Oh man, im like, a chaotic neutral, or maybe a chaotic __ full stop. Thats what I tested as and tests dont lie. Ive got a reputation. So does my family. Thats what ritche marr said, it all comes back to the family. Ive got a temper. but once you get to know me, i can really open up inside... =]

On the meyers-briggs I test every time as IFTS. I take the meyers briggs every year just to make sure im on the right path. Lots of successful people tested that way and I can see myself in them. Its just part of my identity now. Abraham lincoln? Betty Carr? Whats next for the world? Lets find out...

All in all , im pretty grateful for that. Ive got a lot of opportunities in life even though i am partly native american on my moms dads junior cousins side, ;] I try and stay in touch with those ROOTS... its a big part of who i am. Cherokee?? No doubt. Gotta know who you are and be proud of it.

I guess you could say that im a philanthropist. I believe in karma. I beleive in a lot of things, but mostly i believe in the earth. Im going to break it down for you: life; my life- i like to live it to the fullest. Got a degree... but I dont want to be over educated. Im an outsider. An explorer. I dont like the system and im not afraid to tell people why.

MAN... just keep your chin up and bear with me.. Im self employed by the natural world; not by some fake system... see... we're all monkeys... and would you follow some system made by a bunch of monkeys? not me...haha.! Ive got a mission. And nothing will stop in my way. I scored 9/10 on the empathy test and my EQ - thats EMOTIONAL intellengce... the only real "intellegence there is" is 123... so you could say that im in touch with people. Ive got a lot of respect.

Bottom words are; good luck.

Karma. Truth. Justice. The natural world =]

Just for funsies, let's substitute "masses" and "majorities" in your statements with "large amounts of individuals" and "large amounts of individuals who think the same". Genuinely not implying doing so has any value. Just food for thought.

Large amounts of individuals don't interest me. I think individuals are the most important thing of all.
Power to the individual. Large amounts of individuals who think the same are evil. Power to the individual. The large amounts of individuals are evil. Power to the individual. Or they will eat you alive.

(the point is that masses are made up of individuals. Still, any authority should have to legitimize itself, regardless of whether it's imposed by a majority or not)

if people make these transactions willingly (Even if they don't have a choice).

I think a contract is only a free contract if both parties have a really existing possibility to decline.

agree on the drug thing. I think the same about suicide.

wage labor (a contract for labor time between an employer and an employee, factually renting people) is not a lot different from slavery (owning people). Work under external command is inhuman. Any system that puts freedom of the individual on its altars (not to sacrifice, but to worship it) should work towards abolishing such work.

Here's a nice read: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23428

.

Of course they are slaves. That's the point of industrialization. Make machines our slaves.
Whether it is a problem that they are slaves depends on whether these robots have de-facto human like conciousness (= they posses neural structures that functionally mirror the brain). If they do, we should regard them as de-facto humans and grant them human rights. But obviously we should build robots that do not have full human conciousness, or if they have too (somebody gotta write poems) are programmed/designed to have eternal bliss while doing whatever it is we want them to do. Should be possible.

Anyway, it's a great thing that wage slavery is taken over by automation. Anything that takes work off humanity should be welcomed. But it makes the idiocy in the current mode of production even more apparent. I've seen a recent report that there are now self-driving electric busses in one of our otherwise car-free ski resorts. If we had a sane economic system, this would be reason for literally everyone to rejoice. Transporting people around in big cars is now something less we have to spend human time doing! And because we want people to be mostly free, anyone who still wants to drive people around because they love doing it and can find people who want to be driven around by them should have the possibility to do so.

Instead, when I hear news about new self-driving busses, today, I become worried that a great many people will now lose their means of income. And with automation progressing further and further, many more people will. There will be fewer and fewer tasks for humans to do, and those who suffer from that will of course be the people who are already the most vulnerable. Those who do the boring, unsatisfying manual work anyone could do but nobody wants to, and they only do it because they cannot find any other income. Vulnerable they are of course because in currently prevailing society, the people who do the least attractive work are rewarded for doing so by being placed on the very bottom of the income scale. And now they get their already shitty incomes taken away from them, great. You say the value of that work is quite low because it's something everyone could do. To that I reply that we need not to evaluate everything by means of market mechanisms such as supply & demand, and that we should reward those who do the most repugnant work the most.

Luckily the problem will solve itself. As automation continues to progress and bigger and bigger parts of the population see themselves with no job, therefore no income, therefore no means of purchasing anything, the owners of production will realize that there is nobody around to purchase the commodities their machines produce (at a cost that will never be reduced to 0). Then some meaningfull positive change might happen. Basic income sounds like a good idea, see this.

