i think worldwide democratic socialism is a good solution , no pres. , no office of power , many small niches all unified . listen to your self lee , it sounds to me like u find it moraly (socialy) wrong to speek ill of capitalism . now im not all about the current socialism set up , nor am i for capitalism ( make belive democratic system ) the answer would seem to be in the middle --- keep the democratic , lose the capitalism --- lose the dictator , keep the socialism ( humanitarian ) ,
[email protected] wrote: > Hahah no I mean robotic work force. > > I mean no employment for us humans, robots take care of it all, > including repair of broken robots. > > We can then pursue other things, as the state/s take care of our > nessicitys/luxeries brought about by the work of our slave robots! > > It is truely scary this consumerisim, I have seen it increase in my > short time on this planet, and it seems that things that where not > counted as commodities a few years back are now so. > > Money brings you all that you say, and of course you need it to live, > to pay bills, to buy food. > > I don't think it is money persay that is the problem, and I guess you > are right, a barter system is open to the same flaws, I think it is > this growing commoditisation of things and consummerisation of life > that is to blame. > > It is the age old issue, the haves and the have nots. Make sure then > that we all have, or that we all not. Ahhh but that is the raving > Socialist in me speaking. > > On May 23, 2:08 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > You mean a stay-at-home mom in the traditional sense? (Stepford wife.) > > > > The next gold/oil will be water as some of us have agreed many times. > > > > To replace money, we could return to a barter system but that would > > also be uneven/unfair depending upon demand and supply and even what > > categories would constitute value. > > > > What does money provide? Security, first of all, but this can be > > tricky. Most seem to expend money to make more money or purchase > > luxury goods so status is another aim. Control: if a nation's wealth > > is worthless or inflated, so goes the ballgame; or if one's nation is > > in debt or trapped in a cycle of expensive wars or nature/climate > > impose frequent emergencies, stress on the food supply, etc. The > > culture is also a culprit: what are its everyday values? Is a nation > > shortsighted, flaky, uneducated, so on an so forth. Who makes the most > > money in a culture? That's a real test of what a country values. > > > > Thrift is a lowly virtue- nearly distained. So is labor: sedentary > > classes must diet or join gyms/country clubs, employ servants, etc. > > (My neighbor "gave" me her lawn guy- he is half the fee of my former % > > $#&*%. She was also his customer- once. We decided he is having a mid- > > life crisis. :-) ) > > > > On May 23, 6:55 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shaman, > > > > > I have actualy given some thought to this and the most viable idea > > > that I have is.......... > > > > > Robotic work force! > > > > > On May 23, 12:52 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > hell ya lee , it will probably bring itself to an end with the > > > > disappearance of oil , or a bunch of people could put there > > > > organisational skills together and force an end to come , che took out > > > > cuba with 28 dudes and some AKs. brand new ak47 = 600$ , but thats a > > > > last resort ,..... have you read the art of war by sun tzu , actual > > > > combat is very expensive and risky ,--- a war againt $ -- sounds more > > > > plosable than the war on drugs , which was created to generate $ . > > > > there is nothing i hate more than $ , and there is nothing i wouldnt > > > > do to stop it , but as you say how? if someone did have a way , and > > > > put it on the internet , they would probably be arrested ! > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > It all comes down to money in the end don't it, or rather as the Bible > > > > > says the love of it. > > > > > > > Money the great Satan that stops otherwise good people from acting in > > > > > a moraly correct way. > > > > > > > Meh! I'd like to see the end of it, but how are we ever to see that I > > > > > wonder? > > > > > > > On May 21, 12:50 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The cost of prison is about the same as education. I have heard the > > > > > > figure as $30,000. but maybe it has gone up. > > > > > > > > What about abortion? That saves money. > > > > > > > > What about the final costs of health care for the aged? Should we > > > > > > just > > > > > > send them a cyanide capsule? > > > > > > > > The history of mankind is violent punctuated with periods of peace/ > > > > > > altruism. Beyond resources, wealth and power what is the spur? > > > > > > > > On May 19, 11:22 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yep I think that the cost of appeals is proably what helps whack > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > overall cost up. > > > > > > > > > But you take a strange stance here for a person who has > > > > > > > previously > > > > > > > said that you disagree with the dealth penalty because you can't > > > > > > > trust > > > > > > > the judicial system to get it right. > > > > > > > > > Now you say that the appeals process should be scrapped in certian > > > > > > > cases, isn't that a little bit contradictory? > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 4:29 pm, Chuck Bowling > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I notice that the cost of lifetime imprisonment is folded into > > > > > > > > the cost of > > > > > > > > the death penalty in cases where it's overturned. I would guess > > > > > > > > that this > > > > > > > > probably counts for a large portion of the money attributed to > > > > > > > > overall cost. > > > > > > > > > > In addition, I don't know how it is in other countries but in > > > > > > > > the US > > > > > > > > convicts can stall the death penalty almost indefinitely with > > > > > > > > appeals. This > > > > > > > > also adds huge costs. In cases where the evidence is > > > > > > > > incontrovertible I > > > > > > > > think the appeals process should be constrained to mitigate > > > > > > > > costs. