have any common courtesy. I used to be able to say it was only Americans who didn't give a shit about anyone but themselves, but to my horror I see it has spread to my Canadian countrymen too, no doubt via cultural imperialism. *shakes fist*

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the baby boom generation, many of them seem to have raised their children with hippy 60's and 70's social values that denounced respecting your elders and your fellow man, denounced respect for society, denounced such conformist evils as "manners" and "proper behaviour". "Me me me" will never work in the long term when human populations are getting ever denser. It's easy to be selfish and disrespectful of others when there is only one person for every square mile. When we are packed together like sardines we are going to have to learn to accept that what is good for society is ultimately better for us as individuals than pure self-centred individualism. Even if you think "collectivism" is evil, it will turn out to be the lesser of the two evils in the long run.

Of the 17 OECD countries, the US rates 17th or dead last in poverty rates.

Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html)

Last time I checked, the US ranked 8th on the UN listing for best country in which to live. Norway was first.

Over 45 million Americans do not have basic health insurance.

I've moved to Sweden now, where there are things like courtesy, thoughtfulness, government provided medicine and higher education, a focus on family and friendships in society, and in the apartment I live in the washing machines are free to use.

When I told my family I was moving, they all freaked out, even the ones who'd gone to college - why? Because apparantly they believe that America is !!!THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! and now that I've been able to go to the doctor and the dentist for the first time in nearly a decade because it's not completely and thoroughly privitized, it's starting to sink in that maybe they're not the only ones who aren't third world.

I'm more free here than I ever was in the States, because everything is not about the all important dollar sign. These countries (scandanavia in general, as you'll see from this quality of life listing that has america as number 8) give more effort, money, time and energy to the PEOPLE *gasp* than to the idea of a bigger bank number. When you're not so desperately worried about money, you have time to sit at a friends' house for a few hours and chat and have some coffee. You have the time to open the door for someone, and park where it's not going to be an issue. When you're not overstressed about whether you're going to be able to afford Suzie's braces, you have the time to be a decent human being and the time to have a fulfilling life.

I think individualistic capitalism is a horrendously bad thing. Inherant competition in society alienates us from ourselves and focuses life on something that does NOT matter at all.

p.s. the reason the schools are such crap are two reasons - obviously the first being the budget cuts because people don't wanna pay for schools ... but I blame the parents more. They should be less worried about money (which they could do in a less capatilist country, for example) and more worried about teaching their kids the behaviour that is lacking. Respect, courtesy, etiquitte, manners, decency, the difference between right and wrong in all situations is something that parents used to teach their kids but now in the states there's no time for it anymore.

but I blame the parents more. They should be less worried about money (which they could do in a less capatilist country, for example) and more worried about teaching their kids the behaviour that is lacking. Respect, courtesy, etiquitte, manners, decency, the difference between right and wrong in all situations is something that parents used to teach their kids but now in the states there's no time for it anymore.

Dont blame the parents, they have their hands tied behind their backs by the stupid laws bought on by pc that forbids parents from physically disciplining manners into their kids at an early age. This is the best time to mould them.

Dont blame the parents, they have their hands tied behind their backs by the stupid laws bought on by pc that forbids parents from physically disciplining manners into their kids at an early age. This is the best time to mould them.

Yeah, right. Why is it, then, that so people who were beaten and abused as children turn out to be murderers, rapists, and petty thugs?

I was remarking the other day that when I first started my job (16 years ago), people would NEVER think of interrupting you during your dinner. They would poke their head around the corner and as soon as they saw your dinner in front of you they would say "ah, oops, sorry to disturb your meal, we'll come back later". Today, customers don't give a damn whether you are eating your meal or not. Now, they say "ah, you're having dinner! How is it? Just a few questions for you...what's the weather supposed to be like tomorrow? If you were going to spend two days in the city, what would you go see? Really? And where is that? Can you draw it on my map? And what are the hours of operation? I wonder, could you look it up on the internet for me? Oh, and another thing..." all the while the dinner is going limp and cold, right there in front of them.
In which case one would be justified in saying "Get the hell out of here, I'm eating you god damn horse's ass." If you keep letting people horn in like this it's every bit as much your fault. Don't want to talk to them? Guess what--you don't have to.

I should qualify that: British and European people still come back later if you are eating. It's North Americans who no longer have any common courtesy.
Thanks for that sweeping generalization; those are making you look really good right now. I happen to live in North America and I also happen to not care for this remark. Of course those Europeans are so cultured and perfect and sophisticated; Americans are just lazy brutes who never accomplish anything, never mind the incredible success we've enjoyed as a nation in the last 230 years.

I'm really getting tired of this attitude that insists on putting Europeans on some sort of gilded moral dias; I'm seeing it more and more and it's staring to piss me off. It's not that I have anything against Europeans, but the assumption that they're automatically better than us in every area is sickening at best.

I used to be able to say it was only Americans who didn't give a shit about anyone but themselves, but to my horror I see it has spread to my Canadian countrymen too, no doubt via cultural imperialism. *shakes fist*
Cultural Imperialism is just a Euphemism; you can just come out and say 'Capitalism' next time, it saves us all a lot of trouble. Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble but when the chips are down, none of us 'give a shit' about anyone other than ourselves; it would be worthwhile to note at this point that all voluntary action is selfish. Even giving money to bums, which, judging from the tone of your post, is probably one of yourmost favorite pastimes.

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the baby boom generation, many of them seem to have raised their children with hippy 60's and 70's social values that denounced respecting your elders and your fellow man, denounced respect for society, denounced such conformist evils as "manners" and "proper behaviour".
Which explains why today's voting electorate is more conservative than it was 40 years ago. "Hippie" my ass. Nice try.

"Me me me" will never work in the long term when human populations are getting ever denser. It's easy to be selfish and disrespectful of others when there is only one person for every square mile.
Care to explain this logic, please? I have no problem doing it with 50, or 500 people to a square mile.

