subject:"Re\\\\\\\: a system of oppression\\\\\\\?"

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:46:13 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 1/27/2013 12:39 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:15:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 1/26/2013 9:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you are born in bondage to a powerful social system, how are you
going to defend yourself? It's not even about defense, it's about an
economic control. If the only way to make enough money to avoid being
in perpetual debt is to already be wealthy, then how are you going to
'defend yourself'?

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You where saying?

So the debt increased around three times as much under Republicans than
under Democrats since Carter. Not that I think the Democrats are so great,
I just find it interesting that to me the only possible appeal of
Republican politics is economic, but their policies seem to have the worst
economic effects.

When you have an economic catastrophe on the scale of the 1930's or
2000's, the government has to ring up a huge amount of debt one way or
another to make up for all of the money that the banks stole to prevent
social collapse. These market abuses are the fault of Dems as well as Reps,
but certainly it seems like the professed positions of the Reps, toward
market deregulation, are to be avoided going forward if we don't want to
repeat the cycle again.

Craig

LOL, I am not going to defend any administration. Only Governments can
print and issue money... Hi, fellow debt slaves.

Do most people owe their debt to the government or to private banks? Hello
30 year fixed and 19% interest credit cards.

Mortgage: from Old French morgage (13c.), mort gaige, lit. dead pledge
(replaced in modern Frech by hypothèque), from mort dead (see mortal
(adj.)) + gage pledge (see wage (n.)). So called because the deal dies
either when the debt is paid or when payment fails. Old French mort is from
Vulgar Latin *mortus dead, from Latin mortuus, pp. of mori to die

Governments issue made up money to banks. Banks issue real life enforceable
debts to the servants. When banks pocket all of the money instead of
loaning it out, the gov gives them more. When people default on their loans
to the bank, it is treated as a crime.

Craig

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: a system of oppression?



On Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:16:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig,
  
 Or belief in socialism/communism, such as you.


I don't 'believe in' socialism/communism. I observe that a healthy 
civilization integrates private and public values, just like a healthy 
psyche does the same. When there is an overgrowth of private interest into 
common resources, there is pathology, just as when public interest intrudes 
on the privacy of our bodies and morals there is pathology. The fire 
department is socialism. The library is socialism. Public roads are 
socialism.

If I were to 'believe in' a political form, it would be in a central 
support for organized socio-political experimentation. The goal should be 
for everyone to be able to live in a place where the law of the land suits 
their comfort and opportunity more than other places.

Craig
 

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Stephen P. King javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-26, 11:55:22
 *Subject:* Re: a system of oppression?

   On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: 

 Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far.


 Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I was 
 intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think that there is 
 nothing further from the truth than the idea that character is completely 
 independent from their circumstance - that people with no shoes can pull 
 themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been born into a system of 
 oppression can free themselves by belief in the free market or some such 
 thing.

 Craig

 Hey!

 What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you describe an actual 
 situation in Nature that is oppression-free? 

 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?

2013-01-27 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/27/2013 10:15 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:20:45 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Opression ? Consider socialism.


Like Scandinavian-style socialism? Sounds pretty good to me. If I 
could get a job in Sweden or Norway I would love to do that.


Craig


Scandinavia and Norway are oppresing you, Craig, as they are not 
permiting you to live there. Why do you need a job anyway? From those 
according to their ability to those according to their need! No? :P



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?



On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:


 What I really what to know is: what motivates the need to find 
 oppression?


What motivates the need to deny oppression?





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?



On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 1/27/2013 10:15 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 On Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:20:45 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

   
 Opression ? Consider socialism. 
  
  

 Like Scandinavian-style socialism? Sounds pretty good to me. If I could 
 get a job in Sweden or Norway I would love to do that. 

 Craig


 Scandinavia and Norway are oppresing you, Craig, as they are not 
 permiting you to live there. Why do you need a job anyway? From those 
 according to their ability to those according to their need! No? :P


They aren't oppressing because I'm not living under a system that they 
control. You would need a job to move to any country I would imagine. If 
you have a bunch of people coming in desperate for work, then it would 
exert a downward pressure on wages for people who already live there. I 
assume that's why they do that.