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:08 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This from one source: > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-pena... > > > > > > > > > > > And to counteract any bias from this source: > > > > > > > > > > > This from Fox?! > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-s... > > > > > > > > > > > Myself I'm not sure, so as I say the jury is still outon this > > > > > > > > > question as far as I'm concerend. > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2:41 pm, Chuck Bowling > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what the current cost is but 10 years ago the > > > > > > > > > > cost of > > > > > > > > > housing > > > > > > > > > > an inmate was over $50,000 a year. Assuming a 40 year life > > > > > > > > > > sentence that > > > > > > > > > > would be over 2 million. I'm pretty sure you can kill > > > > > > > > > > someone for less. > > > > > > > > > > Hell, I'd do it for half that... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:41 AM, > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] < > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Chuck totaly missed this one: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It removes a threat from society. > > > > > > > > > > > It frees up resources needed to protect the society from > > > > > > > > > > > that killer. > > > > > > > > > > > It provides a deterrent against other killings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does life in prision. > > > > > > > > > > > The jury is still out on that one as to cost re lifes > > > > > > > > > > > imprisioment and > > > > > > > > > > > cost of the dealth penalty. > > > > > > > > > > > For that single indivdual yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:12 am, Chuck Bowling > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:23 AM, > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should we not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should we not what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we instead make our selfs guilty of the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour that > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems universal reprehensabile? Should we then sink > > > > > > > > > > > > > to that level > > > > > > > > > > > > > ourselves? Two wrongs don't make a right and all > > > > > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My original point was that life is cheap. We don't kill > > > > > > > > > > > > because it's > > > > > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > > > > > or wrong. We kill for expediency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is to maintian that moral superiority. If > > > > > > > > > > > > > a man steals > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > me, can I then steal from him? Wouldn't that make me > > > > > > > > > > > > > also a theif? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I don't claim any kind of superiority - > > > > > > > > > > > > moral or > > > > > > > > > otherwise. If > > > > > > > > > > > > somebody steals from me I'll try to steal back my > > > > > > > > > > > > property and > > > > > > > > > possibly > > > > > > > > > > > > anything else that happens to be lying around. I may > > > > > > > > > > > > even give the > > > > > > > > > guy a > > > > > > > > > > > > punch in the nose on the way out the door. If you want > > > > > > > > > > > > to call me a > > > > > > > > > thief > > > > > > > > > > > > for it go ahead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > revenge killings as we know only lead to further > > > > > > > > > > > > > revenge killings. > > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > > > have here in the UK a growing youth gang problem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > with kids killing > > > > > > > > > > > > > other kids for slights imagined or otherwise, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > then in turn the > > > > > > > > > > > > > other gang of kids killing members of the ther other > > > > > > > > > > > > > gang. Is that > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, it is the correct behaviour? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This just leads into the whole argument - is war right > > > > > > > > > > > > or wrong. Is > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > > > > > > for a street gang to retaliate when it's territory is > > > > > > > > > > > > breached by a > > > > > > > > > rival > > > > > > > > > > > > gang? If no then why is it right for nations to do the > > > > > > > > > > > > same thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Killing a killer makes no logical sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It removes a threat from society. > > > > > > > > > > > > It frees up resources needed to protect the society > > > > > > > > > > > > from that killer. > > > > > > > > > > > > It provides a deterrent against other killings.- Hide > > > > > > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
