democracy part 2

RoxyRollah · 11-29-2014, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

oj wasn't found guilty either. casey anthony either. some times you just have to use common sense tbh.

Derailed:
Cause I was reminded of a story.

Now yall know what I look like right? So listen, I was working a few years ago, and I worked in retail and this guy looks at me And says "hey you know who you remind me of?"
"No?"

"Casey Anthony"

"Sir, has anyone ever told you bare a striking resemblance to O.J. Simpson."

BURN!

Ok carry on.

RoxyRollah · 11-29-2014, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

wow man roxy is a stone cold patriot.

Yes, yes I am. PROBLEMA?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-29-2014, 06:45 PM

not a problem, no. i just think you have more confidence in the people who set this country up than i do. i do think they did some things right and for their time period it was probably a big achievement. but you can't stick to what some dudes said 300 years ago like that's your bible. context changes, it's all a work in progress. so i consider them more of a step in the right direction that you respect as part of the past than an oracle that you interpret to tell you how to navigate the future.

RoxyRollah · 11-29-2014, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

not a problem, no. i just think you have more confidence in the people who set this country up than i do. i do think they did some things right and for their time period it was probably a big achievement. but you can't stick to what some dudes said 300 years ago like that's your bible. context changes, it's all a work in progress. so i consider them more of a step in the right direction that you respect as part of the past than an oracle that you interpret to tell you how to navigate the future.

I don't think of it as my bible. I stick to my constitutional rights. I am willing to adapt. I think a lot of people do not understand the bill of rights as it was intended, and therefore are willing to give up certain freedoms because they think that they mean nothing. I understand that if we don't adapt we go extinct. What I am saying is that the Bill of Rights, is one of the greatest documents ever written. It basically says, that you have the power, you. Not your government. You truly do have the right to do all of these freely without anyone telling you dick or jacking you for it. Now. There is nothing wrong with power to the people baby. There is nothing wrong with America, "my" America the place I would die for, and the only place I'd ever miss, belonging to her people.

And the issue is for me is really people not giving a rats ass an giving the country that I love right on over to the very people that will tear her limb from limb. Whatever the cost. And I will stand up for that every time, in whatever way I am needed.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-29-2014, 08:12 PM

that's great and i agree with the bill of rights as a sort of safe guard against human weakness and corruption. i just think that extrapolating from the constitution that our government should stay small is misguided. they were dealing with a completely different animal back then. a small government might be ideal in that sort of agrarian setting. our civilization is too complex for that.

RoxyRollah · 11-29-2014, 08:13 PM

Goddamnit^ turncoat bend to my will....

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-29-2014, 08:16 PM

lol a small government will basically give you over to the elite to exploit you without interference. if that's what you like then have at it. at the end of the day the rules of competition know no boundaries. i know what's in my best interest and basically i will exploit any system to my benefit to the greatest of my ability.

DwnWthVwls · 11-29-2014, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

basically i will exploit any system to my benefit to the greatest of my ability.

So basically you're not out to improve society.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 11-29-2014, 08:35 PM

no i would like to but people seem either not interested in it or they have the wrong ideas about how to do it and don't pay attention to the facts cause they get too swept up with emotion. and i honestly don't have the will to try to fight them over it anymore through the democratic system cause i don't expect everyday people to give enough of a **** to really pay attention to **** like that. so as long as i see that the rules of engagement are either burn or be burned i'm not going to be anybody's sucker, or at least not intentionally.

P A N · 11-29-2014, 09:04 PM

the next paradigm is a one-world government. it's pretty much already here. the way it's being presented to to us is like baby steps. the problem is that it's not by or for the people. it's for rich folks. so the problem isn't really the people or the type of government. it's the type of economy. this type of economy is limitless. this means that a go-getter personality will do well. psychopaths do best, as the best way to get is to take. the constitution doesn't matter. men are vacuuming cocaine from the surface of the desk beside the wastebasket in which it's burning. someone will piss on it to ensure the english oak doesn't scar. someone rich. if the constitution has no power, neither do the people. except of course that the rich's biggest asset is us. they may do well to organize us, but we run the machine. we produce. we consume. we spend.

i think democracy is essential to a population of happy earthlings. i don't have the answers, but i have lots of ideas. one of them is to crowd-source everything. to maintain life we need resources. that's it. so if every farmer and every miner and air-traffic controller and every police officer and every teacher and every chocolatier put all the data they collected (data concerning what they offer and what they need) into a giant database, we would know what needs to go where. the only way this can work properly is in an economically borderless framework. the only way this can work is when people realize there are universal limits to everything, including the amount of money and real-estate a single person should be allowed to amass.