 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?

2013-01-27 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/27/2013 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:


What I really what to know is: what motivates the need to find
oppression?


What motivates the need to deny oppression?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
''*Oppression*is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, 
cruel, or unjust manner.^[1] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression#cite_note-1 It can also be 
defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being 
oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or 
physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.


My argument is that the entire idea of oppresion is flawed unless 
there is a clear and objective means to show the metrics that is used. 
What defines burdensome, cruelty, unjust? All subjective 
eye-of-the-beholder valuations. Oppression cannot be objectively 
defined, as I previously pointed out how one could claim a state of 
oppression and there is no way to measurable show that the oppression 
does not exist - it is impossible to prove a negative. Oppression now 
become a means to oppress itself, to pit one group against another.


So I ask, what is the motivation to even consider the idea of 
oppression if not to inject subjectivity further into relations between 
humans that already hard enough to figure out? When one can look at the 
measurable results of policies and find where and when people thrive and 
where and when they do not, there is no need to even mention the word 
oppression or injustice. When evaluating policies, does it not only 
matter that the results are beneficial by some agreeable measure so that 
we can cast aside all subjective aspects?
We can see in history that collectivist policies have almost 
uniformly caused harm (measureable in the numbers of people in mass 
graves), so why do they keep being tried?



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?



On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:51:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 1/27/2013 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 


 What I really what to know is: what motivates the need to find 
 oppression?
  

 What motivates the need to deny oppression?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
 ''*Oppression* is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, 
 cruel, or unjust 
 manner.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression#cite_note-1
  It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of 
 being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or 
 physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.

 My argument is that the entire idea of oppresion is flawed unless 
 there is a clear and objective means to show the metrics that is used. 


I would say that is never a valid argument for anything. If I can't give it 
a number that is objectively true in all cases then it doesn't exist? Like, 
if someone cuts keeps you locked up in a dungeon for 20 years there is 
nothing you can say about it unless someone can point to some kind of 
metric showing how much worse it was in the dungeon than out of the dungeon?
 

 What defines burdensome, cruelty, unjust?


Why would these concepts suddenly be mysterious? Why do we have to become 
lawyers to address simple vocabulary that a 10 year old understands 
clearly? In general, anytime that someone contributes to your life in a way 
that you do not appreciate, and obstructs your ability to free yourself 
from that condition, that is burdensome, cruel, and unjust. 

 

 All subjective eye-of-the-beholder valuations. 


You mean the universe?
 

 Oppression cannot be objectively defined, 


I just did.
 

 as I previously pointed out how one could claim a state of oppression and 
 there is no way to measurable show that the oppression does not exist - it 
 is impossible to prove a negative.


There is no measurable way to show that measurement is an appropriate 
political standard. The entire legal system has no problem with 
establishing all kinds of measures and metrics of what constitutes these 
qualities though. They aren't always in agreement, but they aren't uncommon 
or puzzling.
 

 Oppression now become a means to oppress itself, to pit one group against 
 another.


So when the rich enslave the poor its not oppression, but when the poor 
claim to be oppressed, that is oppressive to the rich? 
 


 So I ask, what is the motivation to even consider the idea of 
 oppression if not to inject subjectivity further into relations between 
 humans that already hard enough to figure out? 


Liberty is always the motivation to eliminate oppression. Liberty has no 
meaning if it cannot be used to inject subjectivity into relations between 
humans.
 

 When one can look at the measurable results of policies and find where and 
 when people thrive


(Socialist Scandinavia)
 

 and where and when they do not, 


(Capitalist Sub-Saharan Africa)
 

 there is no need to even mention the word oppression or injustice. 


Huh? Democratic countries are destroyed because multinational corporate 
interests are threatened, and there's no need to mention it? Why would you 
not mention oppression or injustice? I mean I could understand if someone 
was an heir to a fortune from these enormous crimes that they would not 
want to mention them, but why would anyone else want to protect them?
 

 When evaluating policies, does it not only matter that the results are 
 beneficial by some agreeable measure so that we can cast aside all 
 subjective aspects? 


To cast aside all subjective aspects then we would have to exterminate all 
human life on the planet.
 

