And a highly corrupt democracy is just as self-corrective as Caligulas' tyranny. I rest my case.


Indeed, but the more globally you're trying to apply the standards and concepts of economy and trade, the harder it becomes without a currency.


I meant to say common currency as all kinds of monetary units. It doesn't matter how many of them we have and how dynamically they change in time, the point is that having a common value denominator for products and services makes trade and growth much easier.


Of course I don't mean doing it straight away in one jump. But that's the general direction we should be heading. The primary benefit of merging countries together throughout time is that in the end there is next to no need for military and war equipment.


Which is where BR disagrees, I think.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

In order:

I agree that we should dramatically cut spending and attempt to increase revenues, but increasing revenues is heavily determined by the private sector, taxes tend to discourage growth, and a raise of taxes might actually reduce revenues depending on how much money large businesses and corporations are able to make.

Raising taxes can increase revenues to a point, but because of the uncertainty as to the adverse consequences to raising taxes, it would probably be better to keep them where they are for now;

Even if the government does some things better than the private sector, that doesn't mean they should run everything.

Lastly, yes, the US economy has started to improve. The question is whether it had anything to do with the stimulus bill, which we were told would create jobs and prevent unemployment from rising.

If you look at this chart here, it seems that unemployment really started dropping since November, after the Republicans gained control of the House. What I think this means is that most businesses thought that the Republicans were going to keep taxes at their current level so they started hiring more. And while I don't have any concrete proof of this, it's an argument based in the following sequence of events:

If "Revenues - Expenses = Profits", then businesses have to determine how to keep their profits high in order to maintain a business. 2009, we were looking at a debt of about $10 trillion, and as you said, the government operates by having high revenues and (at least, ideally) low expenses, so to eliminate that debt, they need to do something. And what they ended up doing was spending over four trillion dollars in just the first two years, compounding the nation's debt even further. Any good businessman knows that (most) Democrats are in favor of higher taxes. Short of saying outright that they intended to raise taxes, the Democrats wanted to let the Bush-era taxes expire and rise to what they were before, and the Republicans were fighting to keep them the same. Because businesses rely on the amount of taxes they pay to determine how much of their profits they keep (and reinvest in their company), the uncertainty of whether or not those taxes would rise prevented them from hiring; some may have even laid off some of their workforce as a precaution. In November, a clear majority of Republicans were elected into the House; businessmen then predicted their taxes would not rise, so it would be safe to hire more people. And so unemployment drops.

At least, that's what think happened. As I said, I don't have evidence (written statements by businessmen, letter of intent to hire, etc.), so I can't back that up with anything but my own logic, which as we have seen hasn't always proven to be the best, but I'm confident that the truth is not far from the above.

You're missing something here. In the video I posted, the entire discussion was about the bank bailouts. Listen to Grayson at about time 0:10 in which he asks about Lehman Brother's bankruptcy and the Federal Reserve's decision not to bail them out. At time 1:21 he asks whether or not they know who received the $1 trillion dollars missing off their balance sheet. Time 1:54, he asks about the trillions of dollars of off balance sheets transactions, and at time 3:45 he clarifies the question to include that according to Bloomberg, the sum of off balance sheets transactions now totals more than $9 trillion dollars. Even if she doesn't know the Bloomberg article in question, it doesn't excuse her from not doing her job, which is to keep track of the money that goes in and out of the company's accounts.

Also, he did not vaguely allude to things. He referenced the article when talking about the $9 trillion, but when she said "I don't know the article," he clarifies that what he's asking is whether or not she had investigated the money missing off the balance sheet. She seemed to claim complete ignorance of her own duties as the Inspector General, and showed total irresponsibility in not investigating the transference of huge sums of money to, as of then, unknown recipients. It should not be the case that the people in charge of such a powerful arm the economy are handing out money (or in this case, loans, I guess) and the one person who should know the whos and how much, does not. I believe that is what he was having issue with.

Well I'll give you that doing this has some merits in the regard of keeping the seas clean and preventing harm to the environment. On the other hand, if I were a betting man--not to mention a conspiracy theorist--I would probably think that Obama is trying to create economic strife, rather than eliminate it.

