No, i don't disagree with him one bit. I have just seen a lot of interviews with him and hes a dick . Being an asshole sometimes does not make you wrong at all.

The protesters however I don't feel would take to kindly to the harsh truths of economics very well.

No one can always see all the sides on every subject - without the help of their friends.

I agree, I feel this is one of the great changes we are about to realize as the internet generation starts to get to the age where they have wealth and political power. One would expect to see a general leveling out of common consensus as both sides get to express there point of view more rapidly but instead what it seems we are seeing is global protest as the ability to rapidly organize and coordinate efforts is being put into play. It started with harmless flashmobs showing the potential by staging a rave or something in the middle of grand central station for no reason in the middle of the day and has grown to things such as the over throwing of the Egyption government, Libya government and who know... possibly our own. I doubt it at this point because honestly compaired to the other governments we are not as repressive so given that we have much more to loose in life Americans will more then likely drop out after some time. Only time will tell at this point.

   I’m impressed at the level of discussion here. It is not an easy topic to get ones head around, but I figured there are some pretty intelligent people here, and from whats been written, it appears we are all gaining some insight into how different folks feel about the current state of World affairs…
    I have spent some time reviewing your references Vesp, and to be honest, as Sedit said, I almost cried!  It may as well be “scientifically proven” ( more weasel words , pathetic rhetoric, which serves the speaker, and not much else…sorry! I mean NO offence, I hve spent many years studying Logic and Philosophy and its hard for me not to be critical of, IMO, incomplete ideas, I’ll expand, on this, if you wish)  but, I have been a keen student of socioeconomics for a looong time, and it would not be fair to either expect, or think, you know about the things I do….but hey, that’s ok, we  All have to start somewhere….I have NO doubt you know things I do not
And I hope you can see the value of this topic,, it doesn’t deserve to get trashed, look at the work peeps have put into reading and commenting!             If anything, I would be pleased to have, such members who are capable of discussing “the tricky stuff”
  Caveat: ( a condition) Hey Vesp,  IF,  you would like to, better understand My  POV,  I can say that, If you watch the “Zeitgeist” series of documentaries, you would cover 80% of my overall beliefs, the rest will come in bits and pieces, depending if anyone wants to know! I am noy out to persuade you to change your ideas, i think try and do so is foolish, however, if you happen to learn by default, or any other reason, good.
  And to see how you have responded to various pov's, its clear you are no fool, and its a pleasure to see
“
     

Where could have all the money have gone? Wealth don't vanish, it gets relabeled as one number or another but exactly how can the capital tied up in the millions of homes taken over by the banks just vanish into thin air?”

    It was never really there!
    Fractional reserve banking, is an extraordinary “agreement” between banks and the supposedly BUT NOT, Government  Institution called The Reserve Bank.
     As we know, this  mob,  print ALL the “currency” BUT, the currency Does Not represent, the ‘value’ of anything!!!   Why?  Because….Fractional Reserve banking  LAW  says, that, the banks,  “backed by the Federal  Reserve” are  allowed  to do this!!!
       
               A  “fraction of the Reserve” but really the reverse! Explained in the doco’s….or UTSE.
 In a nutshell, "for every dollar a bank has on deposit, they are allowed (by law) to loan 15-20 dollars!!!
   
                       As I mentioned earlier, 'tis  “Highly sophisticated Stupidity”
   
           Next, I really think, the ONLY equitable method of “wealth distribution” would be to base the “cost” of a product,  on, How Much “energy” is taken producing it…..
       ergo sum:  to have say, Kilowatt hours, as our “currency” would make sense, basing the price of “whatever” on the amount of, say, Kilowatt hours, that are used to make something, using “state of the art” equipment, anywhere in the world,
        This should work out to be almost the same anywhere in the world, all things considered, and would create some sort of “consistent value” which IS related to our resources….
     After all, Money is really, only a “representation of Energy” which we use to re-distribute the same, whether it be our “time, or our energy” both physical and mental.
       Gee  Vesp,  you tar yourself with an extraordinarily BIG brush!!!
“Classical Liberal”     I’m a bit puzzled how that ties in with “maximum freedoms’ if a Govt is required to “keep everyone in line”
   My first question would be/is, “who drew/draws the line?”
   
       I have absolutely NO problems with what you choose to believe in, but I will take a gamble and say,  ”I am pretty sure, you WILL change your mind, as more thoughts come into it” he he!
   
