I agree we are hamsters running on a circular wheel. the average worker gets a less pay raise per year then how fast inflaition raises the prizes of goods for everyday living.
Inflation is just hidden tax and is easilly controlled by the FED
The reason this is so is because it isnt in the interest of (their) society to have people being idle - if workers got paid more they would work less. So what is wanted is that you get just enough to live by for a full weeks work.
Im getting bored of arguing with people who take quotes from smart people out of context to ratify their dumb superstitions and never read the whole fucking thing. It is the same kind of people who only read the headlines off news and get outraged by them still. But what is there to do
On my travels in Norway I met an Icelander (they´re language is very close to how the old vikings used to speak) - who was telling me about the vikings. The vikings have descriptive names sort of like the Indians. Pungsviti means something like "one who knows from his gut" or one who is very intuitive
Bullshit.. it can... just not indefinitely... and that is not money´s fault, that is the fault of the human senses, for all constants dull the senses. So if you have a constant flow of money your senses will ruin it......... and the cure..........: DRUGS!..... and when your senses have gotten used to the drugs.....: stronger Drugs.
I'm gonna agree with you especially because of " I think we should replace degrees with some kind of certification process for various professional fields."
makes no sense to me why something totally unrelated should be a threshold that I need to get past first before i get to learn what I really want
I think that only reading, writing, basic math, and memory training (which oddly enough is not taught at all in most schools) should be mandatory for everyone to learn. Rest should be a choice.
But concerning the question at hand "is it worth it" I think the answer has to be Yes, but mainly because of the magic-dust it puts on your CV and connections you are likely to make within the institutions - not because of what is taught and that modern schools are the best way to attain that knowledge
Thanks for your thoughts on Obama, McCain and etc but they do not illustrate much relating to the topic at hand
The only thing in your text I could say relates directly to this debate is
"With a lottery, we're stuck with people who are TRUE ideologues and they'll live by their promise no matter what. Someone who actually would pull out of Iraq and fuck everything up for the military."
and I don't think you give a good argument for your assertion. Why are we more likely to get Ideologues with a lottery? because the majority are according to you?? or what???
There is less historical evidence for Jesus Christ than for Robin hood. The scrolls that date before the year 384 after Christ (when the modern bible was formed for political reasons) - describe yoshua (meaning savior in Aramaic, and not a mans name) as some sort of spirit/ghost. And there is no evidence or historical record of Jesus that dates from the time he was supposedly living
Compare the historical evidence of Buddha for example (who lived approximately 500 years before Christ) They practically have the laundry list of Buddha
You seem to think that at the same time the big bang happened the earth was created. The earth is about four billion years old, but the big bang happened somewhere between 13-14 billion years ago. The gases that made up the earth came according to big bang theory ultimately from that big bang - but not (and this is important) all at the same time. All-at-the-same-time is the bible version of creation, remember.
This is the problem with many of the arguments the religious side makes here - you make up a simplified straw-man out of what you believe one theory or another says and have obviously not studied these theory's, probably because you live in parts of your country where religion has such a stronghold that you don't get to learn these things. This forces us to spend most of our time correcting your ridiculous and flawed statements - and then some of you get very hurt when we assault your intelligence.
At least we have studied the foundation of your claims
exactly. In nature there is something called synergy. that is, when two materials fused together make for a stronger (for example)material than the sum of the strength of the materials separately. This happens because of how they interrelate for certain mathematical forms are stronger than others. A tetrahedron is a stronger form then a box for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
different forms coming together randomly can cause huge exponential changes
exactly. Molecules do not randomly fit together- they have a certain shape that predisposes them to fitting to some but not others - then they build up bigger forms that un-randomly fit to other molecule clusters and so on. The randomness is only if and when they will coma against forms that fit. Most of the time they bump into molecules that dont fit.
Read "a New kind of science" by Stephen Wolfram. It is a book about complexity theory that goes to show (with mathematical computer simulations) that complex forms and structures are more likely to have a simple set of initial conditions than complex. In fact if the intial conditions are complex almost all of the time the forms/structures that follow are simple
It is true that there will always be some form of hierarchy within the system but instead of being tainted by oligarchy which modern systems of government never have gotten rid of - we can rather have a meritocracy as in open-source programming -: where through constant checkup and interaction everybody has at least an equal playing field in terms of monitoring the government. In a system like that (where the dimly lit back-rooms are eliminated as much as possible) I think voting and exchange of ideas becomes more dynamic
I also think that sooner or later with changes of this sort we will slowly but surely move from the culture of conspiracy theories that build unnecessary distrust. And I also think empowering people will lessen the gossip mentality inherent in western society´s, that is: people will feel less and less the need to soothe their minority complex with crap gossip magazines about celebs and other powerful people and other artifacts/symptoms of a society with unbalanced power structures.
I have often argued this issue with my elders who being conservative, distrust all futuristic ideas about more dynamic democracy. Their argument is that it is to complex and insecure, and that government cant be run in real-time. My argument against that is that we already have a credit-card system and Internet banking system operating in real-time for exchange of money/credit/debit. No one is worried that that isn't secure; why should the exchange of votes be any different. I actually think elections are easier to fix in modern elections (Bush´s win against Al Gore anyone?) than if everyone would just have a credit-card for voting
I hope this happens sooner rather than later, but it needs to grow organically from the bottom up. It will probably happen in the same way bit-torrent took over the music industry
My argument: though every once in a while we get a decent human being in office the corrupted machine is still surrounding that individual clouding his judgment.
Election should therefore rather be done with a lottery or something akin to jury-duty.
I know this sounds very scary and an invitation for bat-shit crazy people to get into power - but its not like there has ever been a "bat-shit-crazy filter" controlling who gets into office and who doesn't
