Agree or disagree - a question from the new citizenship test

farfromglorified

I don't really see the argument for America as a capitalist state without invoking relativism. The same argument would hold that a dog is really a zebra, relative to a snake, and that doesn't make much sense either. A dog isn't a zebra, nor is it a snake.

Capitalism is an economic system wherein all property is owned by private individuals or entities. Those individuals and entities may freely exchange goods and services in any manner they choose. Capitalism prescribes no particular political environment aside from the fact that the political environment must not introduce violence into the business of exchange or the process of production.

Communism is a political system wherein the state controls property and production. Since this political system is founded upon economic constructs, one cannot separate the political or economic functions of the system. One cannot be communist without involving politics in economics.

In America, who owns property? The individual, or the state? The answer is obviously the state. As established in the Constitution and upheld by a century of precedent, you have no right to own property in this nation. Rather, you only have a right to steward property on behalf of the state. The state may, for any reason codified in law or judicial precendent, forcibly take assets from you without compensation or consideration of your interests or will.

In America, are economics and politics separate? Of course not. The state inserts itself into nearly every economic transaction between private individuals and entities. These insertions come in the form of taxes, regulations, and often times simple brute force.

Does this mean that America is communist state? I would say yes. Does this mean that America is the same as Soviet Russia, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or China? I would say no. Are Cuba and China the same? Again, no. But does that make one a capitalist nation and one a communist nation? No.

A communist state that refrains from overbearing statism doesn't make a state non-communist, it simply makes it less overbearing and less intrusive. Communism prescribes the justifications for intrusion, not necessarily the prescription for how or how often to intrude. In other words, Communism establishes that a central government must hold a enforcible authority over economics and also provides the moral justification of that authority: the "common good". Since both that authority and that moral concept can come in many forms, communism prescribes no specific manifestation, though only so many things can be used to accomplish its aims (namely - statism, altruism, guilt, fear, and guns).

Conversely, capitalism prescribes a specific economic system: one wherein individual rights are not only primary, but exlusionary of all other considerations. One cannot be "capitalist" unless one believes in the absolute ownership of property by private individuals. One cannot compromise an absolute without destroying its meaning in total. You cannot own something and not own something at the same time just like you cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Life is an absolute. In a capitalist economic system, property is as well.

So, I can see an argument for two potential answers to this question. The first would be "communist". The second, taking a limited set of principles from Marx, would lead to another answer of "non-communist". However, in no way can I see the correct answer being "capitalist".

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't really see the argument for America as a capitalist state without invoking relativism. The same argument would hold that a dog is really a zebra, relative to a snake, and that doesn't make much sense either. A dog isn't a zebra, nor is it a snake.

Capitalism is an economic system wherein all property is owned by private individuals or entities. Those individuals and entities may freely exchange goods and services in any manner they choose. Capitalism prescribes no particular political environment aside from the fact that the political environment must not introduce violence into the business of exchange or the process of production.

Communism is a political system wherein the state controls property and production. Since this political system is founded upon economic constructs, one cannot separate the political or economic functions of the system. One cannot be communist without involving politics in economics.

In America, who owns property? The individual, or the state? The answer is obviously the state. As established in the Constitution and upheld by a century of precedent, you have no right to own property in this nation. Rather, you only have a right to steward property on behalf of the state. The state may, for any reason codified in law or judicial precendent, forcibly take assets from you without compensation or consideration of your interests or will.

In America, are economics and politics separate? Of course not. The state inserts itself into nearly every economic transaction between private individuals and entities. These insertions come in the form of taxes, regulations, and often times simple brute force.

Does this mean that America is communist state? I would say yes. Does this mean that America is the same as Soviet Russia, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or China? I would say no. Are Cuba and China the same? Again, no. But does that make one a capitalist nation and one a communist nation? No.

A communist state that refrains from overbearing statism doesn't make a state non-communist, it simply makes it less overbearing and less intrusive. Communism prescribes the justifications for intrusion, not necessarily the prescription for how or how often to intrude. In other words, Communism establishes that a central government must hold a enforcible authority over economics and also provides the moral justification of that authority: the "common good". Since both that authority and that moral concept can come in many forms, communism prescribes no specific manifestation, though only so many things can be used to accomplish its aims (namely - statism, altruism, guilt, fear, and guns).