 We can see in history that collectivist policies have almost uniformly 
 caused harm (measureable in the numbers of people in mass graves), so why 
 do they keep being tried? 


Because privatization uniformly leads to tyranny. Has there ever been a 
collectivist revolution which was not motivated by the injustices of the 
regime which is the target of the revolt? The South could have kept their 
slaves - all of them, forever, if they just hadn't have been so incredibly 
evil about it. They had to rape them and beat them and torture them 
routinely for pleasure. They had to expand their unquenchable perversion 
westward and in perpetuity. That is what pissed off the abolitionists 
enough to make trouble. This is the inevitable result of the denial of 
oppression and survival of the fittest fallacies. Slavery is the pristine 
example of unregulated capitalism.

Craig




 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

Re: a system of oppression?

2013-01-27 Thread Telmo Menezes



 and where and when they do not,


 (Capitalist Sub-Saharan Africa)



Sub-Saharan Africa is not capitalist, it's a mix of feudalism and anarchy.
Capitalism requires private ownership rights. These only exist if an
effective judicial system and police are in place so that contracts are
enforced. I cannot buy a piece of land in Sub-Saharan Africa with a
reasonable expectation that my contractual property rights will be
respected or enforced.

Also there's no free trade because most aspects of society are under the
control of oligarchs. You cannot just start a company, for example, without
paying or offering partnerships to people with local power. This is not
capitalism.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?

2013-01-27 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/27/2013 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:51:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 1/27/2013 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:


What I really what to know is: what motivates the need to
find oppression?


What motivates the need to deny oppression?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
''*Oppression*is the exercise of authority or power in a
burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.^[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression#cite_note-1 It can also
be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being
oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or
physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.

My argument is that the entire idea of oppresion is flawed
unless there is a clear and objective means to show the metrics
that is used.


I would say that is never a valid argument for anything. If I can't 
give it a number that is objectively true in all cases then it doesn't 
exist? Like, if someone cuts keeps you locked up in a dungeon for 20 
years there is nothing you can say about it unless someone can point 
to some kind of metric showing how much worse it was in the dungeon 
than out of the dungeon?


Hi Craig,

Is it correct to generalize from a single case to a class?



What defines burdensome, cruelty, unjust?


Why would these concepts suddenly be mysterious? Why do we have to 
become lawyers to address simple vocabulary that a 10 year old 
understands clearly? In general, anytime that someone contributes to 
your life in a way that you do not appreciate, and obstructs your 
ability to free yourself from that condition, that is burdensome, 
cruel, and unjust.


I am pointing the vagueness and subjectivity involved and arguing 
that making judgements based on such subjective aspects should be 
confined to case by case situations. To demonize an entire class or 
group of people because of the bad actions of a few is bigotry, no? Thus 
my complaint against the entire line of thinking that flows from the 
idea of oppression.




All subjective eye-of-the-beholder valuations.


You mean the universe?

Oppression cannot be objectively defined,


I just did.


I single case does not define a class, and I was not talking about 
observations, I was considering evaluations: namely what does it mean to 
be oppressed.




as I previously pointed out how one could claim a state of
oppression and there is no way to measurable show that the
oppression does not exist - it is impossible to prove a negative.


There is no measurable way to show that measurement is an appropriate 
political standard. The entire legal system has no problem with 
establishing all kinds of measures and metrics of what constitutes 
these qualities though. They aren't always in agreement, but they 
aren't uncommon or puzzling.


Oppression now become a means to oppress itself, to pit one group
against another.


So when the rich enslave the poor its not oppression, but when the 
poor claim to be oppressed, that is oppressive to the rich?


Is membership in a class a permanent condition? Can the rich become 
poor and the poor become rich? Again, the class argument is flawed.





So I ask, what is the motivation to even consider the idea of
oppression if not to inject subjectivity further into relations
between humans that already hard enough to figure out?


Liberty is always the motivation to eliminate oppression. Liberty has 
no meaning if it cannot be used to inject subjectivity into relations 
between humans.


Oh, nice, switch to something else.