                  Matey I have been ‘around the block’ a few times in my life,
      And I spent years trying to “know enough,” that I wouldn’t have to try and learn about things I had NO interest in.
                   Did I succeed? No
                                                   What have I learned?......well….simply put,

        “You gets what you give, just Not neccesarily where you gave it!”
   
     I “believe” in Cause and Effect, or as one member here has put it, “the result comes from the effort applied” or words to that effect,
         One question Vesp,  what, do You, Vesp,  “get”, from building and hosting this site?”
    Although I can see many ‘personal’ reasons for you to do so, the continued maintenance on So many levels required, makes me “guess” the “rewards” satisfactory, in more ways than One.
         And, while I think of it..!% = 1% !!! 
 don’t you recognise a typo when you see !, er, 1  lol 
             

From personal experience government jobs are a complete joke. '

They are allocating alot of work and making it appear as though they have hired X amount of people yet they never seem to complete any of the work, instead it gets canceled or they "rehire" you raising X to a higher level every time they do. It appears like there creating jobs but the reality of the situation is you are going to be laid off 9 months out of the year.

The situation is getting rather desperate and even though I feel most of the "99%" there are more then likely either college student, homeless, or lazy A-holes looking to protest anything, the statistical numbers on wealth distribution are alarming. We are nearing the levels that where reached back in the late 20's right before it all crashed.

Much of there money is like the gold market. Its artificially inflated money that only exist on paper. Its getting inflated by the money that is coming from the middle class. I have over 1/3 of roughly a 2k a week check taken out on taxes. How many can say that? You know why that number is so high? Because I work 84 fucking hours a week when I do and that puts each check in a different tax bracket then I should be in. The harder you work the more you get screwed.

                 Once again, you said it, Sedit !   Well put, from a genuinely “first hand pov”, sadly, I couldn’t agree more, about the pathetic state of the so called “Public Service”
 And the CEO of QANTAS Airlines, GAVE  himself  a $2000,000 pay rise, from around 3million to 5million! ONE  WEEK,  before, he shut down the business!  becoz,  he/his ‘team’ were unable to resolve, an Industrial dispute, Re; wage increases linked to the CPI  (Consumer Price Index)  WTF?
  (well the 5 member board, on which he sits, ALL, GAVE themselves , pay rises, in the MILLIONS!!!!)

      Vesp,  IMO,  calling oneself a  “classical liberal” reminds me of a comment once made by Robert Fenyman, ( the father of THE bomb) ……………
            “just because we know the name of something,  does not mean that we know something”  no offence intended with anything I say, it is after all, only my opinion

     And referring to below, as the old saying goes, “to  ‘assume’, is to make an  ass  out  of  u  and  me!”
     

    According to E. K. Hunt, classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic".[12] Being egoistic, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labor was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members.[
  Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand
   I cant recall the last time I required my government, or any of its protective services, for my own welfare….

   

Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
   Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[17] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law".[23] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[
      Adam Smith and his “invisible hand”, I believe this is called “magic thinking” akin to believing in Omens, and Magik………
 Seriously Vesp, where has your rigorous scientific approach  gone?

   

Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations that, as societies progressed from hunter gatherers to industrial societies, the spoils of war would rise but that the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialized nations.[61]
...the honours, the fame, the emoluments of war, belong not to [the middle and industrial classes]; the battle-plain is the harvest field of the aristocracy, watered with the blood of the people...Whilst our trade rested upon our foreign dependencies, as was the case in the middle of the last century...force and violence, were necessary to command our customers for our manufacturers...But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth; and, should hostilities be continued for a series of years, each successive war-loan will be felt in our commercial and manufacturing districts with an augmented pressure. Richard Cobden

            I would love to think,   “We KNOW”  but “we don’t” 
 Is there Anyone  here, who “Believes” war serves a “useful” purpose?
   And before you answer that, I ask,   “have you Ever Killed someone, and more so, have you ever killed someone you Do Not know???
 Don’t answer, just think about someone doing it to you………hmmmm
       

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism provided the political justification for implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill's later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire.[55]
The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that that public policy should seek to provide "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher

