Paradoxium's Financial 'Tao of Fail' Extravaganza!

There are no solutions and there is no hope unless you are rich. Life is not even worth living except for the wealthy. People are inherently selfish, greedy and evil and the world reflects this. Our Government and political parties can do nothing to make life better for average working people, nor can organizations like unions.

I think the biggest problem with government and political parties is that they're so focused on the upper and lower classes that they've not only ignored the middle class, but completely forgot about it.

As for unions, I think they're more concerned about themselves and their political power than actually wanting to help workers.
 
I'm not remotely rich. My family is not remotely rich. We are quite happy with life :up:

I'm not rich and never will be and I hate life. A few years ago I was a fairly optimistic idealist liberal idiot but I've grown out of that and I hate the world and most people more every day, rich and poor alike. The world weeds out failures, and that is the truth. Unions and welfare, which I once thought were good things to a degree, simply reward failure. You either can cut it or you can't. And those who can't make their own success suffer and deserve to suffer. I have no sympathy for them. I am a failure myself and expect no sympathy-it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Because the GOP constituency is far more aligned with my beliefs than the Democratic ones.

The GOP can, and I believe, will change. We are already seeing it with the Tea Party candidates. The GOP Primary process is going to see the birth of "Tea Party" Republicans which will (hopefully) be small government advocates.

We only have two parties, gotta pick the superior one.

And what evidence is there that they will change? I see no evidence of that. Sticking with them, seems more Machiavellian then anything else.

Anyway don't these red States have less government involvement in education and health care then the Blue states?

Are there any examples of a sucessful Libertarian society? I just don't believe in the premise that reducing the size government solves all problem and frankly I think its a false dichotomy to say government is either the solution to or the cause of all life's problems.

Private business lobbying legislation/perks etc.. is corporatism. I am violently against this. And Stormy more or less made the right rebuttal. And more importantly, I have more inclinations towards Timocracy than say a small government Democracy anyways.

Timocracy defined by "government in which a certain amount of property is necessary for office" or "a government where rulers are selected and perpetuated based on the degree of honour they hold relative to others in their society, peer group or class". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Timocracy

Both of those sound problematic for different reasons.

The problem with the first one is it sounds like a return to the feudal serfdom era. I don't see why owning property makes more able to rule then someone who doesn't, an incompetent inherit property, it doesn't make him less of incompetent.

The problem with the second version of Timocracy, is honor is a vague concept that is defined differently by different people. In Pakistan they have "honor killings" but I don't find those honorable. Honor is far too vague a concept to be ruling one, it easily allows for abuse.

Timocracy is one those concept that belongs in the past, not in the present.
 
Last edited:
And what evidence is there that they will change? I see no evidence of that. Sticking with them, seems more Machiavellian then anything else.

Just watch the political trends. What are people clamoring for? Less government. The GOP needs to make massive gains. How does a political party make massive gains? Jumping on political trends.

It's not all that hard to follow. If the GOP fumbles away the golden opportunity they have been given with a failure as a President, a corrupt Congress and a public just BEGGING for less government - I will certainly have to reevaluate my party preference.

Are there any examples of a sucessful Libertarian society? I just don't believe in the premise that reducing the size government solves all problem and frankly I think its a false dichotomy to say government is either the solution to or the cause of all life's problems.

America, during the 1800's.
 
Yes I am talking about the first one (own property). And yes I am aware someone incompetent can inherit property. However, I evaluate things by pros and cons, and despite the shortcomings, I think it is more stable than a Democracy in the long run. I am not aiming for perfect, but realistic, efficient and sustainable.

The Timocracy also must synthesize parts of Aristotle's Polity, and more modern understanding of economics. Stuff like a Constitution that limits the power of the government still comes into play. It would have to be refined and modernized. So for an example, a woman who owns property can participate.

Democracy is more of less a corrupted version of a Timocracy/Polity. To transition to this form of a government would not be as difficult. And this type of structure would limit the power of mob rule, and it would give hardcore Progressives a nightmare, because it is structurally unfriendly to them.
 
I'm not rich and never will be and I hate life. A few years ago I was a fairly optimistic idealist liberal idiot but I've grown out of that and I hate the world and most people more every day, rich and poor alike. The world weeds out failures, and that is the truth. Unions and welfare, which I once thought were good things to a degree, simply reward failure. You either can cut it or you can't. And those who can't make their own success suffer and deserve to suffer. I have no sympathy for them. I am a failure myself and expect no sympathy-it is what it is.


:csad: damn...
 
Yes I am talking about the first one (own property). And yes I am aware someone incompetent can inherit property. However, I evaluate things by pros and cons, and despite the shortcomings, I think it is more stable than a Democracy in the long run. ..............

So, are you in effect almost calling for a return to first principles vis a vis property owners vote, limited federal government etc? I invite your comments on this time in our country re: your proposal.

As voiced I don't know that I can agree with what you say, but I have considered a policy of some sort removing voting rights at the federal and /or state level if federal and/or state social benefits are dispensed to an individual - but only during the time at which those benefits are received.
 