All right, well in the absence of real, concrete evidence, I guess all I have to go on are the actions he takes and what effect they have on the economy; his unwillingness to cooperate with the Republicans when they call for less spending (the budget with a $1.65 trillion deficit), the fact that he thought the stimulus bill was working when unemployment rose (perhaps he meant his Green Agenda was working? I dunno), the fact that he doesn't seem to think that a national debt of ~$14,000,000,000,000 is a major cause for concern...

There is a such thing as being buried under circumstantial evidence. Even if, with all the circumstantial evidence, an incomplete image is formed, there should be enough for a reasonable individual to say that something is amiss. The question is, how does one fill in the blanks if someone else doesn't want you to know what they are?

_________________

so hey i have some questions for a few of you

valhallen: in a simple economy, what is the analog for corporations and stock shares?

ruffdraft: are you claiming that all taxes stunt growth in business? because i can create for you a few scenarios where that is not true.

and where exactly has the united states government put forth the intent to run everything? you make that claim early on in your latest post as the reasoning behind your arguments. more does not equal everything, nor has it ever been the case. :\

and obama constantly makes the political move to work with republicans and offers real numbers to programs for the cutting of spending. do you really deny that republicans are not equally or at the ery least partially responsible for delaying the progress of cutting spending when both parties publicly speak out for that as a goal?

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Fuck Republicans. Fuck corporations.
Go Democrats. Go unions.
Michael Moore is my hero.
'nuff said about my political views.

You people talk too damn much.

cool you mean that while you are well-meaning you are mostly ineffectual and apathetic in a merely more optimistic way.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Either that or he's completely blinded himself to the faults of those he associates with and relies on propaganda that comes from a stupid fat white man who wrote a book called "Stupid White Men" and whose movies are consistently either factually inaccurate or paint a false picture?

That's some hero you have.

_________________

There's a little bit of truth between most lies.

Except Beck's lies. His lies are 100%. They're brash.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

We went over this. Of the "lies" you showed me before that you said were made by Glenn Beck, one of them wasn't even said by him, many of them were not lies, and a few of them were opinions. If you want to make the case that he outright lies, you have to show me that A) what he was saying was not true and B) that he knew prior to saying it that he knew it was not true. So far, you have not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he has lied about anything; at least not the stuff that you were talking about.

And by the way, aren't all lies one-hundred percent?

_________________

Bullshit. You ignored my arguments and accused me of logical fallacies which weren't true. You're just as brash and utterly stupid.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

So like that one about Obama being a Muslim? I proved that Beck did not say that, and in fact said "Obama is not a Muslim." Then you turned around and quoted Beck's opinion, saying "Oh, he's not a Muslim, but he's a bad Christian?!"

What about that one, "Obama wants to take away our guns?" I proved Obama's stance on gun control to be quite clear. He does want to take away our guns. He has supported numerous handgun bans, and he was against a bill protecting gun owners who defend themselves in their own homes against invaders.

Remind me: What else did you say that I claimed was a logical fallacy?

_________________

You should know by now I have no desire to argue these points again. You just don't listen.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

^

_________________

Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles

Also

So what's the difference between when the Democrats used a convention loophole to pass the health care bill, and when Wisconsin Republicans changed the CB bill to bypass the Democrats who voted no?

_________________
Escape will make me God.

dacrum, you and wizard are being very stereotypically internet. while i tend to agree with you motivations, i really do want some legitimate answers :P

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=083BhxViKxY

I can see why you like Beck, Ruff. He hates Soros just as much as you. But you're misinformed.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

QU you're mixing up correlation for causation.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

I believe it implies misinformation whether you go one way or another. So it doesn't matter in the end which way you causate it.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

@Q.U.: You should try doing some actual research, instead of relying on someone even less reputable than Beck. If you did, and if you would perhaps research the show itself instead of letting others do it for you, you might learn some things... specifically how Beck is not actually blaming Soros for what he had to do to survive Nazi Germany; and yet on the other hand, Soros doesn't feel bad about it. He said that his years in Nazi Germany was the happiest time his life. Also, in a 1998 interview with Steve Kroft, he said "I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence, but I don't want to be a part of it." These are all facts, many of which are drawn, not from the top of Beck's head, but from interviews, public statements, and in many cases Soros' own published books.