Quote

         Now this idea, utilitarianism is EXACTLY  what ‘comes from’ the
            Altruistic behaviour of humans!
          If you think about it, there are VERY good “reasons” for people to be “selflessly kind” to others, an example was many of the native American people held “potlatch” events, (in today’s  lingo!) which served to promote Harmony amongst the tribes.
          Most people Have “feelings,” and feelings, Aren’t  Facts!
     2+2  feelings can add up to HUGE numbers of “feelings”, becoz,  feelings,  ‘feed back’  into  themselves….because, most human “wetware” has the  “maybe” function,  which it can  ‘hold’  in short, and long term memory,
      And with that, comes “uncertainty”   which,  IMO, is why so many use God/s to “explain the unexplainable”
   It is this “maybe function” which distinguishes us from Computers, making our brains, more ‘sophisticated’ than just “yes and no” funtions, and it is what allows us to have “random thoughts”, this is what allows us to wonder and  Imagine, and to ask,  “ what if? ”,
        It is these aspects of being “human” which distinguish us from almost ALL the other life forms on the planet…I include ALL “sentient beings” as having these functions, to varying degrees,
         But, it is the human ability to reason, as well as be “logically irrational” and other types of thinking we would probably call “thinking outside the square” which truly defines us.
       Sure there are some clever animals, but none have achieved anywhere near the level of our development, especially in the use of language and tools!
     But, one has to remember, that INSECTS by weight, IIRC, are estimated to OUTWEIGH the human population by 40x!!! although I have often watched animals like birds and fish, to name a few, and I wonder if maybe they are “networked” somehow, and share the “processing” ? just a thought………

     In essence, I really think things in the Corporate World, must change, and it is up to ALL of us to TRY and  improve,  whatever you can…
     
    As one of my spiritual teachers once said to me, when I asked   “WTF should I think?”…… he replied
     
            “Go to the Highest thought,”

              and I asked him what that was….and he looked at me as if I had six heads, and said….
                     
                                “to help those around you, and the planet that you live on”

                                I can’t say I have  found  a Higher thought…..I no longer look.

     I thank everyone for sharing their ideas here, I am in no way trying to be provocative or offensive, and I realise that discussing such involved topics, especially online, is complex, and not easy, So, keep up the flow peoples,

      “there’s No such thing as a stupid Idea,,,”    think about it…….that's all
       
                More to come,   Love,    f1 

 

 

Marx & Engels predicated their theory, that class conflict was inevitable and revolution was unavoidable, upon the conditions that existed in the worst empires on earth, at the time they wrote. They neglected to factor in risk aversion on the part of the proletariat, who had nothing to lose in those conditions after all, or interest in protecting property, as the proletariat had none of that either.

But the world was changing, mainly because of the ideas that led Marx and Engels to write what they did, namely the Chartist movement in the UK, and the consequent popular disorder that followed, or the subsequent Eureka Stockade, the 8 Hour Day and also the shearer's strikes of the 1890's. That changed things rapidly in the 'colonies' and also, to a lesser extent, in the UK. What did change things rapidly was the fear of a Bolshevik revolution post-1917 and the legitimate demands of returning servicemen in 1918-19.

But what happened? The Marxist ideal was preempted, the workers got to acquire minimal amounts of property (and exorbitant debts), as a consequence they were no longer able to engage in violent protests without risking property or risk-free, they now had something to lose. As a consequence we have Foucalt ( - who cares?) telling us that conflict is not inevitable, that authority is not necessarily bad, that it is not a zero sum game. In fact it is win-win, some just win more than others. All because some miniscule amounts of property were reallocated?

And you honestly think that a disorganised rabble can succeed when organised (and heavily so) Unions fail? My family was involved from the get go, one Great, Great Grandfather was sent out here (he was a Solicitor) for disgracing the family by being involved with the Chartists. He was the Secretary of the Shearer's Union at a town just up the road from the Barcaldine sheds and had been involved in the 8-hour day shitfight. Another was arrested under the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_%28Australia%29]Tree of Knowledge[/url]" in Barcaldine. They didn't hide their faces, they won respect and they won the first workers government on the planet.

   
     As did the suffragettes in 1905 IIRC, yes I agree that the foundations of our present society, is based upon much of that you refer to, however, IMO, the Aussie way has been severely diluted by the loss of so many young men in the first world war, to begin, and has continued since. Plus I think the fact Aussie grrrls are some of the most intelligent, independent, and in many ways, the toughest women I have come across.