Just watch the political trends. What are people clamoring for? Less government. The GOP needs to make massive gains. How does a political party make massive gains? Jumping on political trends.

It's not all that hard to follow. If the GOP fumbles away the golden opportunity they have been given with a failure as a President, a corrupt Congress and a public just BEGGING for less government - I will certainly have to reevaluate my party preference.



America, during the 1800's.

If the GOP can come in VERY QUICKLY, because so far they have not....but come in WITH A PLAN, rather than..."that's wrong...", "no, that won't work...", "Dems are satan..." type of rhetoric, they can make HUGE GAINS, 2010 and 2012. So far, I don't see that happening.
 
Yes I am talking about the first one (own property). And yes I am aware someone incompetent can inherit property. However, I evaluate things by pros and cons, and despite the shortcomings, I think it is more stable than a Democracy in the long run. I am not aiming for perfect, but realistic, efficient and sustainable.

The Timocracy also must synthesize parts of Aristotle's Polity, and more modern understanding of economics. Stuff like a Constitution that limits the power of the government still comes into play. It would have to be refined and modernized. So for an example, a woman who owns property can participate.

Democracy is more of less a corrupted version of a Timocracy/Polity. To transition to this form of a government would not be as difficult. And this type of structure would limit the power of mob rule, and it would give hardcore Progressives a nightmare, because it is structurally unfriendly to them.

There's no way that would ever happen and if it did things would get violent in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am talking about the first one (own property). And yes I am aware someone incompetent can inherit property. However, I evaluate things by pros and cons, and despite the shortcomings, I think it is more stable than a Democracy in the long run. I am not aiming for perfect, but realistic, efficient and sustainable.



The Timocracy also must synthesize parts of Aristotle's Polity, and more modern understanding of economics. Stuff like a Constitution that limits the power of the government still comes into play. It would have to be refined and modernized. So for an example, a woman who owns property can participate.

[/QUOTE]

I rent my apartment, I don't own it, I don't see why I should be a defacto serf for that reason alone. Again I don't some see why some incompetent who merely inherited some property should get superior rights to me.

Not to mention most the property owners would be rich old white guys, so they could enact barriers that prevent others from coming into their class.

Democracy is more of less a corrupted version of a Timocracy/Polity. To transition to this form of a government would not be as difficult. And this type of structure would limit the power of mob rule, and it would give hardcore Progressives a nightmare, because it is structurally unfriendly to them.

Yes, something that is a defacto feudalist society would be a Progressive nightmare, because its completely reactionary. I don't see why it being "Progressive's nightmare" is instantly a good thing. We might as well live property owners titles like "Baron" and "Count"

I would rather live in Norway then be a defacto serf in your timocracy.

Not only would living in a Timocracy be a bad thing, the majority of people would never accept the defacto serfdom that such a system would create, so such a system would never come to pass. I think of took a poll on this board or any other, most people would oppose such a system and not just the "progressives".

Seriously I thought you would at least Meritocracy as an alternative to Democracy, at least I could respect a Meritocracy, I have no respect for what you presented.
 
I am talking about a Timocracy after the upcoming Crash. There is no way anyone right now will accept it. This is what I mean by reboot a while back.
 
I am talking about a Timocracy after the upcoming Crash. There is no way anyone right now will accept it. This is what I mean by reboot a while back.

I believe in the fall society when it actually happens, not before. The guy on the sidewalk is always predicting the end of world, so its old news to me.

Besides after a crash the most likely system that would replace this one, is a series of brutal warlords who would create their own fiefdoms, go to war with others warlords and will kill or enslave anyone in their way. So good luck creating a Timocracy out of that.
 
By involuntarily forking your paycheck via an income tax, and using their notes as the main means of transactions (easily devalued), you are a true defacto serf. It's illegal and unconstitutional, but people go a long, because it would be crazy not to. Most judges and lawyers agree on the technical matter of this, but do not enforce it because of the political implications.

What has representative democracy amounted to? The civil service almost always win, they remain entrenched past every administration. Then you have politicians and the corporations in the next pecking order. The voter is almost always result in the same old Democratic wrist slitting party, or the Republican hammer to crotch Party. True political power comes from the Universities and "intellectuals" who create public policy, and a mainstream press the pushes the said opinion. Then the politicians ride these waves.

The current America is not the ones of the classical liberals and founders.

It's dead.

No libertarian will restore it, it is impossible. If a Libertarian comes into power, he basically has minimal to no pull on the executive and judicial branch (which takes decades - he does not have that). Structurally it remains the same - it might not get as bad, but won't improve. There is absolutely no way to reform the system save for a post-crash and reboot scenario.

Even if there was true reboot in an aforementioned classical liberal or libertarian society, there is no evidence or structural means from repeating the events of FDR.

The USG, is run by the civil service and corporatist interest. People are attracted to this because initially it might work. But this will always degrade. It has a half life, and usually collapses from the financial system. This is precisely what is happening.

It is FDR's America now.
 
By involuntarily forking your paycheck via an income tax, and using their notes as the main means of transactions (easily devalued), you are a true defacto serf. It's illegal and unconstitutional, but people go a long, because it would be crazy not to. Most judges and lawyers agree on the technical matter of this, but do not enforce it because of the political implications.