Conversely, capitalism prescribes a specific economic system: one wherein individual rights are not only primary, but exlusionary of all other considerations. One cannot be "capitalist" unless one believes in the absolute ownership of property by private individuals. One cannot compromise an absolute without destroying its meaning in total. You cannot own something and not own something at the same time just like you cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Life is an absolute. In a capitalist economic system, property is as well.

So, I can see an argument for two potential answers to this question. The first would be "communist". The second, taking a limited set of principles from Marx, would lead to another answer of "non-communist". However, in no way can I see the correct answer being "capitalist".

Interesting analysis, but the correct answer is "mixed economy" - i.e. neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist.

And under no circumstances does either "capitalism" or "communism" (though I assume you mean socialism here) in any way equate to "non-violent."

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Interesting analysis, but the correct answer is "mixed economy" - i.e. neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist.

What is a "mixed economy"?

And under no circumstances does either "capitalism" or "communism" (though I assume you mean socialism here) in any way equate to "non-violent."

The principles of capitalism stand completely opposed to the principles of violence. You cannot be violent economically and be a capitalist. Capitalism is based on exchange, not force. Now, this doesn't mean everyone within a capitalist system is completely non-violent. Nor does it mean capitalism cannot exist as an economic system within a political environment that also promotes extreme violence outside of the economic arena.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

What is a "mixed economy"?

Simply put, a mixed economy is one that utilizes elements of both capitalism and socialism.

farfromglorified wrote:

The principles of capitalism stand completely opposed to the principles of violence. You cannot be violent economically and be a capitalist. Capitalism is based on exchange, not force. Now, this doesn't mean everyone within a capitalist system is completely non-violent. Nor does it mean capitalism cannot exist as an economic system within a political environment that also promotes extreme violence outside of the economic arena.

I was refering to violence by the state to "protect" individual property. After all, how else are you going to get those squatters off your lawn?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Simply put, a mixed economy is one that utilizes elements of both capitalism and socialism.

How can you utilize elements of two systems that completely contradict each other? If someone tells you that 1=1, and another person tells you that 1=2, how do you mix those things together? If you poured gasolene into a glass of water, would you call that a "mixed drink"?

I was refering to violence by the state to "protect" individual property. After all, how else are you going to get those squatters off your lawn?

Your question here is spurious. The term "squatter" implies that property rights exist within a society and therefore ownership exists in that society. Yet "squatters", by definition, deny any right to property. How can I have ownership of something in a society that does not respect ownership?

The act of squatting implies that ownership is based on nothing more than possession. In that case, when one forcibly removes a squatter from a piece of property, one is simply playing by the squatters own established rules of ownership. There is nothing more illogical or violent about forcibly removing a squatter from your property than there is about removing a rapist from your body.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

The state may, for any reason codified in law or judicial precendent, forcibly take assets from you without compensation or consideration of your interests or will.

not really. most takings demand compensation. in some cases, yes, you don't get compensated. but that is the exception rather than the rule.

farfromglorified wrote:

Conversely, capitalism prescribes a specific economic system: one wherein individual rights are not only primary, but exlusionary of all other considerations. One cannot be "capitalist" unless one believes in the absolute ownership of property by private individuals. One cannot compromise an absolute without destroying its meaning in total. You cannot own something and not own something at the same time just like you cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Life is an absolute. In a capitalist economic system, property is as well.

you're doing the same thing you claim we're doing. just becos something isn't strictly capitalist doesn't make it communist. and yes, there ARE degrees. you can be a toddler, teen, dead, or dying. likewise you can have no property, total control of property, or something in the middle.

farfromglorified wrote:

So, I can see an argument for two potential answers to this question. The first would be "communist". The second, taking a limited set of principles from Marx, would lead to another answer of "non-communist". However, in no way can I see the correct answer being "capitalist".

i think your argument is way off. there is NO private property in communism. all is owned by the state. in america, this is not the case. all the land is owned by the US, but the things you buy are yours and cannot be taken with due process and just compensation. if anything, you could argue that america is socialist... but i seen absolutely no way you can say the united states is communist. in communism the government controls ALL of the capital, in capitalism the people do. in socialism, it's in the middle. but there is no way you could convince me america is a communist economy. if it was, id be wicked pissed off cos they're doing a shitty fucking job distributing it. you would not see dick cheney makes 10000000000 times as much as joe american if this was a communist economy.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

The principles of capitalism stand completely opposed to the principles of violence. You cannot be violent economically and be a capitalist. Capitalism is based on exchange, not force. Now, this doesn't mean everyone within a capitalist system is completely non-violent. Nor does it mean capitalism cannot exist as an economic system within a political environment that also promotes extreme violence outside of the economic arena.