   Women are Powerful, I think they will be playing a bigger part in future events than many of us think. I like Grrrls

   This in itself, seems to me to be part of the natural process, we call "development" although some have suggested its more like "devolution" I am undecided

          I do see the 'information revolution' playing a major part in the ways people 'behave',
     One thing I find fascinating, is what are referred to as "self organizing systems"
    which is what I think, humans/humankind are...........even crowds of randoms "behave" somewhat predictably.....

           I'm kinda looking forward to whatever happens, I up for some changes

              did I just lose another post, or did I have help?    frank?

                    f1
 
ps. Vesp I just read your reply, yes I looked at about half of the links, but not the music, I have a very skinny wifi pipe, which makes it hard to watch filmclips when the network is busy (like now!)

   

Also if altruism benefits the sacrificing individual, it isn't really altruism but again selfish behavoir. At least the way I look at it.

Quote

   Yes, a good point, and herein lies what I am bangin on about in my ('tis true ) rambling reply....If you really consider things thoroughly, you will usually find, there are So many factors which could or do, come into play, that virtually No thing is a clearcut "yes" or "no",  often being a combination of the two

    A beautiful visual representation of this, is the "tai chi" aka a Yin Yang symbol, In the middle of the black is white, and in the middle of the white, is black......I like it

  Sorry if my diatribe wanders as it does, but after "losing" (idiot ) those two huge posts, (maybe a good thing! I was a bit 'relaxed' last nite ) my ideas were a bit mixed up, Plus you, and sedit asked some seriously complex questions which were fuckin hard to address succinctly

  But I really didnt mind, I figure I've got heaps from this hive, so its the least I can do.  I'll try to be more concise in the future yeah right!

  f1

 

Yes, but what is it that "Anonymous" actually intend to achieve? Apart from headlines, apart from notoriety as an end in itself, apart from puerile bullshit?

 I think they are providing information. Caveat emptor no? Let the buyer beware!

 Knowledge is power, when used appropriately.

 Its like a gun, imo, in itself it does nothing, it needs something/one to make it function, and even then, what IS done with it is dependent on the operator!

  The faces (masks!) behind Anonymous are the same as those behind wikileaks...I have no problem with transparency. Yes, I would be guilty of double standards if I didn't include forums like this, but I do not believe,  ANY way you cut it, that the war on drugs has ANY merit, therefore imo this place is doing nothing wrong, in  fact I see many similarities to forums such as this & anonymous!!!

  They are both trying to share genuine and useful information and ideas, it is purely the opinions of the "buyer" as to what to do, if anything, with or about the data shared/available.

  After all, we are living in the midst of the Information Revolution, imo as significant a leap in human evolution, as either the agricultural and/or industrial revolutions, and potentially More fruitful, I mean, IF the Ideas/methods/processes come available which could/would help people improve their lives, its only in the past 5-6years that, Ideas via films/blogs/forums etc, have been able, with the help of their users, to go "viral" spreading at an unprecedented rate! Which is pretty cool, imo

   I appreciate your pov nonetheless matey, and am happy to respond

    f1

@ fresh1, have you addressed any of my posts?

You cite my post, so you understand my issue with deliberately risking freedom of speech and communication over the internet? I'm one of the very few who has ever been arrested and prosecuted for what may have been "spoken", "communicated" or "written" on the internet (to date). My concerns are grounded in the existential problem of not liking cells, being held incommunicado and losing bucket loads of equipment and expensive machinery, then being freed (and acquitted), but not getting ANY of my stuff back.

That said, I'm very particular about what I do discuss on the internet, I'm more than well aware of the restrictive laws in this Cunt-tree (as should be Mr Assange, he's a citizen of it too). Acting to increase restrictions, to ensure that we have less and less access to information, is to defeat your very aims. But be aware, by hitting the electorate, instead of merely those at the upper end of town (and that is who is being hit), you bring this calamity ever closer.

As to information being available without restriction, there are several restrictions I see very clearly. I have no interest in living in a village of any sort, even a global one, as some powerless member of a third world environment. I have absolutely zero interest in decreasing my/our standard of living in order to seek parity with over 70% of the nations on earth, nor do I believe that a global government would be in the interest of the vast bulk of humankind (Why would I want to live under a non-democratic regime, run by corrupt despots? Because the meek will not inherit the earth, make everyone equal and the despots will flourish, some animals will always be more equal than others).