]When we are packed together like sardines we are going to have to learn to accept that what is good for society is ultimately better for us as individuals than pure self-centred individualism.
Oh, so boosting the income tax rate to 100% for "free" healthcare and "free" food for everyone who doesn't feel like working is better for me personally than being allowed to work towards my values and keep the product of my work? Being put to work as a slave for the benefit of others is "ultimately better" for me as an individual than being allowed to work for my own family's survival? How is it fair to ask me or anyone else to put an amorphous blob of complete strangers in front of their friends and family? Themselves? Please. The horror in the doctrine of self-sacrifice is readily apparent in its name alone.

Oh, and never mind the enormous strides we've made technologically under capitalism; but to hear you tell it I'm sure that's just a colossal fluke, no?

Even if you think "collectivism" is evil, it will turn out to be the lesser of the two evils in the long run.
Nonsense. Collectivism is the essence of all that is evil on this planet; every time it is applied suffering and death is soon to follow. Somehow, I see a lot less of this in the United States than I have seen in say, Cuba, China, or the USSR of old.

Oh, so boosting the income tax rate to 100% for "free" healthcare and "free" food for everyone who doesn't feel like working is better for me personally than being allowed to work towards my values and keep the product of my work? Being put to work as a slave for the benefit of others is "ultimately better" for me as an individual than being allowed to work for my own family's survival? How is it fair to ask me or anyone else to put an amorphous blob of complete strangers in front of their friends and family? Themselves? Please. The horror in the doctrine of self-sacrifice is readily apparent in its name alone.

Nonsense. Collectivism is the essence of all that is evil on this planet; every time it is applied suffering and death is soon to follow. Somehow, I see a lot less of this in the United States than I have seen in say, Cuba, China, or the USSR of old.
Government benefits for those who do not do any work are not something that every collectivist supports, you help gov and gov help you is how I tend to think. I doubt that you starve anyway, your family needs food and attention more than it needs luxury cars, big tvs or any other nonsense. The fact is that the government is not so oppressive that you can even claim to be choosing between yourself or any stranger, you can support both. Besides on the whole self-sacrifice comment, what makes you think that those who have nothing to die for deserve to live? The self-sacrificers have the spirit, guts, balls, and whatever other strength to sacrifice themselves for a greater good.

Collectivism is not the essence of evil, greed and the like are. The reason that the collectivist societies that you are talking about were so flawed was because they got crazy dictators that went around killing people for personal gain(the dictators were not acting sane or collectivist if they put themselves above their people). But you are a person who would claim that even organized religion is completely evil, are you not? I would claim that the only things that give human beings any real substance and hope are the collectivist actions, those who seek their own gain at every turn and only live to get property and pleasure are seen as most by shallow bastards.

You are sick for believing people should be reduced to being forced into eating rats if they happen to be down on their luck. Goodbye. Welcome to my ignore list, I've no time to read posts like yours.
fine then. i could say the exact same to you.

reduced to eating rats? i don't know, i regard them as better tasting than those highly proscessed foods like hamburgers, i know that other people have different tastes, but it is much healthier for you too.
have you ever tried one?
well, nevermind, you're not going to read this anyways.

A lot of people in this thread are making assumptions unconsciously that really make their arguments fall apart.

I've seen people assuming (Not stating it, but making it an assumption of their arguments) that working for the good of society, or for the benefit of others is naturally more virtuous than working for oneself and for one's own benefit. I'm not going to argue a moral code with anyone, as it is a pointless exercise that will just boil down to silly bickering.

I've also seen people assuming that because a person is starving, that they have the moral right to be given some help. They've gotten indignant at the idea that someone will not help the starving or the indigent. They've forgotten that what they are arguing is their own subjective morality toward the subject.

Both of those assumptions have led to statements indicating that the government should take care of these problems. This is a moral judgement, and is equivalent to someone saying that the government should push their religion. I'm certain that a lot of you would balk at the idea of a Christian wanting to institute a Christian public school system. That, however, would be fine, and likely supported, by their moral code. That person would be working under the same assertion, "My moral code is right." The government is no place to enforce morality of any kind, even under the guise of socialism.

I also want to clear up a misconception that's been shown to be had in this thread. It's been said that someone would rather live in a country with socialized medicine or the like because it's so incredibly expensive in the US. That logic, summarized, is "[Name of socialized country] has better [name of socialized industry in said country] than the US does, so socialism is better than capitalism." This argument is fallacious because the United States is not a capitalist country. The United States currently has a system that restricts personal and corporate economic freedoms without instituting the organizational skills that socialized industries in many countries enjoy.

Businesses in the United States try to operate as though this is a capitalist country, giving costs taken up by regulations a back-seat. They have capitalist organization under a socialist regulatory system. It was caused by political moves. It's looks good for a politician to support free trade and the right to personal property, but it's also good for a politician to give free services. So they didn't socialize the industries, they regulate them to the point where it becomes massively expensive to operate. The companies have to pay for these costs (Because it's still officially 'Capitalist'), so they pass on these inflated, regulated costs to the government and to the people who pay for their own services.

Socialized systems can work, provided they are adequately organized and that the people within them want the services socialized, and that the socialist system remains pure from corruption. Capitalist systems can work, as long as the capitalism remains pure from corruption

Capitalist systems can work, as long as the capitalism remains pure from corruption

And it never will remain pure from corruption, without regulation. Unregulated capitalism...there is nothing that businesses wouldn't do...if there weren't regulations to stop them from doing them...in pursuit of the God-Almighty buck.

Do you mean to tell me you actually think a capitalist will do the RIGHT thing, voluntarily...when cutting corners, not doing the right thing, or sometimes, even doing the WRONG thing...will make ten extra bucks for the company?

Given a choice between what is right, and what is profitable...without regulation, the company will always choose what is profitable over what is right.

I think you underestimate just how much companies are aware of their appearance to the public. Any successful corporation weighs a decision that might appear negative in the public eye by the criterion, "Is the loss of PR worth the loss of money?" They realize that doing something that people don't like will also cause them to lose money, and are aware of it.

