I wont say there aren't barriers for entry because there certainly is. One day I'd like to try for a public office but income is certainly a big gate in my way, but I also feel that it isn't the impossible hurdle other people (not necessarily you) make it out to be.

That's not the point on whether or not it's an impossible hurdle. It's an unnecessary hurdle that isn't needed. And we have to look at something else that's important. People are not equal. This is a fact. Not everybody has the mental capacity, the physical condition, or many of the other factors required to be disgustingly wealthy. Whose right is to say exactly, "Yes, you're required to spend your days as a walmart greeter because this is all you're physically or intellectually capable of, and therefore will be subject always to the bare minimum of living standards because of it, have a great life." Nobody is saying it but this is a trap many people live in. For whatever reasons they're incapable of going further in things, they are very effectively punished for factors that they may have zero control over, such as intelligence and the ability to learn.

And while we're at it, so long as we're talking about inequality, let's talk disparity. Hypothetical for you. Let us assume for one second that every human being has the capability to be a big shot ceo or upper managment, and they all take the opportunity. What happens? Stagnation and job shortages, because there can only physically be a certain percentage of upper management before none are needed.

Therefore, if we're to draw the line that people can have success stories and be wealthy, that it's not impossible, we have to acknowledge a critical reality. There can and only be a percentage of them that have access to these doorways due to many various factors. So no matter what we do, as long as we exist in a monetary based system of operation there will be forced disparity. Somebody will be forced against their will to draw the losing hand. And that's not right.

All of this stems from one underlying fundament we haven't talked about yet. It isn't so much the issue of wealth, as it is class. You cannot deny the intrinsic nature of human beings to compete and to "outclass" one another in what we perceive as being above other people. This is a part of human nature many struggle to let go of. The excessively rich are tremendously guilty of this. Assume for a second that there's a cap on monetary income that anybody can make. The cap is based from average to high end earnings, so that there is still a level of disparity from top to bottom, but there's a rationalized ceiling as to how high you can get on the totem.

This would destroy the notion of class somewhat. If Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and an average joe have a ceiling of money they can all reach together, it makes them equal. And that's why we don't have a ceiling of money to be reached for personal wealth. The excessively wealthy don't want to be equal because they have a psychological need to be above. This is a character flaw reflecting on our system as a whole.

it's a convenient tool to help us procure not only goods & services but necessities for survival as well.

That's incorrect. It is a mechanism that needlessly hinders us. When we have point A and B, income is just adding A 1.5 into the middle of the road and saying that it gets things done for us and that it's necessary. Here's a thought for you. Point A is a service. Point B is the need or wants of the people.

Take point A and turn it into a job. Everybody gets a job because everybody needs to contribute somehow. As long as you provide for point A by doing your job, you get access to point A, not based off of income, but based off the fact that you're putting the work in to keep point A functioning, which therefore helps fullfill and create point B, which is then provided to anybody who simply works and takes part in the system.

This is efficiency taken to it's logical maximum that provides the highest possibility of comfort achieved for everybody with no additional steps added. What I describe here is a convenient process and tool. Income is not. It is tremendously inefficient.

As for drive, there's probably more to it than just money but that helps us get what we really want.

See my posts above as to why this is not the case. And I provide for you more thoughts to ponder. Somebody asked me once what my dream career was. I told them my dream career would be to have a quiet homestead in which I can tend to the property myself, live in a home I built myself using methods I learned or taught myself, and be as disconnected from the world as possible while still having access to information to study and learn new things. And then I told them that I don't get paid to do that until I'm 60.

So what I'm required to do to achieve this dream career of mine is subject myself to a totally needless grind for thirty more years and actually gamble that I'll be alive by then to enjoy it, on top of gambling that I'll magically have enough income to pay for all of this shit. Or, if I'm super motivated and ruthless, play the board game, make a shit ton of money and then settle down and live my dream career.

When inherently, before the concept of income came to be, you could do the bulk of this naturally. Except that now you can't. Let's assume for a moment that I forsake the cash road and actually do all of this by myself. Teach myself everything I need to make this dream come true, and then go out and do it. Well colour me fucked because I need money to buy land, and then once I buy it I will be required to pay taxes based off the designated monetary value of the land, plus whatever additional structures I build on said land. I'll need permits to create anything of custom work or to acquire the raw resources, such as trees, stone, etc. No matter what move I make I am subjected to shelling out cash somewhere.

And the big flaw I find in all of this was that I never agreed to any of it. Nowhere in my life did I sign any papers that said, "Yes please charge me taxes and expenses using an imaginary medium that also happens to be necessary for day to day life." I was simply born and dropped into this system with zero consent to it and expected to be a willing participant to all of it. So in my case, and I'm sure many other people's income is what stands in the way of them actually doing what they want with their lives and adding a totally useless feature.

When you say what is necessary to grow, do you mean collectively as a species or individually?

Both. The species can't grow without growth from the individual. And the growth of the individual is important if we're to live in a sane and better world.

