Implosions

hedonist

Sorry, B, yeah - in a mood and part of a post up there irritated me as well, to which I was mostly speaking.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Maybe more by how I inferred it than how it was implied (though I don't think I'm too far off on the inference or implication). Just seems so many are way quick to judge. It bristles me at times.

Anyway, we're all entitled to a harsh rant or two, as I've seen 'round these parts on occasion.

Again, my apologies if I came off as a huge bitching bitch.

polaris_x

Gern Blansten said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It would be nice to develop accountability within governmental practice, but as I write that... does anyone seriously think a society free of government could (or would) regulate itself at an altruistic level?

i could be wrong ... but I don't interpret Unsung's ideology as No Gov't ... I think his position is that there are aspects of society which require gov't involvement ... like he mentioned as a representative internationally on treaties and pacts ... but if it was up to him - the federal gov't would have very little oversight over the states ... each individual state would have more freedom to control on issues like education and taxation ...

Right but when the states fail to do so the feds have to have the authority to step in and fix their messes.

i'm not necessarily agreeing with it ... just seems people keep harping on no gov't when that's not necessarily what I think he's suggesting ...

Free

hedonist said:

Sorry, B, yeah - in a mood and part of a post up there irritated me as well, to which I was mostly speaking.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Maybe more by how I inferred it than how it was implied (though I don't think I'm too far off on the inference or implication). Just seems so many are way quick to judge. It bristles me at times.

Anyway, we're all entitled to a harsh rant or two, as I've seen 'round these parts on occasion.

Again, my apologies if I came off as a huge bitching bitch.

Listen, it is up to you whether you choose to take posts on here personally or not. I do think that money leads to greed, maybe I should delete "money" for greed? Money sure does lead to greed...

hedonist

Free said:

hedonist said:

Sorry, B, yeah - in a mood and part of a post up there irritated me as well, to which I was mostly speaking.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Maybe more by how I inferred it than how it was implied (though I don't think I'm too far off on the inference or implication). Just seems so many are way quick to judge. It bristles me at times.

Anyway, we're all entitled to a harsh rant or two, as I've seen 'round these parts on occasion.

Again, my apologies if I came off as a huge bitching bitch.

Listen, it is up to you whether you choose to take posts on here personally or not. I do think that money leads to greed, maybe I should delete "money" for greed? Money sure does lead to greed...

Pretty sure I answered OK up there but thank you for the advice. Pretty sure you've never taken things personally over time here - so let's not go there, yeah?

Not sure what else you want from me. Money is money - a thing. It's what people choose to do with it, how to look at it, obtain it - therein is the issue, to me. Actions, not the tangible almighty dollar.

Greed covers a whole smorgasbord of items, money (or what it can supposedly bring) being but one of them.

Gern Blansten

mmmmmm.....smorgasbord

Free

hedonist said:

Free said:

hedonist said:

Sorry, B, yeah - in a mood and part of a post up there irritated me as well, to which I was mostly speaking.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Maybe more by how I inferred it than how it was implied (though I don't think I'm too far off on the inference or implication). Just seems so many are way quick to judge. It bristles me at times.

Anyway, we're all entitled to a harsh rant or two, as I've seen 'round these parts on occasion.

Again, my apologies if I came off as a huge bitching bitch.

Listen, it is up to you whether you choose to take posts on here personally or not. I do think that money leads to greed, maybe I should delete "money" for greed? Money sure does lead to greed...

Pretty sure I answered OK up there but thank you for the advice. Pretty sure you've never taken things personally over time here - so let's not go there, yeah?

Not sure what else you want from me. Money is money - a thing. It's what people choose to do with it, how to look at it, obtain it - therein is the issue, to me. Actions, not the tangible almighty dollar.

Greed covers a whole smorgasbord of items, money (or what it can supposedly bring) being but one of them.