In any case, you nonetheless made the same error that I wrote of in my last post: You assumed what is "Right." That is no-one's job to regulate or enforce. Just because you might think that it's "wrong" to cut such-and-such job, does not make it wrong. "Profitable" and "Right" are not mutually exclusive. If you want to get into a moral argument, I think that Melkor would be willing to take that up with you. I, however, do not care to argue what "Should" be done; I'm talking government, and the rights of the government, not the morality of a body that can have no morality anyway.

Both of those assumptions have led to statements indicating that the government should take care of these problems. This is a moral judgement, and is equivalent to someone saying that the government should push their religion. I'm certain that a lot of you would balk at the idea of a Christian wanting to institute a Christian public school system. That, however, would be fine, and likely supported, by their moral code. That person would be working under the same assertion, "My moral code is right." The government is no place to enforce morality of any kind, even under the guise of socialism. Um… yes it does. That's why we have laws .

Um… yes it does. That's why we have laws .

No, the government only has place to protect rights, and only to the extent that the protected give that right. Laws aren't moral mandates, they are restrictions of freedom that people consent to under the assumption that they will benefit proportionally.

I work at a grocery store in an area that's heavily populated by students and people who don't have cars.

Most carts that don't end up in the corals (unless the cart guys are really efficient) seem to be somewhere along the street, having been taken home or partway there by someone who didn't have a car, but didn't want to lug their groceries the whole way home.

It's only when the weather is really shitty that you get carts everywhere, really.

I think you underestimate just how much companies are aware of their appearance to the public. Any successful corporation weighs a decision that might appear negative in the public eye by the criterion, "Is the loss of PR worth the loss of money?" They realize that doing something that people don't like will also cause them to lose money, and are aware of it.

In any case, you nonetheless made the same error that I wrote of in my last post: You assumed what is "Right." That is no-one's job to regulate or enforce. Just because you might think that it's "wrong" to cut such-and-such job, does not make it wrong. "Profitable" and "Right" are not mutually exclusive. If you want to get into a moral argument, I think that Melkor would be willing to take that up with you. I, however, do not care to argue what "Should" be done; I'm talking government, and the rights of the government, not the morality of a body that can have no morality anyway.

And I think you overestimate how much companies give a shit about what people think. As long as the dollars flow in, companies give a rat's ass about what people think...or about doing the right thing!

Have you actually READ "Jennifer Government," incidentally? John Nike is the epitome of what I believe businessmen would be, if not for regulations to stop them from being that way.

I really DO believe businesses would go that far over the top, if there were nothing to stop them. I really believe that John Nike is not the exception, but the rule...in the attitude of corporate America. Try reading it sometime.

I really DO believe businesses would go that far, if there were no government to stop them...and, since everyone else was doing it, too...negative PR wouldn't mean jack-shit.

ON EDIT: Always assuming, of course, that you could even get the "goddamn liberal media" to cover the stories, instead of cover the asses of their corporate buddies and cronies, like they do now in America...mainly because most of the "goddamn liberal media" is fucking owned by the corporations! You don't REALLY expect them to report bad news about themselves, now do you?

Liberal media, my ass!!

And I think you overestimate how much companies give a shit about what people think. As long as the dollars flow in, companies give a rat's ass about what people think...or about doing the right thing!

Have you actually READ "Jennifer Government," incidentally? John Nike is the epitome of what I believe businessmen would be, if not for regulations to stop them from being that way.

I really DO believe businesses would go that far over the top, if there were nothing to stop them. I really believe that John Nike is not the exception, but the rule...in the attitude of corporate America. Try reading it sometime.

I really DO believe businesses would go that far, if there were no government to stop them...and, since everyone else was doing it, too...negative PR wouldn't mean jack-shit.

ON EDIT: Always assuming, of course, that you could even get the "goddamn liberal media" to cover the stories, instead of cover the asses of their corporate buddies and cronies, like they do now in America...mainly because most of the "goddamn liberal media" is fucking owned by the corporations! You don't REALLY expect them to report bad news about themselves, now do you?

Liberal media, my ass!! Try reading Fast Food Nation as well, by Eric Schossler. Very revealing on corporate malpractice. Why should they worry about their image if their public image doesn't correlate with their actual practises?

The other day I noticed a ridiculous number of shopping carts left floating around a parking lot, and it got me thinking about the prevalence of petty selfish actions in contemporary American society (and quite possibly other societies, though I haven't spent enough time in any of them to know). There seem to be a very large number of people who don't see any reason to walk the extra 15 feet to put the shopping cart back, to find a trash can rather than just leaving trash wherever they're standing, to hold doors open for people only a few feet behind them rather than letting them slam, and so forth - actions that take only very minimal time and effort and save others trouble.

So my question is, do you believe this phenomenon is relatively new and/or confined to certain regions of the world, or is it just a fundamental part of human nature - and, if it's the former, what causes it?

Not necessarily (but still quite possibly). When I go to the grocery store and drop off my shopping cart, I always look around to see where the nearest drop off point is. My time is worth money to me. I do a quick calculation of what the average person's time is worth versus the cost of man hours to the store for collecting the carts. If the cost to society for putting the cart into place (based on distance) exceeds the cost in manhours for collecting the cart, I'll leave it. In otherwords, If I make $30/hour and it would take 1 minute to return the cart, it would cost me $0.50 to return the cart. Whereas a store employee would only cost, say $10/hour to retrieve the same cart, thus costing only about $0.16 to return the cart. Those costs are either passed along to society at the rate of $10/man hour in the form of higher grocery prices, or $30/man hour in the form of whatever it is I do for a living. If I was in a location remote in the parking lot and next to a cart depository, I could probably return the cart faster and easier than an employee, so it would make sense for me to return it.

So, ya' see, I could return the cart, but I'd have to charge you more for my services because my time is more valuable. (I'm an attorney, and I can make my services more affordable if I have more time). President Franklin Roosevelt could type 80 words per minute, but it still didn't make sense for him to type all of his letters, right?

On the other hand, my wife never returns carts because she's lazy about it. So there you go. :)

And it never will remain pure from corruption, without regulation. Unregulated capitalism...there is nothing that businesses wouldn't do...if there weren't regulations to stop them from doing them...in pursuit of the God-Almighty buck.

