Arguing with Rush is like mud-wrestling with a pig. After a while you are getting dirty and you realize that you'll never win and the pig is really enjoying it.

---

Oops - me and English abbreviations: Thanks Google I know NOW that DPRK means the Democratic Peoples Republic of (Northern) Korea. And - no, I am not thinking that what their dictator does is right. He also decided to spend more money for "defense" than for the people. So his people starve while billions of Dollars are thrown away for weapons. Insane!

I think when choosing the candidates for any higher political post, they should always search for the most righteous, the most incorruptible, the most reliable and most unselfish persons they can find to talk them into doing this job. May be even with some tests to find out how reliable and righteous and incorruptible and unselfish these persons really are.

But I also think that most company managers, especially the bosses of "Global player" companies , are the most unpatriotic people I ever heard about. They're only interested in money and in making even more money. they're even worse than the famous Scrooge. People or their own home country, and even the host country of their dependencies do only count as a "business factor" in the best, as a disturbance in the worst case. There are the absolute wrong people in such positions.

---

Account frozen...

Oops - me and English abbreviations: Thanks Google I know NOW that DPRK means the Democratic Peoples Republic of (Northern) Korea. And - no, I am not thinking that what their dictator does is right. He also decided to spend more money for "defense" than for the people. So his people starve while billions of Dollars are thrown away for weapons. Insane!

You think it's insane and so do I. But he doesn't. He would think your plan is insane too. But that's how the system you like works.

I think when choosing the candidates for any higher political post, they should always search for the most righteous, the most incorruptible, the most reliable and most unselfish persons they can find to talk them into doing this job. May be even with some tests to find out how reliable and righteous and incorruptible and unselfish these persons really are.

Which isn't how it works. People vote for politicians based on how much they think that pol agrees with them... in taking money from others to spend it on things those others would never have spent it on themselves. Sometimes you get a little education, mostly you get a lot of waste, fraud, and weapons systems. They are free to do so, which means you vote for the health care people. Others vote for the nuclear weapons people. The system is the same, you just disagree on where to spend the money you took from people.

But I also think that most company managers, especially the bosses of "Global player" companies , are the most unpatriotic people I ever heard about. They're only interested in money and in making even more money. they're even worse than the famous Scrooge. People or their own home country, and even the host country of their dependencies do only count as a "business factor" in the best, as a disturbance in the worst case. There are the absolute wrong people in such positions.

This is just silly. It's their job. They are hired by the shareholders and they have a fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders. Not to you, or Nepal, or Germany, to the owners of the company. They are hired to do the best that they can to return a profit on the money that the shareholders invested into the company. Nothing more. They don't care what you think, you aren't willing to do their job, nor are you willing (it seems) to invest in the company and run it as you see fit. No one is stopping you.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

But I also think that most company managers, especially the bosses of "Global player" companies , are the most unpatriotic people I ever heard about. They're only interested in money and in making even more money. they're even worse than the famous Scrooge. People or their own home country, and even the host country of their dependencies do only count as a "business factor" in the best, as a disturbance in the worst case. There are the absolute wrong people in such positions.

This is just silly. It's their job. They are hired by the shareholders and they have a fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders. Not to you, or Nepal, or Germany, to the owners of the company. They are hired to do the best that they can to return a profit on the money that the shareholders invested into the company. Nothing more. They don't care what you think, you aren't willing to do their job, nor are you willing (it seems) to invest in the company and run it as you see fit. No one is stopping you.

Nothing against people who are eager to hold everything together, who manage that a company makes enough turnover. But methinks that most of those managers simply forget WHO is producing the money they shovel around. It's sometimes as if they believe that the money just were producing new money, that they didn't need any employees who do the work. Corrupted by their office, I would say.

---

Account frozen...

Which, again, is just collectivism.

Ephesians 2:1-3

And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind ( The Collective ).