I want nothing from you. You chose to get defensive at my broad, big picture POV. Let it go. Enjoy and seize the day.

unsung

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It would be nice to develop accountability within governmental practice, but as I write that... does anyone seriously think a society free of government could (or would) regulate itself at an altruistic level?

i could be wrong ... but I don't interpret Unsung's ideology as No Gov't ... I think his position is that there are aspects of society which require gov't involvement ... like he mentioned as a representative internationally on treaties and pacts ... but if it was up to him - the federal gov't would have very little oversight over the states ... each individual state would have more freedom to control on issues like education and taxation ...

Precisely.

Admittedly, I would prefer no federal government over what exists now.

Bentleyspop

How "off the grid" can offthegridnews.com be?

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Actually my position is quite relaxing. I no longer have to argue with ignorant people and hear them tell me how much I need their roads. Muh roads!

Truthfully I don't give a shit what society does, we are at the point where having genders are offensive and your day consists of catching a cartoon character while arguing over corrupt politicians. That is success? I'm just saying to ignore it all and so I really don't give two shits if you don't like what I say. You keep participating in the system that you endlessly bitch about, I'll be minding my own business over with those that have moved on from it.

All the while participating in, and benefitting, from the system. Don't worry, I'll stay off your lawn!

Without any system there'd be no police, fire, schools, roads. Muh roads? Without roads how do workers get to the power plant to power your computer to tell us you no longer have to argue with ignorant people? Without roads how do you even get that computer? Or pretty much everything else you own. Maybe you can walk to the store, but someone has to drive it to the store.

So roads wouldn't exist without government. Got it. Glad you cleared that up.

Cars wouldn't exist either? We'd have to walk? No computers? Oh boy. I guess all innovation would cease to exist without your overlords.

How many roads do you go on where you don't have to throw change in a meter? How do you think those roads got there and paid for them? If the government didn't do it, I certainly wouldn't volunteer my time and money to pave the city, and whoever did would be charging you every time you used it.
I never said or even implied without the government we wouldnt have cars or computers. What I did say was even if you chose to not use government paved roads, everything you own still got here on them. So how can you not think roads are necessary in today's world? At least that's what I interpret your comment about ignorant people and roads and the "meh roads" to mean.

Muh roads is in reference to people such as yourself that believe roads wouldn't exist without government.

To answer your other questions..the roads "got there" by private paving companies building them. They were paid for by people such as yourself.

It's this simple, you live on X on a map. Five miles east is a Wal-Mart, five miles west is a Target. Private companies are in charge of infrastructure, one provides a gravel road to their parking lot, the other a nice smooth paved road. Which would you go to?

Aren't traffic laws created and enforced by the government?
People can't function without government if they are in a developed society (or undeveloped, for that matter. Even tiny tribes in Africa or the Brazilian rain forest have government of some kind). Period. I am surprised that you seem to be advocating for a society where private enterprise runs literally everything. Even law enforcement I assume? Come on man. You know that society couldn't function without government.

brianlux

hedonist said:

Sorry, B, yeah - in a mood and part of a post up there irritated me as well, to which I was mostly speaking.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Maybe more by how I inferred it than how it was implied (though I don't think I'm too far off on the inference or implication). Just seems so many are way quick to judge. It bristles me at times.

Anyway, we're all entitled to a harsh rant or two, as I've seen 'round these parts on occasion.

Again, my apologies if I came off as a huge bitching bitch.

Well I never rant or get pissed off... damn it!!!

OffSheGoes35

hedonist said:

Sorry, B, yeah - in a mood and part of a post up there irritated me as well, to which I was mostly speaking.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Maybe more by how I inferred it than how it was implied (though I don't think I'm too far off on the inference or implication). Just seems so many are way quick to judge. It bristles me at times.

Anyway, we're all entitled to a harsh rant or two, as I've seen 'round these parts on occasion.

Again, my apologies if I came off as a huge bitching bitch.

Isn't that the truth? I like to tell myself I'm not quick to judge, but sometimes I like to bullshit myself. It's really nice when someone makes an effort to understand, like when Brian asked if you were ok.

riotgrl

Free said:

riotgrl said:

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

I agree on education.