Do you mean to tell me you actually think a capitalist will do the RIGHT thing, voluntarily...when cutting corners, not doing the right thing, or sometimes, even doing the WRONG thing...will make ten extra bucks for the company?

Given a choice between what is right, and what is profitable...without regulation, the company will always choose what is profitable over what is right.

Capitalism turns man against man.

Under Communism, it's the other way around.

But at least under Capitalism, you have freedom.

I think that what it comes down to is that people are naturally bad, and even under a capitalist system, you have to have laws in place to keep people and corporations from exploiting their freedoms at the expense of others.

Government benefits for those who do not do any work are not something that every collectivist supports, you help gov and gov help you is how I tend to think.
Except that I'm helping the government and it's not helping me; I'm paying for services I will either never get to use [Social Security] or refuse to use [Welfare]. There are a few cases where a benefit to me can be observed, and in these few cases, it's worth it to [i]me to be paying for these things. God willing, I won't have to use any of them.

I doubt that you starve anyway, your family needs food and attention more than it needs luxury cars, big tvs or any other nonsense.
Point? This sounds more like a thesis than an actual argument; I think you're stating a basic premise here as opposed to actually making a cogent counterargument concerning property rights.

The fact is that the government is not so oppressive that you can even claim to be choosing between yourself or any stranger, you can support both.
I didn't say they were making me choose, I said they were asking--sorry-- demanding that I put others first. Before you say they aren't, consider that my tax money is deducted from my check before it even hits my hands; they're effectively spending my money before I even get it. So yes, I would categorize that as forcing me to dispense my values to other people first.

Besides on the whole self-sacrifice comment, what makes you think that those who have nothing to die for deserve to live? The self-sacrificers have the spirit, guts, balls, and whatever other strength to sacrifice themselves for a greater good.
Self sacrifice is bullshit because a sacrifice [by its very definition] is giving up a value for something of lesser value: anything else is a trade or even a gain. By using the term 'self-sacrifice' you're telling me that there is a value higher than life: sorry, but there isn't.

If you think that your life is of equal value [to you] as your neighbors', dying for him would therefore constitute a trade under your moral code, not a sacrifice. Once these value hierarchies are properly denoted, they become more difficult to argue with: if you value the exchange as a trade, likewise, you're implicitly supporting the decisions of other men to refrain from such a trade, since trade is voluntary.

Collectivism is not the essence of evil, greed and the like are. The reason that the collectivist societies that you are talking about were so flawed was because they got crazy dictators that went around killing people for personal gain(the dictators were not acting sane or collectivist if they put themselves above their people). But you are a person who would claim that even organized religion is completely evil, are you not? I would claim that the only things that give human beings any real substance and hope are the collectivist actions, those who seek their own gain at every turn and only live to get property and pleasure are seen as most by shallow bastards.
I was being a little heavy handed with that last bit, perhaps intentionaly so [it was early!], but the truth is probably somewhere in between. Not everyone who is selfish is evil. Your last sentence is pretty weak though, especially the " those who seek their own gain at every turn and only live to get property and pleasure are seen as most by shallow bastards" part: you're not going to score many points with anyone trying to claim [even implicitly] that the reactions of others are a proper barometer for morality.

And I think you overestimate how much companies give a shit about what people think. As long as the dollars flow in, companies give a rat's ass about what people think...or about doing the right thing!

Have you actually READ "Jennifer Government," incidentally? John Nike is the epitome of what I believe businessmen would be, if not for regulations to stop them from being that way.

I really DO believe businesses would go that far over the top, if there were nothing to stop them. I really believe that John Nike is not the exception, but the rule...in the attitude of corporate America. Try reading it sometime.

I really DO believe businesses would go that far, if there were no government to stop them...and, since everyone else was doing it, too...negative PR wouldn't mean jack-shit.

ON EDIT: Always assuming, of course, that you could even get the "goddamn liberal media" to cover the stories, instead of cover the asses of their corporate buddies and cronies, like they do now in America...mainly because most of the "goddamn liberal media" is fucking owned by the corporations! You don't REALLY expect them to report bad news about themselves, now do you?

Liberal media, my ass!!

It doesn't matter if companies actually care what people think, that is true. Corporations are not twelve-year-old girls that want everyone to like them for the sake of being liked. You're right: businesses care first and foremost about profits. That's why businesses are started; greed is a great motivator. That is why businesses must adhere to the public will to some extent. If a company pisses everyone off, then the company has lost customers, and more importantly, money.

Liskeinland made a valid point, though. If a company can be clever enough to hide its practices, then something horrifying may be happening without anything being done. But why are there government agencies to do this job? Government agencies are not allowed to use unethical techiques (Lying to get access to sensitive corporate information, tricking companies into hiring them) to bust corporations. If they do, their case doesn't hold in court, and the company goes by unscathed, save for legal fees, which even then might be reimbursed by court order. However, activist citizens can do that, and simply blow the whistle when they get the goods. Animal rights groups do this on a regular basis. Right now, though, there is very little ambition to do anything about most other industries, simply because people assume that the government will handle it, and become apathetic. In a purely capitalistic system, corporations can take over, but only with the consent by passivity of the people. However, on the flip side, why is that worse than an all-pervasive government? The government is much harder to kill off than a company, and is just as likely, if not more so, to engage in dishonest tactics.

Capitalism turns man against man.

Under Communism, it's the other way around.

But at least under Capitalism, you have freedom.

I think that what it comes down to is that people are naturally bad, and even under a capitalist system, you have to have laws in place to keep people and corporations from exploiting their freedoms at the expense of others.

I'm not quite sure I understood what you were trying to say about Communism in your second statement? Other way around?? But it's already mn against man?? so what's the other way around? can you clarify exactly what you meant, so that a proper response can be formulated?