Riots aren't performed by homogeneous groups with a specific goal, it's an emotional reaction to structural issues. Trying to qualify the intentions/goals of protestors by the actions of rioters avoids addressing why people are angry enough to start burning things to the ground. Doesn't help that there is clearly a lot of pigs with pent up aggression waiting for a chance to crack skulls instead of "maintaining the peace".

I was just about to say, for the most part in Minneapolis damage to local businesses was indirect due to spreading fires that were possibly started under suspicious circumstances. as for the protests in other cities there's a lot of video evidence of sketchy white guys doing a lot of the property damage

also worth mentioning, i got a friend who literally works (or worked) at that ML target that got trashed. she isnt really bothered lol she doesnt know if she still has a job yet but if not she'll just file for unemployment

I really don't understand how destroying your own community is supposed to help it, but I don't necessarily think that rioters are trying to help the community anyways. It's a shame that those peacefully protesting will have their cause sullied by the actions of a  violent minority of people and that their protests will be shut down to stop the violence.

The thing is, I imagine a lot of riots are instigated by police showing up in riot gear to protests where rioting hasn't happened. I do wonder if they avoided doing that would a riot even break out to begin with.

Despite the outcome of a riot it's a common tactic for undercover police to instigate a riot as it creates a means of creating a control group that can be isolated, observed and ultimately corralled into a specific location for the sole means of containment.

This is why I'm of the mind that rioting is a largely pointless act, as no matter how much damage a group does, they fail to realize that they're being manipulated into doing it to begin with. Rioting shifts blame onto peaceful protesters and gives a reason for them to be removed, and it accomplishes zero damage to large companies like target as they're insured financially against these scenarios. The cops starting the riots aren't any good, but the idiot people taking the bait and continuing the momentum are worse.

as it turns out that ML target is still gonna give full pay to its employees in a surprisingly humble move so that was literally no big deal 

The issue: Police brutality.
Solution: Provoke police brutality.

What should be the actual solution? Hard to say.

Quote from: FatherlyNick on May 31, 2020, 08:59:57 AM

What should be the actual solution?

Lethal force in self-defense against state-sanctioned murder.

That's what the second amendment is for. Use your constitutional right to get rid of tyranny at state level.

The issue: Police brutality.
Solution: Provoke police brutality.

What should be the actual solution? Hard to say.

Existing at a protest ""provokes"" police brutality. How many people do we have to watch get run over by SUVs/shot/teargassed before we admit it's the police stoking violence?

my love

https://twitter.com/LasVegasLocally/status/1267210841595604992

Okay, why is US turning into Russia?

Quote from: FatherlyNick on May 31, 2020, 05:41:32 PM

The issue is further complicated by the fact that everyone is the States is packing heat, (so cops are on edge at all times anyway) and now they are on extra-edge because several states have gone full revolution-mode.

So protestors are going to be seen as targets by the police, regardless of their actual threat. Why are they in charge of maintaining the peace again? And given guns?

Not defending the pig's behaviour but Nick does have a point about the prevalence of guns and gun culture in the states. Given how liberal it is for basically anyone and everyone to carry a firearm it would be really silly for the police not to come armed for the potentiality of self preservation.

Quote from: Mordo on June 01, 2020, 06:13:15 AM

Quote from: [emoji260] Aria [emoji326] on May 31, 2020, 06:36:21 PM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on May 31, 2020, 05:41:32 PM

The issue is further complicated by the fact that everyone is the States is packing heat, (so cops are on edge at all times anyway) and now they are on extra-edge because several states have gone full revolution-mode.

So protestors are going to be seen as targets by the police, regardless of their actual threat. Why are they in charge of maintaining the peace again? And given guns?

Not defending the pig's behaviour but Nick does have a point about the prevalence of guns and gun culture in the states. Given how liberal it is for basically anyone and everyone to carry a firearm it would be really silly for the police not to come armed for the potentiality of self preservation.

I'm not disagreeing with his point, I'm just piggybacking off of it to make another point. I might be coming off a bit harsher than I mean to in general here, and that's my bad. Police need de-escalation training, not guns. Bringing more vectors of violence into an already tense situation doesn't neutralize the problem, it fuels it.

How do you de-escalate a rioting crowd? I think that is the key question here. I doubt there is a right answer.

What will end the riots in the US now? Do people even understand what they are rioting about? I think most were just frustrated by all the other things going on at the moment and this riot just happened at the right time.

Ian you really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

https://twitter.com/AkaashSingh/status/1266294593697353733

>Honestly if you can, burn down white neighborhoods so companies are afraid to move back there. Then after the property value lowers enough, buy the neighborhood mad cheap and rebuild it. This is a real opportunity to flip the gentrification cycle.

Excuse me while I find one more so I can fit the definition of "a few"**; unless you're saying this movement isn't about BLM/George Floyd's death at all, which it is; or that Antifa isn't involved, which they are (along with other radical groups).

**Edit: There was another Tweet that was trending last night, but the account was removed for violating Twitter's rules.