Sorry... I just couldn't help myself... Carry on......................... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Nothing against people who are eager to hold everything together, who manage that a company makes enough turnover. But methinks that most of those managers simply forget WHO is producing the money they shovel around. It's sometimes as if they believe that the money just were producing new money, that they didn't need any employees who do the work. Corrupted by their office, I would say.

Maybe, but this is just your opinion about people whom you know nothing about. You will be right about some of them, you will be wrong about some of them. They don't care either way. C'est le vie.

Had you said this right from the beginning, I never would have commented.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

This kind of person is in some ways a victim. They've been trained to think this way. It is a view of economics that adores fascism. Fascism is the government control over an economy without always 'owning' this process. They merely command it by law. This type of behaviour is well documented and historic. It is still a commonality in these threads with certain contributors.

But I also think that most company managers, especially the bosses of "Global player" companies , are the most unpatriotic people I ever heard about. They're only interested in money and in making even more money. they're even worse than the famous Scrooge. People or their own home country, and even the host country of their dependencies do only count as a "business factor" in the best, as a disturbance in the worst case. There are the absolute wrong people in such positions.

This is just silly. It's their job. They are hired by the shareholders and they have a fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders. Not to you, or Nepal, or Germany, to the owners of the company. They are hired to do the best that they can to return a profit on the money that the shareholders invested into the company. Nothing more. They don't care what you think, you aren't willing to do their job, nor are you willing (it seems) to invest in the company and run it as you see fit. No one is stopping you.

Nothing against people who are eager to hold everything together, who manage that a company makes enough turnover. But methinks that most of those managers simply forget WHO is producing the money they shovel around. It's sometimes as if they believe that the money just were producing new money, that they didn't need any employees who do the work. Corrupted by their office, I would say.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Oh....and just for kicks and giggles. Only a couple of us post comments in favor of freedoms. The other couple of posters posted dissenting views from one side or another. One side believes religion should be in control of these affairs. The other side believes that government should control all of these spheres of life.

Interesting that these are really the same ideas in meaning.

I believe YOU should control and make these decisions.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

You may be destructive, selfish, and primitive. But I'm not. No one I know is either.

You might want to spend a little time browsing through your post history... ;)

*ROFLMAO*

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

Humans, good grief, you make it sound like a good thing.
Let your parents and children die, and the bloke next door, and the people in other countries as well, it's your right.

Drop tonnes of explosives on people in other countries while letting people in your own country die from lack of basic medical care. Just don't act suprised when they don't like it. (Any of them)

The only thing that really matters is that when you die you have enough money to bring you back to life for another 15 minutes so you can sign another contract.

Under no circumstances should you share any of your good fortune with anyone else ... It might make them happy.

Pollute my planet because you can't gather the energy to walk to the shops, drive your gas guzzler instead. It's your "God given right".

Keep your lights turned on 24/7 someone is making money from that.

But stop talking to me about "rights" ... You are part of the herd and if you behave in a way that is detrimental to the herd eventualy you will be culled.

Now it's time to die ... "Blade runner"

Your a Genius right back at ya!

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

How come that right wing christians never can spell Jesus?

Jeebus, is everything just unthinking political ideology with you? Did it ever cross your mind that there is more to the world than your empty ideas about it?

Here in Germany, there was a report about a guy who is currently hassled by the authorities because he uses his rights: he consequently splits his garbage, buys only recyclable stuff - finally he "produces" enough junk to fill half a bucket of garbage per year. But he is supposed to pay for a container and a weekly garbage collection like everyone, which he disagrees. So the garbage collection company sued him to accept the container and to pay for its collection. In this report a representative of this company said: "Garbage splitting - okay, but if anyone did it like this man, where would this lead to?!"

But this is what you seem to beg for—the collective (i.e. gov’t) to take care of you. But the collective fails (even worse) if individuals aren’t forced to participate. Now, if it were just a free market system, he could just pay whatever collection company he chose to take his stuff away. The collective that people begged for destroyed his individual rights, sacrificed them to the collective.

Here also more money is given for military stuff by the government than for human needs like health care or for education. I can't understand why killing people (and weapons are built for killing) should be more important than welfare, healing or teaching. I think life and health and education are much much more important than military stuff, so - logically - there should be spent more money for them.

