Your opinion of this person?

[courts]

A FF through and through. Someone who gets it.

lol no

[courts]

A fictional character, obviously.

'please sir, may i have another'

[courts]

Blah blah blah bootstraps blah blah blah.

You have a problem with the ~*American$$Dream*~, Oakvale?

fight socialism, go to a state school.

[courts]

We're obviously two different people. I take all criticisms to heart, even the ones via the internet. I'll spare you the sob story, but I don't take well to criticism. If I find the time, I'll post my full response, but it'll be pretty lengthy.

the picture deserves no respect because its such a nauseating combination of obliviousness combined with the usual contempt for the victims of (literally) institutionalized thievery. trust me i am no fan of the occupy crowd. but this is infinitely worse. if you want me to explain more so i can but what i mean should be obvious to anyone thats paid any attention the last 4-5 years or so.

[courts]

Among the many, many lies, exaggerations, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and ignorance is the simple issue that while this person may have accomplished something that should definitely be a point of pride, most people around college-graduate age grew up with an inflated sense of wealth and opportunity during the '90s. Being taught from an early age that you're going to have to start working as soon as you can in order to accomplish something like graduating college is almost verging on a luxury. There are far too many kids that grow up being told what to do and exactly what will happen and how, but were then faced with the issue that they never had to fend for themselves or struggle to get by before. How can a 17 year old be expected to know better than their parents, teachers, guidance counselors, and society in general enough to plan for struggling through college? It's a pompous, ignorant, spiteful, and resentful thing to tell kids that they deserve what they've been handed by the generation before them, whether that be an education or an introduction to a lifestyle they have no chance of maintaining or understanding how to change. Our parents' tendencies towards fiscal excess and living beyond their means has put the vast majority of a generation in the extremely difficult position of being deluded into thinking they'll be fine forever and don't have to worry about saving or working for what we want.

that isnt even why its really offensive. the point is that we have a banking industry that literally stole peoples houses and almost unimaginable amounts of money and has ruined entire lives and only been rewarded for it. they will never be held accountable, ever. and these tools respond with 'well i manage to scrape by with my sh**tty job and paycheck to paycheck lifestyle, stop your bitching everything is fine.' it is disgustingly stupid not to mention a case of blaming the victim (which in this case is most people). i would say such displays of ignorance make me uncontrollably angry but to be honest i am burnt out at this point.

[courts]

    A good person, & emblematic of the right kind of attitude.

How so? The whole point of him posting that is to show his superiority to everyone who doesn't fit into that particular box he sets himself. Why else boast of going to be in the 1%? I mean who does that, really?

     I understood his "I am not the 99%" bit to be declaring that he does not feel solidarity with the occupier crowd, not necessarily that he is the 1%. Of course, such subtleties can be difficult to communicate over the internet.

     The way I see it, so many people today suffer from a need for instant gratification & an inability to take responsibility. His lifestyle demonstrates a great deal of self-control and responsibility. I'll admit that his tone is slightly patronizing, but I still find his story to be something intensely admirable.

massa treats me real good! i don't know what all y'all is complaining about

     Clearly, everyone who lives within their means & does not whine about the lack of a free ride is an Uncle Tom. Try harder next time.

thats not what i was actually implying. besides how are people supposed to 'live within their means' when the entire economy discourages savings thanks to high inflation and is based on consumption? don't you know your own side's talking points.

[courts]

i think its just symptomatic of the bogus 'american exceptionalist/greatest nation ever' meme. thats why i think we're going to really burn, impossible to address problems if you get shouted down. the only people that understand the problem are really the fringes.

[courts]

i think its just symptomatic of the bogus 'american exceptionalist/greatest nation ever' meme. thats why i think we're going to really burn, impossible to address problems if you get shouted down. the only people that understand the problem are really the fringes.

     Oh, the country will burn. I have a couple of ideas for how to stop it, but they would never work. Such is life.

democracy doesn't work

[courts]

i think its just symptomatic of the bogus 'american exceptionalist/greatest nation ever' meme. thats why i think we're going to really burn, impossible to address problems if you get shouted down. the only people that understand the problem are really the fringes.