That thing about the Anti Defamation League is stupid. The month before, they sent a letter to Beck apologizing for his name appearing in a list of celebrities that made antisemitic statements, and called him "a friend of the Jewish people." It seems like they're just butthurt over being reminded about the Holocaust. I guess you can take that as you see fit.

Anyway, a little research into Soros reveals that he is a major globalist; he wants things like an international currency, and a central world government.

Lastly, I wonder if I could get you to stop watching people like Keith Olberman for news. It's not very healthy (for your mind).

_________________

International currency would make many things very convenient. And a federalized world government could easily prevent more wars.

After all, it is an American concept, world government.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Olberrman isn't doing news anymore, but he was actually really good at not only citing sources, but explaining the direct reasoning he made when he used them. That's a pretty good habit, man.

I can see where you can make the connections with Beck's ideas, but Beck himself does not articulate the connections very well, surely you would admit to that.

Regularly on his show he will say "NOW I DUNNO, I COULD BE CRAZY, BUT HMMMMM??? LOOK AT THIS?????"

would you admit that for the sake of drama, he does dramatic things that tend to obfuscate his points, as potentially legitimate as they could be (because they for the sake of argument exist in the realm of technical possibility) ?

also, my previous post? plz?

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Let's watch that farce, shall we?

00:21
The Prime Minister of Malaysia did indeed call Soros that. Too bad Beck forgot to re-educate himself from his ignorance and forgot to mention that after re-education (nine years later in 2006) that same Prime Minister apologised for those words after learning what Soros actually did.

00:35
"In 1995"... Oh Beck, you're so awesome at quote digging.

00:41
"the game". You lost it Beck, by quote digging, taking words out of context and not referencing them.

02:05
You mean like, the very same cold heart that soldiers at war have? Or the same one that tax collectors have? And prosecutors?

02:50
Is it just me, or is Soros simply saying that the global economy is mostly dictated by the influence of the USA, and thus the leaders of USA, thus he needs to pay more attention to what they do since it influences everything else? Again, for somebody who gets so much screen time Beck doesn't even try to show a little bit more context of the quotes he presents.

03:05
He wants? Quotation please?

04:41
One inflation group predicted? Which one? You mean the inflation group you just pulled out of your ass to scare the shit out of people? tits Source or gtfo.

05:22
Him and his minions in Washington? Alleged cooperation of politicians in destabilising their own country's economy could be considered high treason. Well, well Beck. If you manage to make that stick you will turn the world around.

05:30
Well of course he knows what's coming. He has more brains than you ever imagined. That's what made him rich man, good prediction. It's what your junkies at Wall St. keep trying to do and failing.

05:51
Atheist? So now all atheists deem themselves as Gods because they are atheists and they need a God? And here I thought Atheists don't believe in any Gods... Silly me. Luckily we have Beck to educate us.

06:10
Right. So you have the right to have conservationist views and believe they will lead to a better world, and he cannot have an opinion that globalisation will lead us there? By now I already know that not believing that others have a right to their own views is one of the views of most conservationists.

07:52
America under siege? So, besides saying that he's paying attention to America, he also said he's going to bring it down to the ground? Talk about making a big deal out of nothing.

08:13
I agree with him. If there's any country that can invade whatever other country without any repercussions just because of some lame claims of "weapons of mass destruction" and warmongering over oil is certainly the biggest obstacle in achieving a peaceful world.
Also, context around the quote, anyone? I'll give you the fucking context man.

So yeah, he's against the warmongering, oil-hungry, tax-cutting republicans. For Beck that obviously means he's the enemy of all America.

08:45
Soros was looking for the right words to explain what happened, and to get a laugh he said "well that's true". For Beck that's obviously where the quote ends, because god forbid somebody hears that Soros was actually simply taking advantage of the foolishness and lack of actions of the English government, which could have easily been prevented.

