The Bear's Key

My god that didn't even occur to me! I've caught plenty of grownups naked when a kid, and yet was more "harmed" by other stuff that is perfectly legal in the social world. If convicted on the misdemeanor charge, he would face up to one year in jail... A person's minding their own business going about everyday life and suddenly can kiss one year of that life goodbye -- a whole year (5,840 slow hours) abruptly taken from one's daily schedule, work earnings, family time, projects, relationships, and other life variables, just because some unknown person's offended by a nosy glimpse while cutting inapproprately through the yard -- without the accuser giving even a blink of thought to how severely the accusation can disrupt the relevant person's life. It's no wonder there's lots of people I've found disregarding "Tough on Crime" mentalities as a joke, or detesting the law. How about instead being Tough on Nonsense?

Dunno, they seem to have Fox News on at places where there's either a line or waiting involved: banks, doctor offices. Part of a marketing strategy? It's enough time so casual listeners might go "hey, I didn't know that about Obama's (insert Fox distortion) or the healthcare bill is (death panel fabrications)" -- and if they do believe it without investigative mentality, and later at home they pass Fox News on a channel surf and pause for longer glimpses, soon they might become outraged at the unbelievable "revelations" (or "facts") so after a weeks/months of it...voila! a new convert.

It'd be nice if more polls had a "Yes and No (explain)" option. That's why I picked "just felt like voting" I must agree with Severian. However a news agency is more for reporting news, and less for commentary/attacks. Even with MSNBC's dedication of time to political commentary I'm bothered as well. Yes it's awesome when they do expose outright lies and twisted propaganda using fact-checking and verifiable methods, but they don't need to counter-attack the sources of propaganda themselves -- as it's really not a news organization's first duty. Granted, I became thrilled when Keith Olbermann helped break the grip of fear that major networks had for reporting on Bush Admin's negatives and crimes, yet mostly for the reason that such fear by news is dangerous. I'd rather they be such a media antidote to Fox Tabloids (and other propagandas) on a whatever other channel they so desired -- except a news channel obviously. No, there wasn't -- at least no reporting abuses until it was too late for meaningful investigations...and his re-election. Yes. What Obama can do instead of attacking... Perhaps list the Fox inaccuracies side by side with the real legislative proposals. Invite any Fox weasel to a real, independently moderated debate. Verify? Ditto? On a related note. I think it helps discussion to show a bit of proof when making claims, via a link or whatnot. I've bolded some things as examples in the posts below.

How about an expiration date set and printed on such money? That way, it's only good for so long and then it's gone from the system. I'll elaborate further after work, sometime tomorrow likely.

For ease of reference as the points are immediately viewable on entering the thread. The other got too cluttered with irrelevancy. Also, I'm doing something different that what iNow perhaps had in mind. Just wanted to give him credit for introducing the video though.