But once again, you seem to beg for the collective to take care of you. If you can understand why you think for yourself that social programs are more important than “killing people,” you can understand why other free thinking people think it is more important to provide for national defense—to protect the very country that provides those social programs. And, since the only standard is who at any given time can convince some politicians to take some more dough from other people to pay for their pet programs, sometimes you get health care, sometimes you get weapons systems. That is the system you support. You just disagree about what to spend the stealin's on.

When I see this Euro-Fighter junk: they spent billions for its development, and sold full-functioning MiG29 Fulcrum and other modern military stuff to Poland and other countries for one single Euro a piece! An entire fighter jet, fueled and armed, for € 1,-! Can you dig that? Are they nuts? I think they are. Totally.

This often happens with beater and obsolete military systems. Those planes aren’t worth much, but the repair parts, upgrades, and servicing contracts are worth FAR more. They dump the plane for 1 Euro to get the maintenance contracts. That's just business.

If I were in charge, I would totally change the priorities in spending tax money: the main part for the people (R&D; cost-free education, cost-free health-care, better welfare, security; state-wide tariffs for each profession: that the same job with the same responsibilities and difficulties is paid with the same salary everywhere in Germany); at most half of the remaining budget for military stuff, and nothing as present for those who already have enough.

Then you simply become Stalin. Or Mr. DPRK. You become the dictator you seem to dislike. Why? Because people disagree with your empty ideas. There is no such think as “cost-free education,” or “cost-free health-care.” Or “cost free” anything. Poor Soviet citizens paid dearly to finance your flat. That money was taken from them, by force, to make your flat cheaper. Similarly, other money was taken from you, to finance all the collective crap that you are crabbing about. For example, the collectivized garbage hauling you bitch about above.

I simply can not understand how it's possible that each worker and employee has to pay taxes - which is a lot compared to the income, while huge companies which count their wins in Millions per month do not have to pay even one single cent! And worse: they even get money from the government! How sick is that? Workers financing their own job via taxes, or what?
It would be just if EVERY legal entity and legal person had to pay taxes according to their income: the more income, the more taxes to pay. The more you have, the more you have to give - also taxes. But reality shows that those who have much income pay less taxes (in percentage of their income) than those who have less income. Blatant injustice.

Sheesh is this empty. This is very simple: corporations do not pay taxes. Ever. Nothing. Zero. Individuals pay every single cent of corporate tax. Charge the corp 5%, charge them 100%, it doesn’t matter, individual citizens pay every penny. Taxes on corporations are just another cost. Take Nike for example. To make shoes, they add of the cost of the labor, the overhead, the leather, the rubber, and the laces, and whatnot and determine the price of the shoes. If you tax them, that tax just becomes another cost, added directly to the cost of the shoes, just like leather. Which means that individual citizens pay every cent. Since tax rates are set for all corps, every shoe company has to do the same thing. So if you charge them 30%, Nike raises their shoe price by 30%, but so does Reebok, Puma, and everyone else. The price jumps by the exact amount of the tax, just as it does for the amount of rubber or laces or whatever.

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

And now you are inviting Graeme to swim with you and you guys are going to wear guns? Kinky! But as Graeme knows, guns don't work well in water.

You're never gunna hack it in a village rush.

I never had any intention of "hack[ing] it in a village," Graeme.

You keep your guns out of my face and I'll keep mine out of yours and we'll get along swimmingly... 8^]

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

Stop hurting my stomach:-)

Which, again, is just collectivism.

Ephesians 2:1-3

And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind ( The Collective ).

Sorry... I just couldn't help myself... Carry on......................... ;)

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

R/B wrote:

Oh....and just for kicks and giggles. Only a couple of us post comments in favor of freedoms. The other couple of posters posted dissenting views from one side or another. One side believes religion should be in control of these affairs. The other side believes that government should control all of these spheres of life.

Interesting that these are really the same ideas in meaning.