Incidentally, you have freedom under Communism....or Socialism, too. Communism and Socialism are ECONOMIC SYTEMS...not political ideologies. Freedom has nothing to do with it. The world has never truly seen a Communist country, at least not according to how Marx and Engels envisioned it, or wrote about it in The Communist Manifesto. There was plenty of personal freedom...in fact, more than we currently enjoy...under the system espoused by Marx and Engels.

However, the former Soviet Union...was not Communist. It was a bastardization of communism, perverted and screwed up by an evil, brutal dictator into something it was never intended to be. You are confusing Totalitarianism (the political system of the former Soviet Union) with Communism (the, for lack of a better name, economic system of the former Soviet Union.) In fact, the economic system of the former Soviet Union was actually closer to State-Controlled Capitalism. what was practiced in the Soviet Unnion was not Communism. And communism is NOT a political ideology, anyway....and so, freedom has nothing to do with it. Unless you are talking about economic freedom, as opposed to personal freedom. Freedom of Speech, for example, falls under personal freedom, and there is nothing inherent in the Communistic economic model that prevents the exercise of free speech. In fact, Marx and Engels writings make it quite clear that they supported personal freedoms, and the retention of same, by the people. Try reading them sometime, instead of just believing the tripe the American right wing will tell you about it.

Tell me...would you be happier and more fulfilled in a society where you didn't constantly have to worry about making ends meet for your very basic survival...so that you could then concentrate on other pursuits that make you happy....or would you be more fulfilled in a society that promises (and usually fails to deliver) giant rewards for hard work...and keeps you running like a rabbit chasing the proverbial carrot-on-a-stick...consuming all your energies in trying to get the carrot that most rabbits never get...and worrying all the while about how you are gonna put food on the table every day...working yourself to the point of exhaustion, and leaving no time for you to enjoy other pursuits that bring you happiness, and a fulfilling life?

In other words...would you rather have

A - Enough to definitely survive, plus maybe a little extra...and time and energy to pursue other hobbies/endeavors/leisure activities that fulfill and enrich your life

or

B - Constant worry about how you will keep putting food on the table, running yourself ragged, and working to exhaustion chasing after the mythical carrot-on-a-stick that so few actually succeed in getting, and have no time to enjoy any of the other things in life that can be fulfilling and rewarding?

Given my druthers, I'll take A over B every time. Meaning I prefer the Communistic/Socialistic economic model over the Capitalistic one. Which do you REALLY prefer, and be honest, please.

You know there ARE things in this world more important than goddam money, and if we didn't all have to WORRY so much about goddam money all the time, perhaps we'd all enjoy life more. But in a Capitalistic society, it is impossible to NOT worry about money all the time, because, by it's very nature, Capitalism creates and fosters deprivations for some, and overabundance for others.

After all, think about the model, for a moment. Everyone wants some of X. But, there is not enough supply so that everyone can have some X. Therefore, if X were such that everyone could afford it...we would run out, and not everyone would get some. So they raise the price of X to the point where the demand fits the supply, and the very poor don't get to have any X, whereas the rich bastards...they get THEIR share of X.

In a Communistic system, we would realize everyone wanted and needed X, so we would concentrate energy on producing enough X so that everyone could have some. We would adjust the supply to fit the demand...not the other way around.

The Capitalist wants to make as much money as possible, and doesn't care who he hurts or deprives in order to do it...so he will adjust the demand to fit the supply. The Communist/Socialist wants everyone's needs to be met, and so he would adjust the supply to meet the demand, making sure everyone got some. Okay, so maybe some people would not get as much X as they WANTED...but everyone would at least get as much as they NEEDED.

Anyway, this has gone on longer than I intended for it to...but, all things considered, I prefer the Socialistic economic model to the Capitalistic one, because Socialism does not intentionally create, perpetuate, and nurture deprivations in some to allow for the over-indulgence of others.

I guess it depends on what your own life experiences are. If you are perpetually and always the exploitEE rather than the exploitER...then you prefer Socialism. If you are, on the other hand, the exploitER and not the exploitEE, you might well prefer Capitalism.

He meant to say "Under Capitalism, Man exploits man. Under Communism, it's the other way around."

It's a pretty old joke.

It doesn't matter if companies actually care what people think, that is true. Corporations are not twelve-year-old girls that want everyone to like them for the sake of being liked. You're right: businesses care first and foremost about profits. That's why businesses are started; greed is a great motivator. That is why businesses must adhere to the public will to some extent. If a company pisses everyone off, then the company has lost customers, and more importantly, money.

Liskeinland made a valid point, though. If a company can be clever enough to hide its practices, then something horrifying may be happening without anything being done. But why are there government agencies to do this job? Government agencies are not allowed to use unethical techiques (Lying to get access to sensitive corporate information, tricking companies into hiring them) to bust corporations. If they do, their case doesn't hold in court, and the company goes by unscathed, save for legal fees, which even then might be reimbursed by court order. However, activist citizens can do that, and simply blow the whistle when they get the goods. Animal rights groups do this on a regular basis. Right now, though, there is very little ambition to do anything about most other industries, simply because people assume that the government will handle it, and become apathetic. In a purely capitalistic system, corporations can take over, but only with the consent by passivity of the people. However, on the flip side, why is that worse than an all-pervasive government? The government is much harder to kill off than a company, and is just as likely, if not more so, to engage in dishonest tactics.


Well, the only dishonest tactics I seem to recall the government being involved in are...election fraud (2000, 2002, and 2004,) lying about WMD to get us into a war with Iraq, the real purpose of which is control of precious natural resources that are being rapidly depleted (oil) outing of a CIA agent in retaliation for standing up against the lies, "rendering" of political prisoners to other countries that will use extreme torture, defying the Geneva Conventions, let's see...uh...maybe this isn't such a good case for my argument that government is more trustworthy than corporations....

He meant to say "Under Capitalism, Man exploits man. Under Communism, it's the other way around."

It's a pretty old joke.


Well, then, I think I said pretty much the same thing in the last paragraph of my long-winded response...about whether you are the exploitEE or the exploitER...and which system you prefer, depending on which role you play in our current system.