the planet has enough resources and the right technologies (mind you, a lot of these technologies have a hard time finding funding to further develop them) to give people more than what they need. if we crowd-sourced political questions... haha. imagine this. you have an app on your phone. The Planet gave you the phone in exchange for some of your time. say, two hours a week you have to spend reading articles published relating to a specific question you will have to vote on when you're done reading. the articles are picked by an algorithm (all algorithms would be open source and subject to constant peer-review) to ensure that you don't end up reading 25 articles that all lean one direction or the other. you are also picked by an algorithm. at any given time, out of 7 billion people, you will be one of 1 million people voting on a specific topic. in this alternate dimension i'm talking about, we can collectively answer questions like "does everyone actually need to own a car, or are driverless, solar-powered vehicles-on-demand which save space, gas, and lots of other resources a better idea?" someone poses a question such as this in a massive world-wide forum, hashtags the crap out of it, it gains popularity, articles and research papers are written, a vote is staged. or how about questions like "does anyone actually trust politicians? do we actually need politicians?" the answer would likely be "no", and then the next set of questions in a stem from it appear, such as "well, how do we live in a world without politicians?" people come up with alternative solutions. we whittle away the stupidity via creating an international mainframe of information and ways to use it.

the answers are in the people. this would be one way to get them out.

anyway. i just wanted to play.

11-29-2014, 06:45 PM	#43 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	not a problem, no. i just think you have more confidence in the people who set this country up than i do. i do think they did some things right and for their time period it was probably a big achievement. but you can't stick to what some dudes said 300 years ago like that's your bible. context changes, it's all a work in progress. so i consider them more of a step in the right direction that you respect as part of the past than an oracle that you interpret to tell you how to navigate the future.

11-29-2014, 08:12 PM	#45 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	that's great and i agree with the bill of rights as a sort of safe guard against human weakness and corruption. i just think that extrapolating from the constitution that our government should stay small is misguided. they were dealing with a completely different animal back then. a small government might be ideal in that sort of agrarian setting. our civilization is too complex for that.

11-29-2014, 08:16 PM	#47 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	lol a small government will basically give you over to the elite to exploit you without interference. if that's what you like then have at it. at the end of the day the rules of competition know no boundaries. i know what's in my best interest and basically i will exploit any system to my benefit to the greatest of my ability.

11-29-2014, 08:35 PM	#49 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	no i would like to but people seem either not interested in it or they have the wrong ideas about how to do it and don't pay attention to the facts cause they get too swept up with emotion. and i honestly don't have the will to try to fight them over it anymore through the democratic system cause i don't expect everyday people to give enough of a ** to really pay attention to ** like that. so as long as i see that the rules of engagement are either burn or be burned i'm not going to be anybody's sucker, or at least not intentionally.

11-29-2014, 09:04 PM	#50 (permalink)
P A N DO LIKE YOU. Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 629	the next paradigm is a one-world government. it's pretty much already here. the way it's being presented to to us is like baby steps. the problem is that it's not by or for the people. it's for rich folks. so the problem isn't really the people or the type of government. it's the type of economy. this type of economy is limitless. this means that a go-getter personality will do well. psychopaths do best, as the best way to get is to take. the constitution doesn't matter. men are vacuuming cocaine from the surface of the desk beside the wastebasket in which it's burning. someone will piss on it to ensure the english oak doesn't scar. someone rich. if the constitution has no power, neither do the people. except of course that the rich's biggest asset is us. they may do well to organize us, but we run the machine. we produce. we consume. we spend. i think democracy is essential to a population of happy earthlings. i don't have the answers, but i have lots of ideas. one of them is to crowd-source everything. to maintain life we need resources. that's it. so if every farmer and every miner and air-traffic controller and every police officer and every teacher and every chocolatier put all the data they collected (data concerning what they offer and what they need) into a giant database, we would know what needs to go where. the only way this can work properly is in an economically borderless framework. the only way this can work is when people realize there are universal limits to everything, including the amount of money and real-estate a single person should be allowed to amass. the planet has enough resources and the right technologies (mind you, a lot of these technologies have a hard time finding funding to further develop them) to give people more than what they need. if we crowd-sourced political questions... haha. imagine this. you have an app on your phone. The Planet gave you the phone in exchange for some of your time. say, two hours a week you have to spend reading articles published relating to a specific question you will have to vote on when you're done reading. the articles are picked by an algorithm (all algorithms would be open source and subject to constant peer-review) to ensure that you don't end up reading 25 articles that all lean one direction or the other. you are also picked by an algorithm. at any given time, out of 7 billion people, you will be one of 1 million people voting on a specific topic. in this alternate dimension i'm talking about, we can collectively answer questions like "does everyone actually need to own a car, or are driverless, solar-powered vehicles-on-demand which save space, gas, and lots of other resources a better idea?" someone poses a question such as this in a massive world-wide forum, hashtags the crap out of it, it gains popularity, articles and research papers are written, a vote is staged. or how about questions like "does anyone actually trust politicians? do we actually need politicians?" the answer would likely be "no", and then the next set of questions in a stem from it appear, such as "well, how do we live in a world without politicians?" people come up with alternative solutions. we whittle away the stupidity via creating an international mainframe of information and ways to use it. the answers are in the people. this would be one way to get them out. anyway. i just wanted to play.