Off to work, but I've jotted down some highlights in the vid. They're seeds for many great points of discussion, I believe. Also, thanks to iNow for posting the link and twice making the effort for discussion. I'm posting as a new thread because I don't want to discuss the video itself, but rather many of the variables within that seem to help explain our political and suboptimal reality. Of course a video doesn't have footnotes or inline citations, something I wish possible to make it easier to research and/or verify what's said. I'll return to finish up on the rest. The material below's plenty good enough for now.... Referring to Alan Greenspan... 3:04 The man behind the curtain. The Wizard of Oz" 3:44 "Very few people wanted to take him on or challenge him, because he knew so much more than they did. And if he didn't, he certainly appeared to." Referring to free marketers in the Clinton Administration... 7:47 [Clinton] "asked Robert Rubin to serve as assistant to the President for economic policy" 8:25 "At the White House, and as Treasury Secretary, Rubin found an unlikely ally. Clinton had asked Alan Greenspan to stay on." "Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan were very much in lockstep. They had very similar views on Wall Street. It boiled down to the less regulation the better." 8:48 "And Reuben populated the Clinton Administration with a network of free market true believers." "It wasn't just Rubin and Greenspan who were these free market acolytes. That thinking pervaded the Treasury and the White House." 9:39 "Together, Greenspan Rubin and Summers formed their own pro-business, anti-regulation support group." -- "The Committe to Save the World, according to the Time Magazine cover" "These are the people we turn to at that moment. Who together, all three in a way, say 'Trust us'" Referring to fraud indifference... 16:13 "[Greenspan] said something to the effect of...'We're never going to agree on fraud'...You probably think there should be rules against it....I think the market will figure it out...and take care of the fraudsters." 16:56 [*]"Greenspan didn't believe that fraud was something that needed to be enforced" 18:01 "[brooksley Born] starts to realize that there's this whole world out there of what are called 'over the counter derivatives', that are essentially unregulated....it's not even that they're unregulated, it's that the government doesn't even know what's going on" 18:29 "On Wall Street they described it as a black box. Only the parties involved in a deal knew what was happening." 18:48 "Derivatives; swaps -- basically bets between companies and banks laying off risk." "Derivatives in essence are insurance policies that various players on Wall Street enter into to protect themselves from unforeseen calamities." "It was a 27 trillion dollar market happening out of sight, inside a black box. "...plenty of room for fraud." Referring to a millions of $$ swindle... 19:56 "In 1993, Bankers Trust, one of the largest banks in the country at the time, had sold derivatives to Procter & Gamble." "Procter & Gamble sued Bankers Trust, claiming that they had been sold products that they didn't really understand -- and that blew up in their face." "Bankers Trust employees took advantage of the fact that derivatives were too complicated to understand." "As part of the case, Procter & Gamble discovered secret audiotape recordings of telephone calls between Bankers Trust brokers." "There was one employee who described the business as a wet dream. A Bankers Trust employee said 'we set 'em up'" "They had taped phone calls from people inside Bankers Trust who were sort of chuckling, saying 'huh huh, these idiots really think that this is really in their best interest...huh, huh, it's not. We're probably going to end up cleaning their clocks on these contracts." "It had all happened in secret." Referring to secret threats... 21:24 "Looking inside Wall Street's black box was impossible for Born, or indeed any other government regulator." "There was no record-keeping requirement imposed on participants in the market. There was no reporting. We had no information" "There's no way really for the government or anyone else to know how many of these are out there, know how big a market it is, and know who owns them and who owes who money, because it's just a bunch of contracts in file cabinets in the lawyers offices of banks and hedge funds all over the world." "Trillions of dollars, and the biggest banks in the country operating in secret. If something went terribly wrong, the high stakes derivatives market could take down the entire financial system." "You have one big institution that fails, it can't pay its obligations, it forces somebody else into a dangerous territory of can't pay their obligations, pretty soon it's a falling domino effect through the economy." Referring to a stacked deck... 26:03 "That puzzled me [born]. What was it that was in this market, that had to be hidden? Why did it have to be a completely dark market. So it made me very suspicious and troubled." "Born's agency was legally independent. She reported to the President. Rubin had no authority over her." "To stop her, he would call upon his allies who sat with him on a secretive council known as The President's Working Group." "The President's Working Group was the most influential White House body on financial policy." "It was a committee hand-picked by Bob Rubin." "Larry Summers attended. So did Alan Greenspan. And the chairman of the SEC, Authur Levitt. By executive order, the head of the CFTC [brooksley Born] also attended." "Rubin, Summers, and Greenspan had a great deal of faith in their own intellects. And, I think they were not welcoming of somebody who looked at the world different and was kind of abrasive."