I believe YOU should control and make these decisions.

AFAIK freedom is not: "Do what you want and do not care about others". That's too similar to what LaVey was preaching. Or rather: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"?

But freedom IS:
Wikipedia wrote:

* the ability to act in accordance with the dictates of reason;
* the ability to act in accordance with one's own true self or values;
* the ability to act in accordance with universal values (such as the True and the Good); and
* the ability to act independently of both the dictates of reason and the urges of desires, i.e. arbitrarily (autonomously).

So even my suggestions were in accordance with this definition of freedom: to act in accordance with universal values (here: equity / justice)

Of course my thought about caring for the general public as a duty for every-one depending on their abilities is a part of my ideological heritage, but I think it's a good principle. Humans are social beings, so the social conditions are a matter of every part of the society - even of the companies and corporations.

---

Account frozen...

But Kant has been thoroughly bashed on the front of Universal values a long time ago. What is universal is just culturally derived from common practice in the beforementioned culture. For instance it is okay for an american leader to be pro executions, but that is not okay for a european leader since in europe consensus is against the procedure. So for that there is no universal value. And I would be seriously surprised if you or anyone else could come up with something that is a universal value, because that would also have to be TRUE for ALL.
Normally here a swede for instance will come up with that it is a universal value to not spank children. An american will come up with that it is not okay to eat children. Most cultures will come up with that sex is not okay with children. But there is probably somewhere out there a spanking cannibalistic pedophile who will go "Oh yeah! Says who?".
So the only viable option is to say "that freedom is the abillity to live by the majority values". Which is actually the system behind most cultures way of instigating laws. But it is not TRUE freedom in every sense of the word. And thusly true freedom is a chimera sought after by lesser souls without contact with reallity.

R/B wrote:

Oh....and just for kicks and giggles. Only a couple of us post comments in favor of freedoms. The other couple of posters posted dissenting views from one side or another. One side believes religion should be in control of these affairs. The other side believes that government should control all of these spheres of life.

Interesting that these are really the same ideas in meaning.

I believe YOU should control and make these decisions.

AFAIK freedom is not: "Do what you want and do not care about others". That's too similar to what LaVey was preaching. Or rather: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"?

But freedom IS:
Wikipedia wrote:

* the ability to act in accordance with the dictates of reason;
* the ability to act in accordance with ]b]one's own true self or values[/b];
* the ability to act in accordance with universal values (such as the True and the Good); and
* the ability to act independently of both the dictates of reason and the urges of desires, i.e. arbitrarily (autonomously).

So even my suggestions were in accordance with this definition of freedom: to act in accordance with universal values (here: equity / justice)

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

But Kant has been thoroughly bashed on the front of Universal values a long time ago. What is universal is just culturally derived from common practice in the beforementioned culture. For instance it is okay for an american leader to be pro executions, but that is not okay for a european leader since in europe consensus is against the procedure. So for that there is no universal value. And I would be seriously surprised if you or anyone else could come up with something that is a universal value, because that would also have to be TRUE for ALL.

Surprise: Truth, Righteousness, Reliability are three out of many universal values which are appreciated in every culture.

Normally here a swede for instance will come up with that it is a universal value to not spank children. An american will come up with that it is not okay to eat children. Most cultures will come up with that sex is not okay with children. But there is probably somewhere out there a spanking cannibalistic pedophile who will go "Oh yeah! Says who?".

IMHO a too exaggerated example to be taken serious.

So the only viable option is to say "that freedom is the abillity to live by the majority values". Which is actually the system behind most cultures way of instigating laws. But it is not TRUE freedom in every sense of the word. And thusly true freedom is a chimera sought after by lesser souls without contact with reallity.

Sad that you are believing this. I think that many of the people who don't wish to see (and even fight for) a better world are just slaves of greed and envy or of ignorance.

---

Account frozen...