10:30
Right. I can see how you're against Soros destabilising the rule of psychopathic dictators in poor countries. After all, the only right way to fix the lives of those people is to invade them and slaughter half of their population, you know, the usual republican way of dealing with stuff. I'm sure these poor people who lost money due to Soros' attempts to get their country out of the shithole it's been in would appreciate foreign soldiers running all over streets and mortaring their homes.

10:34
Oh, and yeah, putting yourself in the elite category, and making yourself into a god. Because that's what Soros did. Not those poor dictators who had fun leeching the hard work of their enslaved countries for their own benefits. HOW DARE HE TRY AND FIX THE WORLD!? Rite?

12:25
Ohh, control the airwaves... start your own outlet, to spread lies to the public... Oh god, this is hilarious to be coming from Fox News.


OMG! Now it all makes sense! BR is George Soros!


Is that directed at me? Even though I haven't the foggiest who that guy is? Ohh, he's one of the reporters in the vid I linked. It comes from MSNBC, so sorry man, but, although I don't really "watch" their news, when given the choice between believing the "facts" of Fox News and MSNBC, I'll stick to MSNBC. Just cause they seem, you know, less biased in general.




PS
Btw, when it comes to collapsing USA's economy, I'd be more worried about your banks than George Soros. Cause imho he can sit down and watch the USA drown into another economic collapse, seeing as they learned nothing from the previous one and made the system even less stable since then.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

@Q.U,: I'm sorry, I don't really see you doing much (or very good) research, all I see you doing is making bad arguments and pointing out obvious things like how the Prime Minister of Malaysia forgave and apologized to Soros in person. I mean, really---Soros is a very good speaker. He sounds very reasonable most of the time. I'm sure he could convince someone that blue is red or something. Either way, the Prime Minister having a talk with Soros in person, at length, and then shaking his hand at the end is something that even I could have predicted if I had heard that the two would be meeting to discuss this.

I'm not going to cover the rest of your stuff. Go ahead and believe what you will. But if it turns out the Beck is right, maybe you'll start listening to him? Yeah I know that's too much to hope for.

@DaCrum: Valhallen agreed with me in another thread that an international currency would actually do more harm than good; more than likely it would destroy economies and create massive financial strife before being fully implemented. And then, it would be too susceptible to worldwide events; for example, if China experiences a massive natural disaster (volcano, earthquake, misdirected microwave beam from space, etc) and as a result there is famine, disease, destruction, whatever, they have to spend boatloads of money just to fix the problem and get everyone back on their feet; in this case, with the current system, only China's economy is directly affected (yes, there will be indirect effects, but those are minuscule by comparison). If that happens in the "global economy" thing, all countries are affected. Imagine if Canada were directly affected as a result of something stupid that happens in America. Is that what you want?

And why would a central world government mean peace? It would have to be immune from corruption, it would have to have a system in place to prevent abuse of power, and it would have to be exempt from surrogate rule (that is, a Shadow Government), perhaps by oligarchs that will then have access to a near-unlimited supply of taxes to fund whatever projects they wish. It would have to be void of economic uncertainty and be able to supply a job for everyone who wanted one. If you want to advocate a World Government, you need to realize what bad goes along with it, not just the good. I notice all of that is lacking from your argument.

@BeeAre: Yes, sorry, I keep getting distracted by bright shiny objects and when I come back I forget.

For example, you know that picture I showed you that I had commissioned? I got it printed out on a 16x20 glossy. It looks awesome. Now I just need to find a 16x20 frame that isn't $150. Isn't that awesome?

_________________

the transition to a one world government economically has the explicit problem being the local economies suffering due to the inefficiencies and natural lack of perfection in the system

logistically speaking, the only restrictions to aiding any given part of the world are the actual amount of resources available, if we have already made the transition. to say that other things like transportation costs or more particular idiosyncrasies (of say a cultural taboo as one example) are other problems is, in my humble opinion, to say effectively the same thing as the availability.

i'm not arguing with anyone at this point, i'm just curious myself as to the circumstances required lol o_O

to me, the things that RD is saying aren't all necessities to the functioning of the system.

i would agree that a total immunity to corruption would be useful, and to have that, i would just say that whatever hypothetical government exists (and imho it should be for any government today too) would need absolute transparency with every official action undertaken, with clear and described rules of conduct for every level and every word available, with no room for interpretation born from bias in the actual carrying out of duties. public debate would still be great, but whatever decision that was taken would have to be done in very obvious public movements.

i think that this first issue of transparency is one of the bigger ones...