Your conclusion there seems off quite a bit. Wouldn't it really be about controlling the scope of propaganda that's liberally () repeated by others after being shown inconclusive, false, or questionable? You'll notice more are dissecting or revealing the sources of propaganda than are cheerleading the manifesto of an organization. For example, can you pinpoint where any member has cheerleaded keynesian economics? (use search function). Here's a revelation: most anyone who's mentioned it (keynesian economics) usually seems to be conservative. 21 posts total (22 now ). What do you suppose is the reason for that? Yet upon searching "austrian" we find most of the 32 relevant posts before August '09 were by conservative supporting members....once again (however that's been reversed the past 3 months, I'd guess when people decided to not let the Autrian myth go unchallenged any longer). Do explain that...if we indeed push agendas. The only thing I sense being pushed by us is the dissection/exposure of falsities that usually skew perceptions in mass quantity and/or unsubstantiated attacks vs science. How do you know they haven't, or don't practice it continually? I've researched the "Austrian" philosophy long before seeing it mentioned on these forums, as I do various political and economic thoughts. Surely others have too. Also, the "BNP on question time" posts led me to read their 54 page manifesto and do other research. Surprisingly, they didn't piss me off even with their racism -- so I had to ponder the difference why between them and normal politicians. Fairly simply: honesty. Even though I wouldn't vote for them ever in a million years, they didn't seem to be luring voters for another unmentioned purpose. And minus the racism and crude goals, a few of their other points would easily fit under Republican or Democrat. As one example: they look to strengthen both unions and industry while viewing each as potential harms. Don't you think others here do the same? I/m confident that yes, but why not just ask people to find out instead of assuming? This is the problem, when you're labeling those with different views as opponents to us. But do we view them as such? Or are you just assuming? The real opponents to me are the falsehoods/propaganda sources way at the top, not the ones who come away believers. If that's really so, why has the poll on "bailouts a good idea" received just one answer since it was posted three days ago? No flood of "hell yeah!" responses there. Could it be possible you're hung up on descriptions of a supposed "opposition" twisted by the noise media to see what's actually going on? I haven't voted in the thread because my choice isn't listed: "Yes, only because we had no choice, however to keep it standard practice is a terrible idea, plus I'm angry theiving companies received so much government $$." Oh it has depth, as indicated by the volumes of writings dedicated to the subject. It just lacks evidence. And perhaps substance -- no offense. It's definitely has its own internal consistency, but so does Magic the Gathering (comprehensive ruleset about 169 pages of flawlessly intertwined variables). Yet how would the "Austrian" system's consistency fare in the outer (and) real world? It's possible to find out. But judging how the economic problems stemmed from lack of oversight, why not go experiment elsewhere? http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/09/floating.cities.seasteading/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Patri Friedman, a former Google engineer who now works for the Seasteading Institute, said floating cities are the perfect places to experiment with new forms of government. ........ "The idea isn't just about getting away from rules or getting rid of rules. It's about a system that encourages experimentation with different political systems," he said. Can't speak for iNow or anyone really, yet I bet they'd agree central banking is f*d up -- however the usually promoted cure includes the old tired song of massive deregulation and tax cuts. So it's no wonder the response isn't even lukewarm. A difference I see is that the more liberal crowd is willing to mix different philosophies... Sure have tax cuts, although more for utilitarian fulfillments, and less for political allies or super rich businesses -- or let citizens vote which get the tax cuts or not. Definitely help industry thrive, but keep an eye on their activities. Yes shrink government waste, by flashing a clear and permanent spotlight on its acitivities thus exposing the waste. Also, I laid out my views before which included no longer needing the Federal Reserve -- and no one challenged, even though some of the points were quite different from the norm. ....a company likely to cause system-wide market distress and/or crashes upon failure should be taxed accordingly, as insurance policy for society so we can let the company fail without need for bailouts, the Federal Reserve, or panic. Some of my other views are simply... No thieves controlling our government. A root problem is any leadership's secrecy and obfuscation. Government and business systems can each be innovative/effective or lousy/corrupt -- and it's only a handful of people responsible for either. Hopefully you can agree that a free market solves none of those.

[Cap'n Refsmmat, I was in the middle of a response but the thread closed. I'm posting it with the hope this is of enough substance. If you disagree, you're free to remove it obviously and I won't repost] It's too bad ParanoiA, you're one of my favorite members in this section. And really you should investigate back as iNow suggested, a few months perhaps to get better context. Here's what abskebabs responded to. It's certainly not an insult.... Originally posted by iNow Not too "crucial" to fail, but too "big." They are big precisely due to the lack of regulation. Finally, we're not a pure free market, nor will we ever be. You continue to argue using a constantly shaped and sized spherical cow in an attempt to describe the set of all mammals, which are themselves constantly evolving. In other words, your idealized case is too far removed from reality to be useful. I think people got slightly condescending and emotional, but they didn't really cut people down as you say. For example, people (abskebabs included) did somewhat manage to criticize the argument instead of the person (in bold)... Originally posted by abskebabs Equally, I find your responses to demonstrate very little critical reasoning or thought with regard to the concepts under discussion. You're right we entirely disagree. I brought up mercantillism precisely to respond to your claims about credit being the alleged lifeblood of the economy; a treacherous half-truth at best. You seem to miss the point that liquidation would have brought about massive deflation.... I also would like to apologise for being rude eariler. The nature of what I've seen discussed on this forum lately, from defenses of marxism to utter blindly naive defenses of current economic policy has really ruffled my feathers. (Plus he apologized. Commendable gesture) Originally posted by iNow I find your responses myopic, and rather frustrating. You are arguing on premises that are unconnected with reality, and then attacking others when they point out where your assumptions are flawed. Obviously, this is indicative of the fact that your arguments cannot stand on their own merits. abskebabs has demonstrated expertise only within a narrow *view* of economics, casting aside whatever doesn't fit that narrow view. Doubtful. abskebabs says lots of things, but the only evidence is a link to a biased source -- or unsupported claims which I doubt anyone here can relate to, much less visualize in life. For example, here's one claim abskebabs made... Originally posted by abskebabs As I tried to point out, this would not culminate in a complete collapse of either the financial sector or the economy. There were plenty of smaller banks ready to take the place of the failing ones. Where? And how do you verify those banks would actually be ready and not have been dominoes-effected away? Take the hands-off market crowd's word for it? No thanks. Great word to bring up, to construct an example from. Let's say a member's expertise was in a form of anarchy, insisting that our problems are counfounded by laws, so then we make new laws to handle the resulting problems, which instead just magnifies the number and severity of problems. So in the end what's really needed is to completely eliminate all laws, as the population is self-correcting. Anyone who'd behave inappropriately or hazardously towards others suffers the consequences, and therefore beneficial people remain. The true destabilizer here is the lawful system, and unless we can dissolve all laws you'll never see the real potential. How is that different whatsoever from the normal claims about total deregulation?