     Oh, the country will burn. I have a couple of ideas for how to stop it, but they would never work. Such is life.

democracy doesn't work

What is your suggestion for government then, wise one? Surely, an element of popular sovereignty is necessary for the state to be just.

why does popularity = morality? i don't see how something like venezuela or zimbabwe or various majority shia areas would be desirable to have a democracies. and how many tyrannical regimes claimed to represent' the true spirit of democracy'? as for government it depends on circumstances. i have some sympathies for monarchy/benign aristocracy for purely pragmatic reasons that i've elaborated on but obviously such a thing is very hard to sell and not culturally relevant to most westerners let alone americans.

restricting the franchise to people that can pass a civics test and making voting much more localized is one possible reform i've suggested. although i suspect straha and some of the formalists have a point in terms of their  (relatively) undemocratic, corporate state model. basically a state that strives to actually produce things of value (either directly or through encouraging productive industries) and offers basic services to citizen-shareholders while avoiding the invasiveness of both modern democracy and totalitarianism could be an improvement over now. certain countries like singapore have elements of what i'm talking about.

[courts]

my main problem with democracy is mostly economic. that is, a) people don't have a rational reason to be informed about decisions they are making for other people (see bryan caplan's work although I'm not a huge fan of him ideological) and b) people have that natural tendency to want to vote themselves benefits beyond the capacity of the state to provide. that doesn't mean i believe in some laissez faire bootstraps ideology but we've all seen how this can and has played out.

it is interesting you are making the argument of 'elitism' though. do you object to the current system on the grounds it isn't direct? i would think that you would be not a fan of referenda and all that given how things have played out in a lot of the western states...

[courts]

i think its just symptomatic of the bogus 'american exceptionalist/greatest nation ever' meme. thats why i think we're going to really burn, impossible to address problems if you get shouted down. the only people that understand the problem are really the fringes.

     Oh, the country will burn. I have a couple of ideas for how to stop it, but they would never work. Such is life.

democracy doesn't work

What is your suggestion for government then, wise one? Surely, an element of popular sovereignty is necessary for the state to be just.

why does popularity = morality? i don't see how something like venezuela or zimbabwe or various majority shia areas would be desirable to have a democracies. indeed democracy is the last thing you would want for a lot of places. as for government it depends on circumstances. i have some sympathies for monarchy/benign aristocracy for pragmatic reasons that i've elaborated on but obviously such a thing is very hard to sell and not culturally relevant. restricting the franchise to people that can pass a civics test and making voting much more localized is one possible reform i've suggested. although i suspect straha and some of the formalists have a point in terms of their  (relatively) undemocratic, corporate state model. a state that strives to actually produce things of value and offers services to citizen-shareholders while avoiding the invasiveness of both modern democracy and totalitarianism could be an improvement over now.

Sup Aristotle. (or Hobbes, I guess)

very astute, those are obvious influences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

as opposed to the many who feel no consequence for their actions,and are encouraged because the establishment assume the state will just print or borrow the difference indefinitely? i already posted hans hermann hoppe before, he did a decent job going into the flaws associated with the election cycle and how democracy inherently favors short-term decision making compared to older alternatives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that might be true to an extent. but really under the present system to the extent the voter matters (and obviously lobbies and gerrymandering reduces a lot of that here), voting has become a zero sum game.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

honest liberals tend to admit that liberal democracy only works under certain conditions. i.e. you need a highly informed population, certain values, etc. of course liberals tend to operate under the bizarre assumption of 'equality' and that fundamentally people all value the same things and would if only they were informed. hence the obsession with 'awareness' domestically and spreading 'democracy' to peoples that have never known it.

also note that in practice western liberalism tends to suppress a lot of opinions. for an idea of what i mean look at the prevalence of hate speech laws and speech codes in most of the west and attempts to marginalize the anti liberal elements. also look at how the government in the us is structured.. yes we avoid a lot of the more overt censorship of the western europeans but our government was deliberately designed to discourage challenges to the wealthy, liberal establishment from the get go. even what i have proposed is in a sense, more of a reactionary

[courts]

my main problem with democracy is mostly economic. that is, a) people don't have a rational reason to be informed about decisions they are making for other people (see bryan caplan's work although I'm not a huge fan of him ideological) and b) people have that natural tendency to want to vote themselves benefits beyond the capacity of the state to provide. that doesn't mean i believe in some laissez faire bootstraps ideology but we've all seen how this can and has played out.

it is interesting you are making the argument of 'elitism' though. do you object to the current system on the grounds it isn't direct? i would think that you would be not a fan of referenda and all that given how things have played out in a lot of the western states...