But Kant has been thoroughly bashed on the front of Universal values a long time ago. What is universal is just culturally derived from common practice in the beforementioned culture. For instance it is okay for an american leader to be pro executions, but that is not okay for a european leader since in europe consensus is against the procedure. So for that there is no universal value. And I would be seriously surprised if you or anyone else could come up with something that is a universal value, because that would also have to be TRUE for ALL.

Surprise: Truth, Righteousness, Reliability are three out of many universal values which are appreciated in every culture.

Is truth really universal? And what is truth? For instance an author who is writing a fictional book is not stating something that is in a strict sense true, but it is still upheld in many societies as something good. The theory behind a nuclear bomb is in many ways TRUE, but most people do not see it as something "good".The only things that are universally true is well-formed formal sentence logic. Some mathematicians do not agree on this and says that mathematics in a closed system based on mathematical logics is also true.
Righteousness? Whose righteousness are you talking about? George Bush certainly believe that he is that. You do so, and so does many others. Problem is that their definition of it is not the same. I do not think I am righteous, I know I am not. So that can't be universal.
Reliability? If that was something universal, how come then that most things and people break when either the warranty or the contract has run out, the rest break their reliabality thingy before that date.

Normally here a swede for instance will come up with that it is a universal value to not spank children. An american will come up with that it is not okay to eat children. Most cultures will come up with that sex is not okay with children. But there is probably somewhere out there a spanking cannibalistic pedophile who will go "Oh yeah! Says who?".

IMHO a too exaggerated example to be taken serious.

Yes it is exaggerated, but obviously you couldn't prove it wrong.

So the only viable option is to say "that freedom is the abillity to live by the majority values". Which is actually the system behind most cultures way of instigating laws. But it is not TRUE freedom in every sense of the word. And thusly true freedom is a chimera sought after by lesser souls without contact with reallity.

Sad that you are believing this. I think that many of the people who don't wish to see (and even fight for) a better world are just slaves of greed and envy or of ignorance.

And now you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Stop doing that. I find that it is a large infringement on my personal freedom that your doing.

I do fight for a better world in more ways than you would understand. But that does not make me into a such an idealistic person that I do not see how the world is. By better understanding it I can actually do more.
Question: What have you done personally to make the world a better place for other people without being egoistic while doing it?
Answer: Nothing. (And I can prove it)

You are well meaning young man. But you are seriously lacking in knowledge. I suggest that you study philosophy to get your argumentation straightened out. Because you are right now just reinventing a wheel that was finnished in constructing more than 2000 years ago. And if I might add, it is fun like heck to study philosophy, but not easy.
If you want to read up some more I suggest John Rawls "A Theory of Justice". I found that book really good.

Carl

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

How come that right wing christians never can spell Jesus?

I'm not right wing or an Xtian, neither did I even attempt to spell "Jesus."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

How come that right wing christians never can spell Jesus?

I'm not right wing or an Xtian, neither did I even attempt to spell "Jesus."

On the other hand, I can't spell Msuic.
Just one question though, are you aware that some of your writings come forward as a tad right wing?

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

AFAIK freedom is not: "Do what you want and do not care about others".

I don't know how else you would define it. That doesn't mean that there aren't restrictions on freedom--reality imposes some real behemoths. Freedom is defined in context, derived from axioms or principles.

It does not mean that one must "care about others." Which others? Close family? Bill Gates? Some guy in the Sudan that you don't even know exists?

So even my suggestions were in accordance with this definition of freedom: to act in accordance with universal values (here: equity / justice)

There is no universal value of equity or justice, you would have to define how you mean them, defining the principles you use to do so.

Of course my thought about caring for the general public as a duty for every-one depending on their abilities is a part of my ideological heritage, but I think it's a good principle.

Hence the dilemma. A) You note your ideology, B) I do not think it's a good "principle," C) imposing a "duty" on others is inconsistent with freedom.

Humans are social beings, so the social conditions are a matter of every part of the society - even of the companies and corporations.

Sure. But if you can understand why you wouldn't want the social aspects of say, the Klan, or WHISC imposed upon you, you can understand why others don't want your ideas of "duty" imposed upon them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...