Abuse and surrogation are difficult to conceive of in a government that literally does every action by a well-documented system...

Economic uncertainty though, that's effectively saying that people should be able to read the future to be able to have anything near a progressively ideal system, which i disagree with

while i understand that an economy of values continues under any system of society, money or not or what have you, i find it difficult to believe that there are complete (the key word, partially i'm sure you could find relationship) analogs for the personal exploitation of the whole of the system that goes on today.

if you remove the majority of the threat of personal exploitation injuring a great deal of people, by which i mean limiting someone's ability to impact any societal system so dramatically on their own, i really logically see it being pretty easy to give everyone who wanted to work some form of employment.

the more i read my own post, the more i notice that we're really close to a lot of what i've been asking for, without making too many major sacrifices that would injure so many people's fundamental way of living... however, we are still far away from realizing the completeness of this goal because the entirety of our system is poised on the edge of a knife, if you will. The anger and/or general malcontent of so few people can impact so many helpless to fight back against that decision.

i really have to ask: why do people continue to insist that the only reason they find personal motivation in things is the hopes that not only do they win, but that they make someone else lose? It seems like this fundamental philosophical issue! When you press right down to it, the argument tends to end up being some version of "well who would be motivated if the dream they have of being a rich king above everyone else cannot ever come true". As if day to day life must always assumed to be bad.

I disagree that it is realism, then, to say that I and people like me are ignoring bad. No, we really aren't. We are making a an active choice to seek out what we believe is a position outcome, just like anyone with real rational self-interest.

The only issue that I see as relevant then is the person who disagrees, and says, "No, that is awful, that I have to assume to look for good in order to be practical." That person would be making an active choice to decide that people are not good enough when they are cognizant, conscious, engaged, however you want to describe it; when they are aware, they are not good enough to be good.

IMHO that is self-depreciating and self-fulfilling.

I really cannot fathom someone who would try to make the truth that they understand about the world be the less positive outcome.

They say "because I can", usually. This is so strange to me. It stings as contrarian for the sake of itself.

Why do people insist that everyone cannot agree? Eventually, it becomes the issue that the only ones who won't agree are those who insist they can't.

I just cannot see a person making a decision and thinking that their goal is the ultimately better choice, unless they have an ultimately bad or negative view of the world.

That above all else, they must disagree, or there will be no disagreement. Proving a negative makes no one happy, makes no one satisfied, either.

I really feel, at that moment, depressed, because what can you say to a person who, for no other ultimate purpose but to disagree, disagrees with you? (And I mean not to you people here at all, I just mean the ultimate perspective of 'good' and 'evil')

I use the air quotes because I know people won't want to use those terms, but I cannot really see a more accurate way to describe them. Positive and Negative. Optimism and Pessimism.

That's why I keep bringing up this philosophical point when we go political. The ultimate or absolute weight of someone's opinion comes down to whether or not they will dare to hope for something that they believe is beneficial or not, and then, in that hope, acting to try and make that beneficial outcome come true.

The reason why I believe perspective is irrelevant in this discussion, the argument that "everyone believes in different goods and different evils" is because yes, you can make scenarios of contrast and dischord, but you have to go out of your way to make those scenarios dischordant. Without the intentional deviation from the general pattern of, shit not even morality or philosophy, but biology itself, the world of humanity has very familiar and harmonizing goals. And we have the capacity to use one another to help bring those goals. And this is speaking in nothing but evolutionary terms: If we keep each other alive, we can keep fucking, so there are more of us to keep fucking and keep being alive.

If we can agree on one thing, we can agree on everything, and the benefit of making the effort to try to just get started, to BEGIN to agree more and more for the sake of all of our goals, that explicitly, mathematically, even, is more 'valuable' than one person's goals alone.