When one can look at the measurable results of policies and find
where and when people thrive


(Socialist Scandinavia)


So go live there. See ya!



and where and when they do not,


(Capitalist Sub-Saharan Africa)


Capitalism exist in sub-Saharan Africa? Really? For a few or for 
all? I think that your definitions are off




there is no need to even mention the word oppression or injustice.


Huh? Democratic countries are destroyed because multinational 
corporate interests are threatened, and there's no need to mention it? 
Why would you not mention oppression or injustice? I mean I could 
understand if someone was an heir to a fortune from these enormous 
crimes that they would not want to mention them, but why would anyone 
else want to protect them?


When evaluating policies, does it not only matter that the results
are beneficial by some agreeable measure so that we can cast aside
all subjective aspects?


To cast aside all subjective aspects then we would have to exterminate 
all human life on the planet.


We can see in history that collectivist policies have almost
uniformly caused harm

Re: a system of oppression?


On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:

Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far.


Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I was 
intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think that 
there is nothing further from the truth than the idea that character 
is completely independent from their circumstance - that people with 
no shoes can pull themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been 
born into a system of oppression can free themselves by belief in the 
free market or some such thing.


Craig

Hey!

What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you describe an 
actual situation in Nature that is oppression-free?


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: 

 Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far.


 Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I was 
 intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think that there is 
 nothing further from the truth than the idea that character is completely 
 independent from their circumstance - that people with no shoes can pull 
 themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been born into a system of 
 oppression can free themselves by belief in the free market or some such 
 thing.

 Craig

 Hey!

 What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you describe an actual 
 situation in Nature that is oppression-free? 


Slavery, or apartheid are systems of intentional oppression, but poverty in 
a land of plenty is oppressive also, even if oppression of the poor is an 
unintentional effect. If it takes two million peasants to prop up one 
Imelda Marcos, then being born into the system which does that is an 
oppressive one, and not one which you can escape by adopting a positive 
attitude. 

Just because life isn't free of oppression doesn't mean that if an Imelda 
Marcos manages to tyrannize a country that it is the will of Nature. To the 
contrary, the will of Nature is for the oppressed to kill and eat their 
oppressors at the earliest opportunity.

Craig


 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?


On 1/26/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:

Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far.


Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I
was intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think
that there is nothing further from the truth than the idea that
character is completely independent from their circumstance -
that people with no shoes can pull themselves up by their
bootstraps or who have been born into a system of oppression can
free themselves by belief in the free market or some such thing.

Craig

Hey!

What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you describe an
actual situation in Nature that is oppression-free?


Slavery, or apartheid are systems of intentional oppression, but 
poverty in a land of plenty is oppressive also, even if oppression of 
the poor is an unintentional effect. If it takes two million peasants 
to prop up one Imelda Marcos, then being born into the system which 
does that is an oppressive one, and not one which you can escape by 
adopting a positive attitude.


Just because life isn't free of oppression doesn't mean that if an 
Imelda Marcos manages to tyrannize a country that it is the will of 
Nature. To the contrary, the will of Nature is for the oppressed to 
kill and eat their oppressors at the earliest opportunity.


Craig


Hi Craig,

Setting the drama of humanity aside, can you point to some actual 
cases of this in Nature? Any deer oppressed to kill and eat their 
oppressors [wolves] at the earliest opportunity? No! I dare say that 
you are building a flawed argument on a flawed premise. I submit the 
entire idea of oppression, as you are using it, is a figment of human 
imagination. We humans have the unique ability to behave in ways that do 
not actually solve problems but instead just make us feel better about 
our crappy living conditions and the problem that is causing us pain 
does unchecked. Every case in history where the oppressed to kill and 
eat their oppressors at the earliest opportunity was one of chaos and 
malice, nothing good ever came of it alone. It is only when we face our 
situations factually and rationally and solve the problems that we 
improve our situations.


Let's consider the case of Imelda. How was it that she was able to 
do what she did? She had the force of government to implement her 
'oppresion. I submit to you that it is government that is unique in its 
ability to oppress, as it has the monopoly on the *legal* use of force. 
Any line of reasoning that leads to the implication that government (or 
a proxy thereof) can can alleviate or otherwise assuage oppresion is 
only substituting one Imelda for another.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 12:28:01 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 1/26/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

  On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: 

 Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far.


 Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I was 
 intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think that there is 
 nothing further from the truth than the idea that character is completely 
 independent from their circumstance - that people with no shoes can pull 
 themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been born into a system of 
 oppression can free themselves by belief in the free market or some such 
 thing.

 Craig

 Hey!

 What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you describe an actual 
 situation in Nature that is oppression-free? 
  

 Slavery, or apartheid are systems of intentional oppression, but poverty 
 in a land of plenty is oppressive also, even if oppression of the poor is 
 an unintentional effect. If it takes two million peasants to prop up one 
 Imelda Marcos, then being born into the system which does that is an 
 oppressive one, and not one which you can escape by adopting a positive 
 attitude. 

 Just because life isn't free of oppression doesn't mean that if an Imelda 
 Marcos manages to tyrannize a country that it is the will of Nature. To the 
 contrary, the will of Nature is for the oppressed to kill and eat their 
 oppressors at the earliest opportunity.

 Craig
  
  Hi Craig,

 Setting the drama of humanity aside, can you point to some actual 
 cases of this in Nature? 


http://phys.org/news/2011-05-predator-prey-role-reversal-bug-turtle.html

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1575/1929.full

That predators attack and prey defend is an oversimplified view. When size 
changes during development, large prey may be invulnerable to predators, 
and small juvenile predators vulnerable to attack by prey.


Any deer oppressed to kill and eat their oppressors [wolves] at the 
 earliest opportunity? 


 Deer are herbivores, so they aren't interested in eating a wolf, but a 
herd of even peaceful herbivores can potentially kick the crap out of a 
single predator.

No! I dare say that you are building a flawed argument on a flawed premise. 
 I submit the entire idea of oppression, as you are using it, is a figment 
 of human imagination.


If you mistreat a dog, does it not become damaged or vicious? It must be 
the imagination of dogs too...
 

 We humans have the unique ability to behave in ways that do not actually 
 solve problems but instead just make us feel better about our crappy 
 living conditions and the problem that is causing us pain does unchecked. 
 Every case in history where the oppressed to kill and eat their oppressors 
 at the earliest opportunity was one of chaos and malice, nothing good ever 
 came of it alone.


The American Revolution wasn't a case of throwing off oppression? Are you 
suggesting that whoever is in a position to oppress someone else is fully 
entitled to do it, but those who they oppress will only cause trouble by 
fighting back?

 

 It is only when we face our situations factually and rationally and solve 
 the problems that we improve our situations. 


Freeing yourself from bondage isn't facing up to your situation factually 
and rationally? If someone has enslaved or imprisoned you unjustly, what 
other solution to the problem could there be? 


 Let's consider the case of Imelda. How was it that she was able to do 
 what she did? She had the force of government to implement her 'oppresion. 
 I submit to you that it is government that is unique in its ability to 
 oppress, as it has the monopoly on the *legal* use of force.


The use of force need not be legal to be successful. It doesn't matter 
whether they are police, secret police, army, or mercenaries who do the 
torturing and killing and threatening. In the absence of government, as in 
Somalia, we do not see any reduction in tyranny or mayhem. In the absence 
of a central government, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of 
conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary 
law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia). In the absence of a central 
government here, the largest corporations would be completely unopposed to 
exercise total authority over the population, through private security, 
surveillance, and economic control. The separation of government and 
corporate power, while offering little protection to the expanding 
underclass, at least offers better than nothing, and it offers more than 
Imelda Marcos offered her servants.

Any line of reasoning that leads to the implication that government (or a 
 proxy thereof) can can alleviate or otherwise assuage oppresion is only 
 substituting

Re: a system of oppression?


On 1/26/2013 1:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 12:28:01 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 1/26/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
King wrote:

On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:

Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so
pessimistic so far.


Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet
allows. I was intending to mock those ideas by quoting
Scrooge, as I think that there is nothing further from the
truth than the idea that character is completely independent
from their circumstance - that people with no shoes can pull
themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been born into
a system of oppression can free themselves by belief in the
free market or some such thing.

Craig

Hey!

What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you
describe an actual situation in Nature that is
oppression-free?