Taking that into account, I believe, quite honestly that though I disagree (in some cases violently) with SOME of the laws in my Nation, I regard protecting this Nation against external threats quite seriously. That includes ensuring that information that has the capacity to harm this nations legitimate foreign policy, those who fight on behalf of this nation, and those who act in support of them, very fucking seriously. I also regard releasing information that would foreseeably harm those who are actively working with this nation or our allies, against totalitarian, authoritarian and dictatorial regimes (the Taliban, Al-Qaeada, Pakistan/ISI, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) as being contrary to basic ethics and directly contrary to the defence of this nation (and her allies).

Yes, I agree to an extent, but information is not power per se, knowledge is power, information is but a subset of knowledge. In order to use that information to gain knowledge, one needs wisdom. Pre-pubescent trolls and associated clowns are being allowed to decide what is in the best interest of myself and my Country in terms of information dissemination? That would be to suggest that disclosure of material which would allow the Talibs, Hezbollah, etc. to build chemical weapons is in the public interest? Or that information that expands the power of the cartels, by giving them access to the same is in the public interest? Quick news flash, they are terrorist organisations and/or sociopathic murderers, who have nothing but self-interest. I'd give them information that allowed them to expand their power over those they govern at about the same time that I provided it to Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Co. or make investments in Monsanto/Barrick Gold.

Yes, in some respects there is a similarity, but only to the extent that bad laws are made to be broken. Providing information to shorten the War on Drugs, is in no way comparable to equipping totalitarian regimes with the wherewithal with which to identify, target and eliminate dissenters in their own ranks. As we are dissenters in our own Countries policies to one extent or another, it is difficult to imagine how we could/would/should endorse such activity. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the entire membership of groups such as anonymous should be unmasked, have their personal IP's collected, collated and published, with the subsequent consequences being laid at the feet of someone other than whomever did so. After all, if unrestricted dissemination of ALL information is the ultimate goal, then that is the logical fallacy at the heart of your argument, reductio ad absurdum.

I wish to know everyones view one Anonymous. Who or what are they in your eyes. I'm not asking about the content of there character but more about who do you think they are.

I don't believe that they are a "group" as it seems many here do. There is no membership, there is no sign up. What I see taking place is a collective call being put out and the whole of the observing internet that agrees with what they are saying take some sort of action. If the majority of the people reading disagreed with what was being asked for would there be any effect of there war cry at all? Possibly, but I don't think it would have the power to freeze entire governments for days like they did in the past.

Yet when war cries are placed out there to rip down child pornography sites, disseminate information about a corrupt politician or even better, they are now taking on the Mexican cartels in an attempt to destroy them, then a rapid and large attack begins and generally leaves the victim communication-less and totally exposed for some time.

This is what I see it as. Not a collective, not a secrete society but society itself deciding once and for all what it thinks is right for them regardless of social standings, wealth or power. It is a mob rule of sorts but a mob of the people, not just the people but the people of the entire world with no boarders and no boundaries. In the majority of there actions that have been of any value the only people I see getting hurt where bad people IMO in the first place.

I see it differently,

If Anonymous wanted a drug free internet, odds are so would you, you are part of anonymous, its just a matter if you wish to join the specific fight. Just as you are not supporting child pornography right now or the actions of the Mexican drug cartels, society will never be a utopia for everyone. If society controls itself, instead of that of an elite rich and powerful small group, then odds are likely that society will be a utopia for a greater number of people.

Marijuana has been found to have the popular vote for legalization for quite sometime yet why is it not legal yet? Because the smaller percent have reasons for not wanting it legal and it has nothing to do with whats in our best interest. What do you think would happen if the call was put out to suspend the American government until changes where made in the legislation of weed, There would be a large following, possibly larger then anything ever seen to come from them. Now imagine what would happen if anonymous was to put out a call to suspend the American government until they legalized child pornography. In the back of my mine I don't think there would be much cause for concern, what you would more then likely see is the same people that where following them to use the same tactics to turn around and shut them down if they ever asked for such a thing.


I see it as a means for the first time, majority count really does have the rule.

I will always value the individual over the collective - and I don't think society feels that way.

I think society is the individual in a collective. People tend to think about themselves first and if it would be best for them, then they worry about gathering aid from society.

---

As luck would have it, we will see tomorrow what mob rule entails, fake anonymous videos are calling for an attack on facebook tomorrow, if you can not get onto facebook, then we do have something to worry about with mob rule because that would mean there are to many blind followers. Its an answer not so long in the waiting.