Personally, me, I think it's high time the high-and-mighty got cut down a few notches. 'Bout damn time someone showed them they are no freaking better than the rest of us...nor are they more deserving or more important. Just that they were able to be a bigger bully and a bigger bastard.

Well, the only dishonest tactics I seem to recall the government being involved in are...election fraud (2000, 2002, and 2004,) lying about WMD to get us into a war with Iraq, the real purpose of which is control of precious natural resources that are being rapidly depleted (oil) outing of a CIA agent in retaliation for standing up against the lies, "rendering" of political prisoners to other countries that will use extreme torture, defying the Geneva Conventions, let's see...uh...maybe this isn't such a good case for my argument that government is more trustworthy than corporations....

That's right. Thank you.

I'd like to address your post before that one. Your idea is a moralistic one, that people "should" give to others, and everyone "should" behave in a way that benefits, not detriments, his neighbor. Noble in its own right; you care; that is fine. However, the fact that you would advocate Communism in its pure form shows that you have no concept of consent. Communism requires redistributing the product of the efforts of the more productive to those that are not as productive, with or without the consent of the more productive ones. This, in most circles, is known as theft.

Also, you bother to make the distinction of economic and political freedoms. It is all a matter of choice, and to distinguish between how one behaves and how one spends one's money is unnecessary in any analysis. Political freedoms include economic ones.

In those two choices that you gave, you showed your bias incredibly blatantly. I wish you wouldn't show such intellectual dishonesty.

Well, then, I think I said pretty much the same thing in the last paragraph of my long-winded response...about whether you are the exploitEE or the exploitER...and which system you prefer, depending on which role you play in our current system.
Actually, most of it has to do with one's grasp of economics or morality. You'd be surprised how little it really has to do with class: every single libertarian I've ever met so far has been either middle or lower class.

Personally, me, I think it's high time the high-and-mighty got cut down a few notches. 'Bout damn time someone showed them they are no freaking better than the rest of us...
It strikes me as somewhat self defeating to villify and berate the people who enable me to walk to the fridge and get a beer while cheering on the people who are telling me how to best spend my money.

Oh, and concerning your endorsement of Communism: Communism is impossible because the theory that underlies it is thoroughly false; this is one of the reasons why I have no respect for advocates of the theory-practice dichotomy ['it looks good on paper, but...'].

Marxist theory holds that the proletariat is by definition larger than the bourgeois [middle class]. Right now, the United States middle class is much larger than its 'proletariat' counterpart, so the inconsistency here should be pretty obvious: this shit doesn't work because its theory is bunk.

Most Communists I've met are/were still in High School; and every one of them I've had any experience with rapidly changed his mind once he had to live on his own.

That's right. Thank you.

I'd like to address your post before that one. Your idea is a moralistic one, that people "should" give to others, and everyone "should" behave in a way that benefits, not detriments, his neighbor. Noble in its own right; you care; that is fine. However, the fact that you would advocate Communism in its pure form shows that you have no concept of consent. Communism requires redistributing the product of the efforts of the more productive to those that are not as productive, with or without the consent of the more productive ones. This, in most circles, is known as theft.

Also, you bother to make the distinction of economic and political freedoms. It is all a matter of choice, and to distinguish between how one behaves and how one spends one's money is unnecessary in any analysis. Political freedoms include economic ones.

In those two choices that you gave, you showed your bias incredibly blatantly. I wish you wouldn't show such intellectual dishonesty.


It's not intellectual dishonesty to state reality as I see it and as I experience it. I have been nothing but ruthlessly exploited and taken advatage of in Capitalistic society. I have been used when they had a use for me, and thrown to the side the second they no longer needed me...the second they could replace me with a more "desireable" person, I was thrown away like yesterday's newspaper.

I am a part of a very small minority group that it is STILL LEGAL to discriminate against in most places...and so, we DO get discriminated against, unfairly. You might understand better now...why I prefer a Communistic/socialistic system. You know what??? FUCK CONSENT!!! I never consented to get used and abused as I get used and abused in this system!! I didn't have the power to consent or refuse!! My very survival was hinged on my compliance with the system...willing or not! I did not have a fucking choice, it was be exploited and used...or die!! And, now, they say... "And now that we don't need YOU (you "undesireable" puke) because unemployment is so high...(and because you disgust us so hugely for being a part of a group that makes us uncomfortable) we will simply toss you on the garbage heap of society and hope you die, fuck you!!"

Those of us who are tossed onto society's garbage heap for mean motives...well, can you well understand why we might prefer a less heartless system?

Oh, and concerning your endorsement of Communism: Communism is impossible because the theory that underlies it is thoroughly false; this is one of the reasons why I have no respect for advocates of the theory-practice dichotomy ['it looks good on paper, but...'].

Marxist theory holds that the proletariat is by definition larger than the bourgeois [middle class]. Right now, the United States middle class is much larger than its 'proletariat' counterpart, so the inconsistency here should be pretty obvious: this shit doesn't work because its theory is bunk.

Most Communists I've met are/were still in High School; and every one of them I've had any experience with rapidly changed his mind once he had to live on his own.


The bourgeosie is the FUCKING UPPER CLASS not the middle class. That's first. Second, the fucking middle class is being squeezed out of existence in this country, by the excesses of the Bush Administration, and Capitalist Cronyism run rampant...and Robber Baronism gone virtually unchecked.

Did you know that fully 20 percent of this country (the United States) BELIEVES they are in the top one percent? But they aren't. They THINK they are, because they have bought the bullshit, the spin, the lies...and they are up to their fucking eyeballs in debt they cannot support, in order to maintain APPEARANCES and trappings of "wealth." Just you wait till this unsustainable bubble bursts, and you see how many people wind up losing every fucking thing they have...and then you'll see who the proletariat is...and you will see how few people suddenly LIKE the status quo!

Those of us who have already been thrown on society's shit heap...we KNOW what it is the rest of you are trying so hard to deny...to turn a blind eye to...to pretend and pray that it cannot happen to YOU...wait till it does, though. See how soon YOU vote for a Republican again once your eyes have been opened by being thrown on the shit heap.