Slavery, or apartheid are systems of intentional oppression, but
poverty in a land of plenty is oppressive also, even if
oppression of the poor is an unintentional effect. If it takes
two million peasants to prop up one Imelda Marcos, then being
born into the system which does that is an oppressive one, and
not one which you can escape by adopting a positive attitude.

Just because life isn't free of oppression doesn't mean that if
an Imelda Marcos manages to tyrannize a country that it is the
will of Nature. To the contrary, the will of Nature is for the
oppressed to kill and eat their oppressors at the earliest
opportunity.

Craig


Hi Craig,

Setting the drama of humanity aside, can you point to some
actual cases of this in Nature?


http://phys.org/news/2011-05-predator-prey-role-reversal-bug-turtle.html


Hi Craig!

Interesting! The K. Deyrolli is a native bug from Japan and is 
listed by the Japanese Environment Agency as an endangered species.  
Umm, why is that? Must not be doing something right!





http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1575/1929.full

That predators attack and prey defend is an oversimplified view. When 
size changes during development, large prey may be invulnerable to 
predators, and small juvenile predators vulnerable to attack by prey.


Very interesting! The entire abstract:
That predators attack and prey defend is an oversimplified view. When 
size changes during development, large prey may be invulnerable to 
predators, and small juvenile predators vulnerable to attack by prey. 
This in turn may trigger a defensive response in adult predators to 
protect their offspring. Indeed, when sizes overlap, one may wonder 'who 
is the predator and who is the prey'! Experiments with 'predatory' mites 
and thrips 'prey' showed that young, vulnerable prey counterattack by 
killing young predators and adult predators respond by protective 
parental care, killing young prey that attack their offspring. Thus, 
young individuals form the Achilles' heel of prey and predators alike, 
creating a cascade of predator attack, prey counterattack and predator 
defense. Therefore, size structure and relatedness induce multiple 
ecological role reversals.


This seems to imply that there are no Nash equilibria for this case.


But where is the oppression, exactly? My point is that 
oppression is in the eye of the beholder as there does not exist an 
objective measure of such. But I digress...





Any deer oppressed to kill and eat their oppressors [wolves] at
the earliest opportunity?


 Deer are herbivores, so they aren't interested in eating a wolf, but 
a herd of even peaceful herbivores can potentially kick the crap out 
of a single predator.


Yes, but that only knocks down my bad analogy of deer and wolves, 
as I intended. I want to explore the idea of oppression and see if my 
proposed thesis (that government is the actual instrument of all human 
oppression) can be adequately defended. I could be very much wrong here!




No! I dare say that you are building a flawed argument on a flawed
premise. I submit the entire idea of oppression, as you are
using it, is a figment of human imagination.


If you mistreat a dog, does it not become damaged or vicious? It must 
be the imagination of dogs too...


Good point. Dogs can oppress each other by this reasoning, and 
thus we see oppression in Nature, in support of my implied point. 
Oppression is a natural condition. How we deal with it is the better 
question. 'Eating the rich' works until we run out of the rich; then we 
all starve.



We humans have the unique ability to behave in ways that do not
actually solve problems but instead just make us feel better
about our crappy

Re: a system of oppression?



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:36:49 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 1/26/2013 1:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, January 26, 2013 12:28:01 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

  On 1/26/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

  On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: 

 Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far.


 Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I was 
 intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think that there is 
 nothing further from the truth than the idea that character is completely 
 independent from their circumstance - that people with no shoes can pull 
 themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been born into a system of 
 oppression can free themselves by belief in the free market or some such 
 thing.

 Craig

 Hey!

 What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you describe an actual 
 situation in Nature that is oppression-free? 
  

 Slavery, or apartheid are systems of intentional oppression, but poverty 
 in a land of plenty is oppressive also, even if oppression of the poor is 
 an unintentional effect. If it takes two million peasants to prop up one 
 Imelda Marcos, then being born into the system which does that is an 
 oppressive one, and not one which you can escape by adopting a positive 
 attitude. 

 Just because life isn't free of oppression doesn't mean that if an Imelda 
 Marcos manages to tyrannize a country that it is the will of Nature. To the 
 contrary, the will of Nature is for the oppressed to kill and eat their 
 oppressors at the earliest opportunity.