As for the first paragraph, I have been boycotting shady businesses for years. You vote with your dollar every day. My daughter will gladly tell anyone that she (and me) boycotts McDonald's. I look out for companies that dump chemicals and hurt the environment and refuse to buy their products (Clorox, Roundup, etc) And we refuse to go to Walmart, we will go to a mom and pop store long before buying crap for cheap. And many people feel the same way, our friends and family who have personally been affected by Walmart especially (small business owners).

Agreed, and I do the same to most companies. But many people do not, even if it hurts their community, i.e. Wal-Mart. Most of the people that I know do not feel the need to vote with their dollars. Maybe it's a difference in where we live?

hedonist

brianlux said:

hedonist said:

Sorry, B, yeah - in a mood and part of a post up there irritated me as well, to which I was mostly speaking.

Apathy is the root of all evil in my opinion, next to money and arrogance. Indifference is worse than hate. If you think about it, in regards to relationships going bad, it takes more energy to love, like or hate a person but when you're indifferent, there's no energy. That's what apathy is. The lack of caring; the lack of energy. Indifference and apathy are actually worse than hate.

Maybe more by how I inferred it than how it was implied (though I don't think I'm too far off on the inference or implication). Just seems so many are way quick to judge. It bristles me at times.

Anyway, we're all entitled to a harsh rant or two, as I've seen 'round these parts on occasion.

Again, my apologies if I came off as a huge bitching bitch.

Well I never rant or get pissed off... damn it!!!

Ha! Thank you for getting it, and for being a kind gentleman in the process.

Sidenote - yet again odd how some of the people here permeate my "outside" life...as I was driving back to work just now, Sugar Mountain (very pretty stripped version) was on and I thought of you.

It was followed by Hotel California: "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!"


Life is so strange.

Implosive at times too, I suppose.

PJ_Soul

It's probably more a difference in average income. Boycotting companies for beliefs generally means boycotting the cheapest options, and I think a huge number of people feel like they would not shop at Wal-Mart or whatever if they could afford to spend the extra money it takes to shop elsewhere. Some people kind of can't afford to NOT shop at Wal-Mart, especially if they have kids. Obviously, there are also a whole lot of people who just don't give a shit, lol.

riotgrl

PJ_Soul said:

It's probably more a difference in average income. Boycotting companies for beliefs generally means boycotting the cheapest options, and I think a huge number of people feel like they would not shop at Wal-Mart or whatever if they could afford to spend the extra money it takes to shop elsewhere. Some people kind of can't afford to NOT shop at Wal-Mart, especially if they have kids. Obviously, there are also a whole lot of people who just don't give a shit, lol.

Good point. My nephew is currently staying with us until college starts and he couldn't get over how many farmers markets we have. He's from a small, rural community. After some discussion, we decided that it was most likely because in my urban area fewer of us can grow enough of our own food whereas in his community most can. Definitely, a different perspective was needed!

mace1229

riotgrl said:

Free said:

riotgrl said:

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

I agree on education.

As for the first paragraph, I have been boycotting shady businesses for years. You vote with your dollar every day. My daughter will gladly tell anyone that she (and me) boycotts McDonald's. I look out for companies that dump chemicals and hurt the environment and refuse to buy their products (Clorox, Roundup, etc) And we refuse to go to Walmart, we will go to a mom and pop store long before buying crap for cheap. And many people feel the same way, our friends and family who have personally been affected by Walmart especially (small business owners).

Agreed, and I do the same to most companies. But many people do not, even if it hurts their community, i.e. Wal-Mart. Most of the people that I know do not feel the need to vote with their dollars. Maybe it's a difference in where we live?

I've been boycotting McDonalds since May 1998. I won a free ice cream cone on a monopoly piece. When I went to claim it they said "you can't claim your prize the same day you win it."
So the next day I stopped in on my drive home from school and this time they said "Sorry, that expired yesterday."
Losers.

rgambs

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

Education is not expressly cited as a duty of the federal government. The Federal government shouldn't be telling states what to do, the federal government should be representing states in international issues.