What has representative democracy amounted to? The civil service almost always win, they remain entrenched past every administration. Then you have politicians and the corporations in the next pecking order. The voter is almost always result in the same old Democratic wrist slitting party, or the Republican hammer to crotch Party. True political power comes from the Universities and "intellectuals" who create public policy, and a mainstream press the pushes the said opinion. Then the politicians ride these waves.

The current America is not the ones of the classical liberals and founders.

It's dead.

No libertarian will restore it, it is impossible. If a Libertarian comes into power, he basically has minimal to no pull on the executive and judicial branch (which takes decades - he does not have that). Structurally it remains the same - it might not get as bad, but won't improve. There is absolutely no way to reform the system save for a post-crash and reboot scenario.

Even if there was true reboot in an aforementioned classical liberal or libertarian society, there is no evidence or structural means from repeating the events of FDR.

The USG, is run by the civil service and corporatist interest. People are attracted to this because initially it might work. But this will always degrade. It has a half life, and usually collapses from the financial system. This is precisely what is happening.

It is FDR's America now.

And me being a serf to a feudal baron is superior how?

Even if you are correct and income tax does creates serfs, your Timocracy increases serfdom, not decreases it. I would rather pay income tax then become a complete serf to some feudal lord who is supposed superior to me, because his dad has property. Your chains are far heavier then ones you criticize.

You want me to give up any political power and give it all to some spoiled rich kid who inherited his daddy's mansion, it will be cold day in hell before I do that.
 
Last edited:
And me being a serf to a feudal baron is superior how?
How does changing the name change a defacto relationship? We are all born with obligations, and ones we don't want. I am only unsugarcoating it. None of this ******** false pressure valve of dissent in teH political arena that amounts to nothing.
 
It's only you who is purposely trying to frame it as timocracy = same as feudalism. It is interesting you completely ignore my comments on Aristotle's Polity and integration of economics.

Democracy controls subjects by sugarcoating them into believing that they control the government. The defacto relationship is approximately the same to serfdom. The difference I am calling spade for spade and put the relationship up front. This frankness changes the dynamic.
 
If the GOP can come in VERY QUICKLY, because so far they have not....but come in WITH A PLAN, rather than..."that's wrong...", "no, that won't work...", "Dems are satan..." type of rhetoric, they can make HUGE GAINS, 2010 and 2012. So far, I don't see that happening.

It won't come from up top because the GOP has been a historically grassroots party.

What we should see in 2010 is similar to what happened after Goldwater's Presidential run. A massive party movement generated from local elections that filters it's way up top.
 
I agree, or from the Governor's House...

the GOP governor's are far more realistic than the doffus' in Washington...
 
or Louisiana....

But, I think they, for the most part, are more aware of their states desires than the US Congress is....
 
It's only you who is purposely trying to frame it as timocracy = same as feudalism. It is interesting you completely ignore my comments on Aristotle's Polity and integration of economics.

Democracy controls subjects by sugarcoating them into believing that they control the government. The defacto relationship is approximately the same to serfdom. The difference I am calling spade for spade and put the relationship up front. This frankness changes the dynamic.

I like Artistole well enough, but in general I tend to believe the ancients should be left to the ancient world, that line of philosophy has more less been finished by the moderns, the moderns have more to say that relates to today's society. Why not try to create Plato's hierarchy instead, it seems about as rational as this idea.

Plus again a Timocracy is only superior to today's society if you believe today's society amounts to defacto slavery, which I don't. I would have to buy into all your theories to buy this and since I clearly don't buy into all your theories, I see no reason why I should Timocracy is superior, you have done nothing to prove it. For someone who claims to despise Marxism your ideas have a lot of common with it, these theories have some valid criticism of society, but the solution just doesn't work, the cure is a million times worse then the disease.

If I don't own property, let's all I have is rented apartment, what rights would have and if I have none, why should I bother supporting it and not fighting against it. It seems completely oligarchical.
 
Last edited:
I am not trying to sell you any theory. It's all postulating and meandering for kicks. I already said, my personal purpose is to be less involved in politics. So much as adapting to what they do.

I don't think many of the modern political philosophers are that great. I think some the classics have a better grasp of human nature, than the moderns. The discussion of human nature as a subject matter is a timeless one.
 
I am not trying to sell you any theory. It's all postulating and meandering for kicks. I already said, my personal purpose is to be less involved in politics. So much as adapting to what they do.

Man, if you want not talk about politics as much, then why are you posting here?

If you don't like it, you should go to another board and talk some fun stuff, like Spider-Man.

I don't think many of the modern political philosophers are that great. I think some the classics have a better grasp of human nature, than the moderns. The discussion of human nature as a subject matter is a timeless one.

Surely you like some of moderns, no one likes all them, most people like some of them.

Anyway I don't care for the ancients, because most of them stick to this ancient ideal that every should have their place and stick to their place, because that is the natural order of things (nobles should be nobles, peasants should remain peasants.)

I tend to believe in systems that allows for more proactive advancement.
 
Talking about politics is not the same as participating in politics.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"