 Craig
  
  Hi Craig,

 Setting the drama of humanity aside, can you point to some actual 
 cases of this in Nature? 
  

 http://phys.org/news/2011-05-predator-prey-role-reversal-bug-turtle.html
  

 Hi Craig!

 Interesting! The K. Deyrolli is a native bug from Japan and is listed 
 by the Japanese Environment Agency as an endangered species.  Umm, why is 
 that? Must not be doing something right! 


To conclude that being an endangered species is the fault of the species is 
more of the same king of social Darwinism fallacy that I was trying to 
correct. You could be a member of the most magnificent species of fish that 
the universe has ever seen and still be endangered if your habitat becomes 
polluted. The native bug has probably been around for hundreds of millions 
of years, yet their diminishing numbers at the moment (like so many 
thousands of other species in the modern era) is somehow evidence that 
their behavior is unnatural and therefore accounts for some kind of justice 
by Natural means. It isn't true. Evolution doesn't work like that. The 
explosion of jellyfish doesn't mean that they are doing something right, or 
different than they ever have.



  
 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1575/1929.full

 That predators attack and prey defend is an oversimplified view. When 
 size changes during development, large prey may be invulnerable to 
 predators, and small juvenile predators vulnerable to attack by prey.
  

 Very interesting! The entire abstract: 
 That predators attack and prey defend is an oversimplified view. When 
 size changes during development, large prey may be invulnerable to 
 predators, and small juvenile predators vulnerable to attack by prey. This 
 in turn may trigger a defensive response in adult predators to protect 
 their offspring. Indeed, when sizes overlap, one may wonder ‘who is the 
 predator and who is the prey’! Experiments with ‘predatory’ mites and 
 thrips ‘prey’ showed that young, vulnerable prey counterattack by killing 
 young predators and adult predators respond by protective parental care, 
 killing young prey that attack their offspring. Thus, young individuals 
 form the Achilles' heel of prey and predators alike, creating a cascade of 
 predator attack, prey counterattack and predator defense. Therefore, size 
 structure and relatedness induce multiple ecological role reversals.

 This seems to imply that there are no Nash equilibria for this case.


Sorry, I think game theory is amoral bunk. Good for robots, but not living 
beings.
 



 But where is the oppression, exactly? My point is that oppression 
 is in the eye of the beholder as there does not exist an objective measure 
 of such. But I digress...


If someone creates a condition which impacts your life negatively for their 
own purposes and then actively prohibits your ability to change that 
condition, then they are oppressing you. It doesn't have to be measured 
objectively to be real.You can say that your victim's screams could be 
hearty expressions of joy if you want, but defending that position is 
sophistry.


  

  Any deer oppressed to kill and eat their oppressors [wolves] at the 
 earliest opportunity?

Re: a system of oppression?


On 1/26/2013 9:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you are born in bondage to a powerful social system, how are you 
going to defend yourself? It's not even about defense, it's about an 
economic control. If the only way to make enough money to avoid being 
in perpetual debt is to already be wealthy, then how are you going to 
'defend yourself'?


http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You where saying?

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: a system of oppression?

2013-01-26 Thread meekerdb


On 1/26/2013 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/26/2013 9:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you are born in bondage to a powerful social system, how are you going to defend 
yourself? It's not even about defense, it's about an economic control. If the only way 
to make enough money to avoid being in perpetual debt is to already be wealthy, then 
how are you going to 'defend yourself'?


http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm 



How interesting that an unbiased source doesn't include the data before 1976.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html



Brent


http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You where saying?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


inline: US-national-debt-GDP.png

Re: a system of oppression?

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:15:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You where saying?

When you have an economic catastrophe on the scale of the 1930's or 2000's,
the government has to ring up a huge amount of debt one way or another to
make up for all of the money that the banks stole to prevent social
collapse. These market abuses are the fault of Dems as well as Reps, but
certainly it seems like the professed positions of the Reps, toward market
deregulation, are to be avoided going forward if we don't want to repeat
the cycle again.

Craig

--
Onward!

Stephen

Re: a system of oppression?