It's a crap-out to say then that people won't be motivated to do anything if the system we have now changes to something more communist. it is saying that "so much bad will happen naturally that the system will, on its own, cease to function". That isn't what happened in Soviet Communism, and isn't what's happening in Chinese Communism at all, and neither of these was or is even near to being the complete expression of communism.

I dunno, I just genuinely believe cooperation is LOGICALLY more sound than competition, ultimately.

I'd want to hear some people's thoughts on this, maybe I am forgetting some obscure school of thought that dismisses my concerns of the 'potential moralities' of mankind.

I just figure, if we start looking to try and make people suffer less, we have to admit to ourselves that certain indulgences and appetites are counter-productive to the goal of making people suffer less. Some of the things we do as a species have to change. I believe that the ultimate act of capitalism, which has plenty of well-documented and better-argued cases against it describing its pathway to imperialism and tyranny (in exactly the ways ascribed TO communism by its detractors), the ultimate act of capitalism is, if not outright self-destructive or sadomasochistic as a species, then counter-intuitive to its progress. :\

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Obvious things indeed. Because ALL of Beck's viewers knew about the apology. So of course, Beck was by no means obliged to mention that in his talk. Honestly, you're interpreting my reply wrong, I'm not discussing whether what Beck says is true or not man, I'm discussing his "information delivery", which is pathetic and misguiding. A liar is not only a person who makes statements that are false, it's a person who hides or chooses to ignore some facts to drive their incomplete point across. What kind of news reporting is that? I mean, come on, you can see those out-of-context incomplete quotes yourself man. Am I to take it that when you watch this you think Sugar said all of these things exactly as presented. I mean, really?


I'll start listening to anybody who presents their information like a journalist, and not as Beck once called himself "(...) just an entertainer." Even now he makes some valid points, but hell, look at what he does on his show man, I don't watch it so let me look up a reference to one of his "performances".

Now how the hell can you take a clown like that serious? Even when he does happen to finally make a sound point? I take all media with a grain of salt.


@BR
You could make things clearer in your post man. Right now I'd say...
Things I learned when reading your post:
-Cooperation cannot exist alongside competition and vice versa. - Orly?
-All athletes taking part in the Olympics, all sportsmen and sports fans are evil people. - WAT?
-Companies that increase the quality of their products and services due to competition on the market are doing a bad thing. - WAT?
-It's better if all companies cooperate together creating one huge corporate structure (monopoly) than when they compete on their right to stay on the market. - WTF?
-There is no such thing as "healthy competition" and the term itself is void. - Orly?
-A governing system with "perfect equality" can be created. - No authority = anarchy. Authority = power over others. Learn to live with it, babe.
-Disagreement is a bad thing. - Said Big Brother.
-People who disagree just to question the truth slow down the progress of all mankind. - Or help us evaluate the truth further.
-Wanting more/better is a bad thing. - I'm afraid that's one of the primary motors driving our "progress" these days, my friend.
-People who disagree with your point of view are clearly bad and will slow you down in achieving your one and only "right" goal. - And here I thought most breakthroughs of the world came from intelligent people with different perspectives on things talking out their disagreements, and thus stimulating each other to perceive the case from each other's perspective, increasing each other's objectivity.
-There are set values of good and evil and you cannot disagree with other people on them unless you're mean and just want to. - I do think that by all means perspective is VERY relevant to the discussion.

Finally, BR. I think what you need is to understand, embrace, and make peace with one truth.
People are different! In all ways and meanings of that statement. Some of them are twisted in your perspective, there is no ultimate right or wrong, there is no ultimate good future or bad future. Different people, different points of view, different tastes, different ways of thinking. That's why you cannot just put them all equal and say "live in peace and harmony". Because they are too different from one another. And THAT, was the main problem all communist governments came across in the past. And one of the main reasons they failed. Because they failed to embrace that people cannot all be counted and measured with the same tape, and treated all equally.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

An oligarchy is an economic monopoly where the majority of a market is controlled by two competitors, either singular companies, or trusts. See cola.

An oligarhy is an eonomi monopoly where the majority of a market is ontrolled by two ompetitors, either singular ompanies, or trustss. See ola.

_________________
Escape will make me God.