Regarding your second paragraph, if I refuse to rent myself to some economic institution, I starve. That in my opinion is not a really existing viable alternative. And it's not the blessing that I'm complaining about, what I'm complaining about is that we have enough economic capacity to give bread, clothing and shelter to any human being in the world many times over, yet there are still people with a shortage of these things. As now less than 70 people own more wealth than the entire poorer 3.7 billion people of the world combined, how anybody can claim that this is in some bizarre manner "an efficient system to distribute limited ressources fairly" (which you haven't stated, but I'm sure you believe), is beyond me.

Regarding being forced to work, if we had functioning democratic societies, with economic institutions being organized democratically and everyone getting compensated equally for their labor time in a manner that allows them to live well (variance within 1 order of magnitude allowed for people who do terrific work), producing not for profit but for use and according to need, I wouldn't mind being forced to work by the collective.

In Antoine de Saint Exupéry's tale the Little Prince meets a businessman who accumulates stars with the sole purpose of being able to buy more stars. The Little Prince is perplexed. He owns only a flower, which he waters every day. Three volcanoes, which he cleans every week. "It is of some use to my volcanoes, and it is of some use to my flower, that I own them," he says, "but you are of no use to the stars that you own".

.

i aggree with some of your points, but u are a bit naive about inequality. not to say naive as fuck. chances to develop high cognitive, emotional- and social "intelligence", education, competence as well self confidence in various (economically especially valuable) domains are all VERY MUCH dependent on (social) environment/background.* just as your contacts, your business-relevant habitus and your investment possibilities (not even if I wanted to I could build a hotel without haing a few hundred thousand bucks spare)... social mobility, particularly in the US, is rather small. who's born in the economical top third usually also ends there. for various reasons - not just directly being donated a million. (besides, a undescribable shitlot of wealth is for real passed directly from generation to generation. idk where you got your numbers from, but as sociologist I would advice you to do some further research in academical databases, cause the US is known as example for uneven wealth distribution ACCOMPAINED by a currently very rigid social stratification... opposed to the classical narrative it wants to belief. just cause parents were no millionaires doesn't mean they weren't wealthy or a deciding factor, among other social contacts.)

but not just the access to especially wealthy societal positions is unequal. also the wealth relations between these positions can be questioned. " And the most productive people are the people we owe our lives to." I guess I aggree, but I would claim that the most productive ppl are probably chinese and bangladeshi teenagers, who build all the crap we use 12-18 hours a day, while living on factory property where free-time doesn't offer anything anyway. I'm sure bill gates or especially your own mental- and productive potential is so much higher than all of theirs, and that the relation of your wealth is well deserved. hail free market mechanisms, they will make for epicly fair outcomes, safe call.
besides, while some rich or more-wealthy people are indeed working hard (, not necessairily harder than many non-rich though), many others are in fact busy busy with managemental meetings that got nothing to do with hard work, business lunches and/or doing lines of coke.


*: actually one could claim that even the (business) ideas you have are probably only a result of the mental stimulation you received from your environment, and not just your inner mental brilliance.

two things I want to add/stress:
work "easyness" =/= work productivity. how much qualification a job requires usually impacts the (imagined) demand for the job, and this way loans. just cause workers are replaceable it does not mean they are not productive. u seem not too aware of this, since your argumentation mashes these things up as if they were one.

secondly, white collar work is a privileg. maybe people (including me) should be a little more thankful and respectful towards people that do the less comforting jobs (some of these easy works indeed are less comfortable), instead of shitting on them with the "they're incompetent/lazy" explanation. a lot of us higher educated ppl would probably struggle to do some other tasks/show high "productivity" in different branches.

.

I tire of this conversation, but let me say that having grown up, worked on and currently living on a farm, farm work with the aid of machines and with some knowledge about what is important while doing so can be a many times easier, more satisfying and liberating experience than working for some company. But ideally, we would not have all people working on farms, for various reasons. What I want is a system where everybody thinks of their work as a satisfying and liberating experience, under their own command, which they do because they want to, where they are compensated in proportion to the work they do, and not in proportion to the work others do for them (as is currently the case for a tiny segment of the population, the owners, reaping in the surplus of what the rest of the population produces in the form of dividends). Chores which nobody wants to do should either be shared or compensated more heavily.

.

yes, haven't played the game in a while though, I fucked something up with my install.

I thought this guy isa cheater.

Why take moral advice's from IT??!!

.

{+} me and ill think about it

*sparks tha blunt*

*start reading*

i will edit in my true response shortly after i have ABSORED this infos =]

.

Net worth $28.5 million (at time of seizure)[1]

Pure naivety, like the rest of your posts.

.

No, I believe in a second chance for everyone but the worst (if you murder a child, you don't have a place in this society imo). But he is smart, he knew about the risks and the gains. And he acted long-term, not out of affection or so.

A better example would have been this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

didnt u use to post some pretty vile shit on ur previous username