1. Wouldn't that apply to free market economies as well then?

obviously there are externalities and irrational exuberance, sure. and to some extent i think that needs to be regulated. but what markets can do and what governments can do are very different in scale. only western governments working in conjunction with the bankers could have produced something as monstrous as the derivatives trade for example. besides people tend to be better gauges of their own needs than other people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

are there? i don't see any. look at most of the usa, the piigs, etc. granted a lot of that was again the result of banker fraud and quasi-privatization (classic example being wisconsin) but there's definitely that drive to make unsustainable promises on the part of politicians. we can almost all agree that certain services should be provided by the state by now, even a lot of the right when pressed.. but restraint is not rewarded. even

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that depends on what you mean.

i'll address the rest of your points when i'm not cramming for exams.

[courts]

    A good person, & emblematic of the right kind of attitude.

How so? The whole point of him posting that is to show his superiority to everyone who doesn't fit into that particular box he sets himself. Why else boast of going to be in the 1%? I mean who does that, really?

     I understood his "I am not the 99%" bit to be declaring that he does not feel solidarity with the occupier crowd, not necessarily that he is the 1%. Of course, such subtleties can be difficult to communicate over the internet.

     The way I see it, so many people today suffer from a need for instant gratification & an inability to take responsibility. His lifestyle demonstrates a great deal of self-control and responsibility. I'll admit that his tone is slightly patronizing, but I still find his story to be something intensely admirable.

massa treats me real good! i don't know what all y'all is complaining about

I hereby take offense to this.

did you seriously just report me over that one? wow.

[courts]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

implying i'm a 'liberal' is pretty hilarious

[courts]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

There is nothing nonsensical about hard work. What we have here is ridicule of those that defy the zeitgeist- not so much about what he does but what he says, the refusal to join in the whinging. Society today is all talk and no action, and we see him lambasted for his words and his action.

You're mixing things up here. We all respect those who work hard. What we don't respect is those who proceed to attention whore and pour hatred on those who are less fortunate, as this whole movement seems to be aiming at. If you have a job, great, you're lucky. Just remember, you're a resource that they can do away with at any point they like.

Yes you are- you are a human resource. That's the way it works...they pay you and they can choose to stop paying you. I've let go many an employee for  malfeasance, negligence, intoxication on the job, criminal records, etc...

maybe people don't want everything to be commodified. maybe certain things like the family have intrinsic value and should be protected by the state or nation/tribe/community. you obviously did not read my previous posts though which already explained my problem obviously had nothing to do with this person's alleged work ethic and everything to do with his apologism for a system that is literally robbing us and destroying anything of lasting value within our culture.

oh and btw i have made it clear before i don't like occupy, if it was actually directed against the criminal banks i would support it but it clearly is not. just like the tea party was/is clearly not about 'fiscal responsibility.'

[courts]

sorry if that comes off as self righteous

[courts]

i should point out i'm not blaming 'capitalism' entirely for this. if anything i agree with a lot of the (relatively) mainstream right-wing criticism of the us government encouraging the worst excesses of the banks, and the modern welfare state producing a lot of perverse incentives. i suspect a lot of our problems would be diminished if the government governed according to basic microeconomics.

however i think its a bad idea to view people in entirely econocentric terms. if that sort of thinking doesn't work under marxist systems it won't work under 'capitalism' either. people are not 100% rational. they are not all equal in ability. they do not all have the same wants. they are not merely your workers. they do not conform to neat little models. ironically for all people tend to criticize them for being 'free market fundamentalists' libertarians tend to at least understand that much, along side the other elements on 'the fringes.'

[courts]

true equality is undesirable and impossible because of our natural differences in talents and preferences. it is also clearly a subjective concept that can not be  measured totally objectively. that obviously does not mean that i disagree with the modern consensus of providing the poor with access to say, public/subsidized healthcare and education and the ideal of equal treatment under the law. just that i think it is potentially tyrannical not to mention destructive to the majority to attempt to impose 'equality' beyond those levels. even under the things i mentioned there exist differences in coverage and quality in all of the developed world.

[courts]

if that is not the goal then why the endless pursuit and use of it rhetorically by the left? (well a lot of the 'right' too...) anyway wormy already posted something pretty good awhile back about how savings affects the income inequality rate and why that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[courts]

and that's about it for tonight unfortunately. i need to go study some more, this break has gone on long enough.

[courts]

and I just got moderated for "hatefulness" for what was clearly not a racist comment, unless lief and marokai hate them some blacks... this site is out of control.