coberst's replies can still be automated to seem as if not a bot. I'm of the opinion all coberst's threads should be outright deleted. You agree, coberst? If so (or not), give us a seven word answer using your name in the sentence.

Actually, I wasn't. Solely things in need of reasonable oversight. However, what you mention above is sometimes true yet only part of it. Let's add to the mix behemoth-sized mergers/consolidations, price fixing, insider trading, bribing key government officials, lobbying power, and secretive/unlawful interference against new competition. There we have a much clearer picture. Now as for your claim, here's something on which I'd like to hear your opinion: Who's actually more responsible for the instances when giant banks and their industrial clients make out like thieves?.... 1. Business -- with its semi-unchecked and powerful influence over government lawmaking? Or, 2. would it be government for not having the appropriate safeguards to prevent this from occuring?

I'm certainly not talking about disputes between operators/partnerships. Rather I'm talking about valid grievances by everyday people who are victims of an organization's possible abuses. Correct. And it's best that you remember such in the future. Ironic just how backwards you've gotten it. The wealth has already long been redistributed, most of it funneled to a handful of people. It'd simply be healthy economically to craft as many opportunities for undoing that redistribution a bit.

I too definitely agree with Severian's point. And you make a good case also. I take it one step further and offer that it depends entirely on the child and parent, where more nurture is favorable to positive growth while for another child, more strictness is favorable to positive growth, with the qualifiers that punishment dealt with anger is far inferior to punishment dealt with calm and explained respectfully, and that nurture in the form of allowing the child to walk all over you and be persistently in control is far inferior to a nurture that successfully establishes the parent as boss in a mutually respectful manner. Of course, there are situations where the child's growth isn't noticeably hindered by the less optimal approaches, however I believe that's inherent to the child's natural physiology, along with external influences that are difficult to pinpoint/quantify. Easy then. A company/organization is a group of people...not an individual. Therefore in cases where many random people or one citizen is being treated harmfully and/or unconstitutionally, the rights of each individual (citizen) overrides the rights of any larger organized group.

Or maybe you're...incorrecto? Check out the spanish words for "liberal" translated in english-to-spanish: http://translate.google.com/translate_t#en|es|liberal Now from the list of spanish words appearing on the right, translate each back to english one at a time. You'll find they all mean just what our english version specifies. And on review of the word's history, the same applies... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberal c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823. More roots of the word's origins (from all etymology books at the library)... The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988) liberal adj Probably before 1350, befitting free men, noble, generous; ..... Cognates of Latin liber are found in Greek eleutheros free (originally) belonging to the people, of genuine tribal stock, ..... The sense of free from prejudice, tolerant, is first recorded in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-88), followed by the political sense of favoring constitutional change and legal reforms in 1801. The latter was probably borrowed into English from French libéral, attested in 1750 with the sense of favorable to individual political freedoms. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1986) liberal pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; (of political opinion) XIX. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966) liberal pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; of political opinion XIX (opp. to Conservative, Tory) 1801. Dictionary of Word Origins (Joseph T Shipley) (1945, 2nd Ed.) liberal See liberty. ........ liberty The L. word for free is liber; the noun, libertas (whence Eng. liberty), the adj., liberalis. Thus the liberal arts are those befitting a free man. But Latin liber, libr—, originally the bark of a tree, came to mean book (see Bible); whence L. librarius, whence Fr. libraire, librarie, whence Eng. librarian, library. The diminutive of L. liber, book, is libellus, little book, whence Eng. libel; but since pamphlets, from Elizabethan England on, were full of scurrilous attacks, the name was transferred from the booklet to its contents. Liberty does not permit libel—though from the freed man, L. libertinus, comes Eng. libertine. (The 17th and 18th c. Fr. libertine was unrestrained in politics and religion rather than in morals.) But L. libra also means balance, scales; whence the sign of the Zodiac, Libra. Hence also the use of L. libra as a measure, 12 ounces, one pound, and our abbreviation, 1 lb. The term libration is used in astronomy to mean oscillation, as a balance might tremble. Liberate means to set free; but deliberate is from L. de, down — liberare, to balance, weigh in one's mind.