you can smell the bullshit on this hundreds of miles away. to say there is no force or violence is capitalism is utterly ridiculous. you seem to have this blind ideology of every human being as a very noble and gentlemanly person who is always going to play nice as long as there are no rules. you know people are going to violently abuse total free market capitalism. it's been shown time and time again throughout history... wealth cannot regulate itself. it's an addiction like any other... once you get a taste you want more and eventually you will do anything to get it. absolute power corrupts absolutely.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

How can you utilize elements of two systems that completely contradict each other? If someone tells you that 1=1, and another person tells you that 1=2, how do you mix those things together? If you poured gasolene into a glass of water, would you call that a "mixed drink"?

no, but a rum and coke ends up being better than either of its parts standing alone. both are fine on their own but have their problems. you put them together and you get the best of both worlds.

farfromglorified wrote:

The act of squatting implies that ownership is based on nothing more than possession. In that case, when one forcibly removes a squatter from a piece of property, one is simply playing by the squatters own established rules of ownership. There is nothing more illogical or violent about forcibly removing a squatter from your property than there is about removing a rapist from your body.

yes there is, becos forcibly removing them from your property does violence to their body. they did not do violence to your body and a human's body is worth more than any piece of property. thus, your response is violent in that is inflicts damage upon them that is far worse than the damage done to you.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

you can smell the bullshit on this hundreds of miles away. to say there is no force or violence is capitalism is utterly ridiculous.

Show me violence, and I'll show you a violation of exchange.

you seem to have this blind ideology of every human being as a very noble and gentlemanly person who is always going to play nice as long as there are no rules.

No I don't. I simply don't expect people to be noble and gentlemanly when the rules promote theft and violence.

you know people are going to violently abuse total free market capitalism.

Of course.

it's been shown time and time again throughout history... wealth cannot regulate itself.

Wealth always regulates itself. An engine is always an engine. A dollar is always a dollar.

People, on the other hand, have the ability to regulate themselves or not to.

it's an addiction like any other... once you get a taste you want more and eventually you will do anything to get it. absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You have it backwards. Absolute corruption can create absolute power.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

not really. most takings demand compensation. in some cases, yes, you don't get compensated. but that is the exception rather than the rule.

This is simply untrue. Eminent domain wherein a person is compensated is the exception. The rule is the confiscation of property as "evidence" or as "tax". Furthermore, the compensation that does exist could easily be removed if the whims of the state change.

you're doing the same thing you claim we're doing. just becos something isn't strictly capitalist doesn't make it communist. and yes, there ARE degrees. you can be a toddler, teen, dead, or dying. likewise you can have no property, total control of property, or something in the middle.

I didn't say that we were communist because we're not capitalist. I said we're communist because our economy is dominated by the state and our property is owned by the state -- the two hallmarks of communism.

i think your argument is way off. there is NO private property in communism. all is owned by the state. in america, this is not the case. all the land is owned by the US, but the things you buy are yours and cannot be taken with due process and just compensation.

Huh? If I buy drugs, who will take them? If I exchange labor for salary, who will take half of it? And where is the compensation and due process for that?

if anything, you could argue that america is socialist... but i seen absolutely no way you can say the united states is communist. in communism the government controls ALL of the capital, in capitalism the people do. in socialism, it's in the middle. but there is no way you could convince me america is a communist economy. if it was, id be wicked pissed off cos they're doing a shitty fucking job distributing it. you would not see dick cheney makes 10000000000 times as much as joe american if this was a communist economy.

First, the government does control all capital in this country. Check your wallet.

Secondly, where in the definition of communism does it prescribe that the vice president make 10000000000 times as much as joe american ?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

How can you utilize elements of two systems that completely contradict each other? If someone tells you that 1=1, and another person tells you that 1=2, how do you mix those things together? If you poured gasolene into a glass of water, would you call that a "mixed drink"?

Um. No. But I can pour something else flammable into it and call it a mixed drink. Other than that, what can I say. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em, and the United States has a mixed economy.

farfromglorified wrote:

Your question here is spurious. The term "squatter" implies that property rights exist within a society and therefore ownership exists in that society. Yet "squatters", by definition, deny any right to property. How can I have ownership of something in a society that does not respect ownership?