OK, fair enough...I suppose, technically, you might be correct in ONE sense...but the fucking middle class is NOT what was being referred to by Marx and Engels when they used the term "bourgeois."

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 2bourgeois
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural bourgeois /-"wä(z), -'wä(z)/
1 a : BURGHER b : a middle-class person
2 : a person with social behavior and political views held to be influenced by private-property interest : CAPITALIST
3 plural : BOURGEOISIE

Main Entry: 1cap·i·tal·ist
Pronunciation: -ist
Function: noun
1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : PLUTOCRAT
2 : a person who favors capitalism

Main Entry: plu·toc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: plü-'tä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; akin to Greek plein to sail, float -- more at FLOW
1 : government by the wealthy
2 : a controlling class of the wealthy
- plu·to·crat /'plü-t&-"krat/ noun
- plu·to·crat·ic /"plü-t&-'kra-tik/ adjective
- plu·to·crat·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

You see how the jumps go?? Bourgeois - capitalist - plutocrat. THAT is what Marx and Engels were referring to when they made reference to "the bourgeois." they were NOT referring to middle-class folks, because most middle-class folks are still IN THE WORKING CLASS!!! They were referring to the uber-wealthy...the ones who OWNED the factories and whatnot...and EXPLOITED the worker. THAT was what they were referring to when referencing "the bourgeois."

So, while you may be technically correct that ONE definition of "bougeois" may well be "a member of the middle class" that is NOT the definition that was being referenced by Marx and Engels. They were going with definition number 2...which, as I showed you...goes from "bourgeois" to "capitalist" to "plutocrat." They were referring to the PLUTOCRATS.

The bourgeosie is the FUCKING UPPER CLASS not the middle class. That's first.
Dude, have you actually read the Manifesto? If so, read it again.

Second, the fucking middle class is being squeezed out of existence in this country, by the excesses of the Bush Administration, and Capitalist Cronyism run rampant...and Robber Baronism gone virtually unchecked.
The middle class in this country is not being squeezed out of existence. It's still very very large. There are a few places here and there where it is smaller, but compared to any other nation on the planet.... yeah. You get the picture.

Did you know that fully 20 percent of this country (the United States) BELIEVES they are in the top one percent? But they aren't. They THINK they are, because they have bought the bullshit, the spin, the lies...and they are up to their fucking eyeballs in debt they cannot support, in order to maintain APPEARANCES and trappings of "wealth."
Did you know that statistics are totally irrelevant in this case? Anyone who's up to his eyes in debt and thinks he's rich is an idiot: the idea here is to live within your means. We may not be within the top 1% of the nation, but what sense is it to invoke one's borders as any sort of defining line if you're a Communist? Aren't Communists always talking about the total unity and so forth? Since we're all human?

If that's the case, its a contradiction for you to use an isolated population for your example: a good collectivist knows that we're all members of the [i]race of man; thus the remainder should be your benchmark, not just the US. Once you accept this logic, you begin ot understand that we are in the top 1%.

Just you wait till this unsustainable bubble bursts, and you see how many people wind up losing every fucking thing they have...and then you'll see who the proletariat is...and you will see how few people suddenly LIKE the status quo!
Right. Give me a call when you graduate.

Those of us who have already been thrown on society's shit heap...we KNOW what it is the rest of you are trying so hard to deny...to turn a blind eye to...to pretend and pray that it cannot happen to YOU...wait till it does, though. See how soon YOU vote for a Republican again once your eyes have been opened by being thrown on the shit heap.
Have YOU lived for ten months on a total income of roughly $6000? Have YOU had to deal with three meth-head roommates, working 25 miles away 6 days a week with no car and always less than ten things in the fridge? I have. Don't tell me that I'm helpless against this kind of shit.

It's not intellectual dishonesty to state reality as I see it and as I experience it. I have been nothing but ruthlessly exploited and taken advatage of in Capitalistic society. I have been used when they had a use for me, and thrown to the side the second they no longer needed me...the second they could replace me with a more "desireable" person, I was thrown away like yesterday's newspaper.

I am a part of a very small minority group that it is STILL LEGAL to discriminate against in most places...and so, we DO get discriminated against, unfairly. You might understand better now...why I prefer a Communistic/socialistic system. You know what??? FUCK CONSENT!!! I never consented to get used and abused as I get used and abused in this system!! I didn't have the power to consent or refuse!! My very survival was hinged on my compliance with the system...willing or not! I did not have a fucking choice, it was be exploited and used...or die!! And, now, they say... "And now that we don't need YOU (you "undesireable" puke) because unemployment is so high...(and because you disgust us so hugely for being a part of a group that makes us uncomfortable) we will simply toss you on the garbage heap of society and hope you die, fuck you!!"

Those of us who are tossed onto society's garbage heap for mean motives...well, can you well understand why we might prefer a less heartless system?


It's not dishonest to call it like you see it, but it is fully dishonest to call the United States a capitalist country. When the average citizen has more than half of his income going to the government, you've crossed into a perverted socialism.

It's also intellectually dishonest to present your emotions as arguments against a system of which you are obviously not well-versed. Do not throw emotional rhetoric as fact. You've offered no rational justification for a "less heartless system" beyond your own desire to be satiated.

Consent is the basis of any capitalistic system. If you claim to have been given no consent in a capitalist system, check your premises. Either you gave consent or the system is not capitalistic.

The problem is that the majority of Americans (can't speak for anyone else), have grown up in a soft world where everything is provided. Not only is caring about equals forgotten about, but caring about the poor and the hungry is forgotten about.

I've been to Washington, DC and seen beggars on the streets. If people dripped a dime in there, 1/5 of the price of a fucking candy bar, they could probably make that man very happy. However, nobody does. People are trained to ignore the poor man, ignore others, and think only of themselves. When the poor, the downtrodden, and the hungry are cared for, then the rest will take care of itself. But until that is done, nothing will ever happen.
Rich bastards in their NYC offices, making millions of dollars a year, will cut 10,000 jobs if their twenty bucks behind last years profits. However, when they report record profits, I never see anything in the paper about jobs opening up. If nobody looks after each other on the larger issues, nobody will do it for the smaller, either.
I agree. Rampant individualism is the great plague on Western society.