Yeah, a poor choice of labels by Obama. Although I think he mentions something comparable to that phrase yet used a better choice of wording, in a Charlie Rose interview. I'll have to check the vid later as I'm heading out for work. I'd say no, going by the expanded context (on his words)... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Plus immediately (bare seconds later) Obama added on a qualifier: now these are in some communities. Or go to the source. Hear Obama's words at the fundraiser that night on direct audio. Slide the toggle to 35:50 and begin there. You can also examine the full transcript of it. See above.

If you to go with that as a logical basis, and since most people have likely experimented with marijuana, then a huge percentage of the U.S. gun owners are by definition criminals already....therefore if guns were made illegal, little would change.

Don't forget that you can sell drugs or weed to criminal and noncriminal alike. You won't have nearly the same luxury with guns. Thus it's not as profitable as you might imagine (except when filling a niche). And then you'd be one of the criminals in that popular saying, "only criminals will have guns". Even if you'd just kept the guns you already had before they were made illegal, you'd nonetheless be one of those criminals with guns. If someone's going to deal with illegal things, it might as well be addictive for the most profit evah.

I have a problem with the quoted lines of reasoning. Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and sex is far different as they're addictive substances. Combined with ultra-heightened prices due to scarcity and risk, we get a stupendously thriving economical bull market for illegal products awaiting underground venture capitalists everywhere. And all those products are instantly expendable, drawing repeat customers, therefore putting heaps of delicious icing on the already golden cake. Plus alcohol, weed, and sex can be made at home, where guns are a different matter entirely. Wouldn't you agree? Trust me, it's best to just use the one argument that's strongest and enjoys a higher moral ground: it's in the Consitution. I can't imagine any party wanting to be known in the future as the one who caused that empty space in the Bill of Rights. If anything, they'd probably use national emergency reasons of an urgent nature to indirectly bypass a guaranteed right.

a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly But the above (italics) was separate from the manuscript piece. Have you ever seen a post on these forums where it's all in lower case, no spaces, and humongously long? Yeah, those A simple vote would reveal that the vast majority consider writing in spaced, punctuated, and capitalized lettering to be far better in getting the reader's attention efficiently. On the way back in I noticed it did relate to the topic indirectly Where do you get take away your compensation? Or do you mean partly? Secondly, what makes you go out and/or do something is to prevent your life from becoming utter emptiness. Really, you've never seen the people you could try helping and who'd entirely refuse it? Or the people who don't retire? Or the many people with strongly ingrained ambitions? Do you really need the government to provide motivation? Not that I support communism, but Russia was 2nd in the world in the space race. And China's making headway and becoming a runaway economic juggernaut -- and communism's even supposed to be a more extreme version of socialism. I'm certain though it took real motivation by engineers to nearly match the world's #1 capitalist and fully indutrial nation. So your claims are a wee bit off maybe?

No, it's called the illusion of voting preference. Because a lot of the votes follow the best lie, rather than the actual candidate. Or just say what it really is: lying. Not quite. If Obama were to say that citizens stocking firearms vs government were to be treated as enemy combatants (or perhaps a terrorist organization?) and so not entitled to habeas corpus, I'd then say it qualifies your claim. You probably didn't notice the spelling bascule used. Liberal-tarian. I've had this feeling since before the 2008 election that key leaders in the Republican Party were self-destructing it so everyone could both move into and quickly swell an existing Party with more seemingly relevant issues. I've already heard a few overly right-winged politicians claim themselves (on video/news) as being a Libertarian. And in my book, repeat coincidences are few. So I'll just predict now that the Republican Party is set to become the Libertarian Party soon enough. And when they do, I'll have the same distrust for them. Funny, a lot of the people around I hear mentioning such things are right-winged. You know, the crowd who (supposedly) don't ever trust government?