So the good service would be that, although lately I think most can agree the path of "spreading democracy" is out of control.

So what do you say about the unfortunate children that are born and educated in rural Alabama?
If left to their own control, some southern states would teach the Bible, little to no science, and the curriculum would be overtly racist. All those are actual scenarios that actually existed and were only remedied by the "disease" of federal intervention.

It's sad but true. You say that you are smart enough to decide for yourself, I believe you. That doesn't mean that everyone is. The freedom to make horrible choices that adults possess is an intrusion on the rights of their children.
You can't just legislate people into morality and sanity, but you can't leave them to themselves either, that should be obvious.

PJ_Soul

I totally agree that education CURRICULUM should be decided federally. Everything else, no, but the curriculum should be the same for all people no matter where they live for the obvious reasons already mentioned. At least the mandatory curriculum. Ideally, this would allow for some elective courses that are suited to the state or region, such as career preparation kinds of courses or whatever.

oftenreading

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Indeed. It's pretty hard to live off grid, but those that are able to still face hurdles because laws are being passed to make it illegal to do so. Tell me, how is that not tyranny? How is that not government being overly obtrusive?

Care to cite an example of where laws are being passed to make it illegal to live off the grid?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

You said "laws are being passed....", which suggests that new laws are beige passed to prevent people living off the grid. In this article even the court officials state that the laws are "obsolete", which suggests to me that these are old laws that are still hanging around on the books and not some new conspiracy to prevent people from living off the grid. They were probably passed for good reason at the time to prevent people from drinking unsafe water or discharging sewage inappropriately, but now they need an update. Not uncommon at all.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

riotgrl said:

Free said:

riotgrl said:

unsung said:

riotgrl said:

How are businesses any better? Their only motive for doing anything is profit. In order to achieve profit they usually keep salaries low and cut corners if necessary. I'd love to believe if we had a free market that those businesses would go bankrupt because of their poor practices but as rgambs stated earlier, life wasn't so great in the 1850-1900 era. We can never have a true free market because humans are involved. If humans are involved, you will eventually have something screwing up the free market system.

So boycotting businesses with shady practices is not a valuable counter to said policies?

Of course it is. But how many people usually do this? Usually people that are involved and aware of these business practices. Seems like a lot of people drift along unaware or not terribly concerned about what happens right in front of them. Or they justify those practices because it benefits them more, i.e. shopping at Wal-Mart because its cheaper regardless of their known low wages and poor working conditions.

I'm idealistic but I feel that government could provide a balance to the overreach of business. I agree with you that government has gotten to big and that it should be relieved of some of its responsibilities but it can provide a good service to the people. For example, I think the only thing the government should do in regards to education is set standard curriculum for all states to follow. We should all be teaching the same content not picking and choosing what we teach based on our beliefs.

I agree on education.

As for the first paragraph, I have been boycotting shady businesses for years. You vote with your dollar every day. My daughter will gladly tell anyone that she (and me) boycotts McDonald's. I look out for companies that dump chemicals and hurt the environment and refuse to buy their products (Clorox, Roundup, etc) And we refuse to go to Walmart, we will go to a mom and pop store long before buying crap for cheap. And many people feel the same way, our friends and family who have personally been affected by Walmart especially (small business owners).

Agreed, and I do the same to most companies. But many people do not, even if it hurts their community, i.e. Wal-Mart. Most of the people that I know do not feel the need to vote with their dollars. Maybe it's a difference in where we live?

I've been boycotting McDonalds since May 1998. I won a free ice cream cone on a monopoly piece. When I went to claim it they said "you can't claim your prize the same day you win it."
So the next day I stopped in on my drive home from school and this time they said "Sorry, that expired yesterday."
Losers.

I give McDonald's credit for having great chocolate milkshakes. They used to be awful....like a bad frosty. Now they are on par with Steak-n-Shake.

I hate to say it but I love McDonald's. I can't believe I just typed that.