I agree. Rampant individualism is the great plague on Western society.

Agreed.

The bourgeosie is the FUCKING UPPER CLASS not the middle class. That's first. Second, the fucking middle class is being squeezed out of existence in this country, by the excesses of the Bush Administration, and Capitalist Cronyism run rampant...and Robber Baronism gone virtually unchecked.
.
in mongolia, when it turned communist, there was more upper class than middle class and lower class, so it ended up odd.

and if you're communist, then why are you so against what i'm saying, cause everything that i had said was in support of a communist like system.

I agree. Rampant individualism is the great plague on Western society.
Are you serious? If that's the case we've got some incredible immune systems: I mean, to make all these technological and scientific advancements while being hindered by a Great Plauge sounds pretty impressive.

Have YOU lived for ten months on a total income of roughly $6000? Have YOU had to deal with three meth-head roommates, working 25 miles away 6 days a week with no car and always less than ten things in the fridge? I have. Don't tell me that I'm helpless against this kind of shit.

No, actually, I lived for 12 months (the year of 1997) on $4,034 (and in 1997 I was 26 years old) this is according to official Social Security Administration records.

In which case one would be justified in saying "Get the hell out of here, I'm eating you god damn horse's ass." If you keep letting people horn in like this it's every bit as much your fault. Don't want to talk to them? Guess what--you don't have to.
Yes, I should say that to customers. You're right. I don't really need my job.

Thanks for that sweeping generalization; those are making you look really good right now. I happen to live in North America and I also happen to not care for this remark. Of course those Europeans are so cultured and perfect and sophisticated; Americans are just lazy brutes who never accomplish anything, never mind the incredible success we've enjoyed as a nation in the last 230 years.

I'm really getting tired of this attitude that insists on putting Europeans on some sort of gilded moral dias; I'm seeing it more and more and it's staring to piss me off. It's not that I have anything against Europeans, but the assumption that they're automatically better than us in every area is sickening at best.
Who said anything about European morals? Who said Europeans were "automatically better than us in every area"? Who said Americans were "just lazy brutes who never accomplish anything, never mind the incredible success [blah blah blah]"? What exactly are you rabbiting on about?
Cultural Imperialism is just a Euphemism; you can just come out and say 'Capitalism' next time, it saves us all a lot of trouble. Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble but when the chips are down, none of us 'give a shit' about anyone other than ourselves; it would be worthwhile to note at this point that all voluntary action is selfish. Even giving money to bums, which, judging from the tone of your post, is probably one of yourmost favorite pastimes.
Cultural imperialism and capitalism are not interchangeable. Britain is a capitalist society, you can still have good manners and be a capitalist. You aren't really suggesting capitalism is responsible for bad manners, are you? And by the way, the cultural imperialism crack was a joke, as pointed up by the *shakes fist*. And now let me burst your bubble. Do not fall into the trap of measuring all men by the yardstick of yourself. Just because when the chips are down YOU don't give a shit about anyone other than yourself, that in no way implies that everybody else is as selfish as you are. All over the world, every day, there are great examples of people drawing together to share what little they have with each other in times of need. Look at refugee camps in Africa, where thousands upon thousands of people with no place to go and virtually nothing to feed their families will gladly share what they DO have with the new arrivals who show up daily. But you're right, they are probably just being selfish by giving that food and water to strangers.

Which explains why today's voting electorate is more conservative than it was 40 years ago. "Hippie" my ass. Nice try.
Maybe where you live it is, it certainly is not more conservative where I live. My grandparents were certainly a lot more socially conservative than my parents, and proper manners and respect were a lot more important when my parents were children than they are now. The break seems to have occurred in the sixties and seventies, for whatever reason. Sorry you seem so enraged and tripped out by the suggestion...*scratches head*

Care to explain this logic, please? I have no problem doing it with 50, or 500 people to a square mile.
Is this your usual way of responding to a rational idea, by nitpicking what is quite obviously a theoretical number such as "one person per square mile" rather than making the sensible inference that what I am saying is it will be harder to get away with selfishness when there are more people living on top of one another, all requiring we share to get along rather than try to grab everything for ourselves? This is not a difficult concept, I think.

Oh, so boosting the income tax rate to 100% for "free" healthcare and "free" food for everyone who doesn't feel like working is better for me personally than being allowed to work towards my values and keep the product of my work? Being put to work as a slave for the benefit of others is "ultimately better" for me as an individual than being allowed to work for my own family's survival? How is it fair to ask me or anyone else to put an amorphous blob of complete strangers in front of their friends and family? Themselves? Please. The horror in the doctrine of self-sacrifice is readily apparent in its name alone.
Okay well apparently you have been reading Ayn Rand or something and have turned your feelings for her against me personally. Or something. Hard to tell what you are even talking about here, it certainly had no bearing whatever on what you quoted me as saying. I believe the thread was about people no longer caring about things like putting the shopping cart back, or holding doors open for the people behind them. It certainly had nothing to do with communism or whatever the hell you are babbling about.

Oh, and never mind the enormous strides we've made technologically under capitalism; but to hear you tell it I'm sure that's just a colossal fluke, no?
And now you would have us believe that I mentioned anything at all about capitalism and technology. What colour is the sky where you are?

Nonsense. Collectivism is the essence of all that is evil on this planet; every time it is applied suffering and death is soon to follow. Somehow, I see a lot less of this in the United States than I have seen in say, Cuba, China, or the USSR of old.
We are talking about manners! Cleaning up after yourself when you mess up a public area! Holding open a door! In short, about showing a little bit of respect for the other people around us so that the tensions that arise from living in densely populated areas are kept to a minimum. Nobody is trying to steal your teddy bear, for heaven's sake. Good grief.

Communism operates under and depends on the incorrect assumption that human nature is inherently good. Any attempts at its implementation can therefore never be realized.

Sorry to break it to you, man. But they lied to you.