Proper Manuscript Format a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly Peeling gar And that's just for starters It applies to many things. The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance.... Good kitchen skills. Organization habits. Cover letter on a resume. Work smarter, not harder. Plus even the way our very scienceforums.net is far more neatly and intuitively organized than many forums around the web.

Sure. Quite a few babies display the gimme! mine! habits and tendencies. But I've also seen plenty display a tendency to share as one of their first behaviors. Plus I've seen both tendencies displayed in the same baby. The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance, and so there's always both a smart and very faulty way of doing things.

Conversely.... 1. He knows where the food is? Ok, let's wait until other food comes along, then he's on his own in this wasteland. 2. Hey Peter and Frank you smart reasonable people, want to ensure this doesn't occur again? Let's keep our wits and stick to the plan. (Hey, starting to sound futuristic... ) But the goal's problem-solving efforts is to favor altruistic results. If that weren't a consideration, it'd be far less of a possibility. So name a few. That's why your scenario is mostly a caveman era thing, although we don't really know that 's how cavemen behaved. Where mine's a futurisic scenario of civilized minds. And Frank's a reasonable enough guy who doesn't take crap like someone hogging up all essentials among a group that's desperately surviving in the outlands.

Looks as if everything should be on track with mooey's great job of summarizing the entire thread. Here's an excercise for the opposition that might shed better insight onto how traditions must sometimes change. The reason why it'd possibly offer more insight is because you'd have to place yourselves in different shoes. Ok here goes. Reading over JillSwift's post above, how would've you convinced the people of that era of the need for change or more enlightened thinking? Keeping in mind such people are likely to use tradition as the main defense in their arguments. It's more of a question to reflect on personally, but if you feel like answering it -- why not? I'd definitely be interested to see a good answer to that. Fixed. Just to let people know, no disrespect was intended to those in opposition here, as to anyone reading the post it might've originally came across that I meant people here. But such isn't the case, for "perpetuated" I meant on the level of political machinery.

I entirely agree Pangloss. When someone tries to kill one widespread system by elevating another, that's usually where I draw the line. Expert balance and a reasonable approach go a long way. The most freedom, least corruption, and overall healthiness in society, environment and personal/private business are good indicators, in my view. Just to throw some numbers out there, here's what I consider a more perfect gauge of fair wealth: that the richest 20% in the U.S. is not more rich than the combined lower 55% of people's wealth. Because then something's more healthy about the economy's workings and people's opportunity for wealth. Yet as of now the richest 1% in the U.S. is richer than the combined lower 90% of people's wealth. I'd be happy if the government decided on a fair percentage gap where a healthier number of people can still become fabulously wealthy, in the same manner: hard work, perserverence and occasionally just dumb luck. If the perceptange gap isn't met, then experiment is necessary with variables from education to having business tools be more accessible. Of course as important is for their aimed value on wealth gap to be a permanently set one, not changing except by a major nationwide ratification as per constitutional amendments. I know you revealed it to be somewhat off context, but your response is still interesting enough to have provided mental food that I'll now share. Keeping in mind, there are lots of people who view survival as you have writen it. So, you're saying that taking all the resources you can to ensure you have access to them in the future is not a survival trait? Now pause and think a bit deep. If people will kill you for the same reason that you hogged all the resources in effect leaving others with barely nothing, then it's actually a survival trait to get everyone into sharing habit. Mind, survival isn't just response to immediate danger, it's a continuum of interplay between organism and environment. Interesting that if the survival's not a response to immediate danger, then by logic it's premeditated. With such a level of time available, might it not be to your best interest to problem-solve the difficulty rather than jumping the gun and screwing over potentially new enemies (as a result of your seemingly malicious actions)? So, it's self preservation to doom others to the fire in order to be a survivor, it is also self preservation to horde food so that you'll be able to eat during the lean seasons. And how would any survivors you'd trampled over bode for your self-preservation down the road? That does not mean you can't also survive the theater fire by pooling resources with others (we three can crash the locked door down!) as well as survive the lean season (We can hunt together and catch more food than the three of us will need!) And in the cases above, your best survival tool would be to continually keep aware that the others's survival instincts might kick in from desperation and may leave you to die in order to save themselves. Yet in order to keep yourself from such take-over by instincts, keeping a level head about you becomes the most important part of survival.

Maybe a under normal situation. But it certainly didn't occur at the time everyone was in fear of being tagged as unpatriotic or liberal media. Thanks to, of course, the immense propaganda meant to have just that effect.