Your whole premise is spurious. And what does the implication of the word "squatter" have to do with anything? Would it have helped if I used the word "bum" instead?

farfromglorified wrote:

The act of squatting implies that ownership is based on nothing more than possession. In that case, when one forcibly removes a squatter from a piece of property, one is simply playing by the squatters own established rules of ownership. There is nothing more illogical or violent about forcibly removing a squatter from your property than there is about removing a rapist from your body.

The act of squatting can imply whatever the squatter and squattee want - if they exist in a purely capitalist society, the implications of their acts would in no way fundamentally change the nature of that society.

For the record, I never mentioned logic - and forcibly removing a rapist from your body would require violence, whether you're comfortable with the definition or not.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

no, but a rum and coke ends up being better than either of its parts standing alone. both are fine on their own but have their problems. you put them together and you get the best of both worlds.

Rum and coke mix together. They do not contradict each other. Their natures do not make them unmixable.

yes there is, becos forcibly removing them from your property does violence to their body.

"Their" body? How can they make claim to "their" body?

they did not do violence to your body and a human's body is worth more than any piece of property.

Based on what standard? How is a "human's body" worth more than any piece of property? If I offered to trade you 10,000 acres of land filled with gold for your labor, would you deny that deal?

thus, your response is violent in that is inflicts damage upon them that is far worse than the damage done to you.

How? I'm not suggesting I have a right to kill a squatter or beat him to a bloody pulp. I recognize that the squatter owns his own life. The squatter, however, recognizes no ownership. If I simply physically remove him from my property, all I've done is exchange with him based on his own ideals and his own moral code.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Wealth always regulates itself. An engine is always an engine. A dollar is always a dollar.

People, on the other hand, have the ability to regulate themselves or not to.

im not following this one. those with unlimited wealth have no reason to restrain themselves and nobody can force them to do it. so they abuse their wealth... they buy power and government officials to make themselves even wealthier. they do more indirect violence to the less privileged than the indirect "violence" of taxation can ever accomplish through the threat of jail, starvation, or outright murder. you're offering the workers a choice: die on the job for me, or starve your family to work for me. you see no violence in that choice?

farfromglorified wrote:

You have it backwards. Absolute corruption can create absolute power.

again, not making sense. what is that supposed to mean?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Um. No. But I can pour something else flammable into it and call it a mixed drink. Other than that, what can I say. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em, and the United States has a mixed economy.

To "call it like you see it", you need some kind of factual evidence. Otherwise, you're simply calling it what you want to call it.

Your whole premise is spurious. And what does the implication of the word "squatter" have to do with anything? Would it have helped if I used the word "bum" instead?

Bum wouldn't imply a person claiming to own or have a right my property by merely sitting on it. Bum would imply all sorts of things.

The act of squatting can imply whatever the squatter and squattee want - if they exist in a purely capitalist society, the implications of their acts would in no way fundamentally change the nature of that society.

Of course it would. One cannot have a "capitalist society" without capitalist individuals comprising that society.

For the record, I never mentioned logic - and forcibly removing a rapist from your body would require violence, whether you're comfortable with the definition or not.

I'm completely comfortable with that definition. But violence against a rapist is completely consistent with exchange. You're giving equal value to equal value.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

This is simply untrue. Eminent domain wherein a person is compensated is the exception. The rule is the confiscation of property as "evidence" or as "tax". Furthermore, the compensation that does exist could easily be removed if the whims of the state change.

Huh? If I buy drugs, who will take them? If I exchange labor for salary, who will take half of it? And where is the compensation and due process for that?

not the whim of the state, the values of the people. it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with just compensation.

that salary tax is your rent for living in this great country

farfromglorified wrote:

I didn't say that we were communist because we're not capitalist. I said we're communist because our economy is dominated by the state and our property is owned by the state -- the two hallmarks of communism.

First, the government does control all capital in this country. Check your wallet.

Secondly, where in the definition of communism does it prescribe that the vice president make 10000000000 times as much as joe american ?

1. the money is only a symbol, a marker to reflect how much your capital is worth. it doesn't mean the us owns it, just that they hve provided an easy way for everyone to swap goods so that i don't have to trade you 2 beaver pelts for a happy meal at mcd's.

2. as i recall, the core of communism is empowering the proletariat, the working class. this means, in simple terms, the ceo does not get all the money and all the power... the workers do. thus, dick cheney and other ceo's making 100000000 times as much money as their workers violates the very core of communism, which is that all share equally, regardless of merit

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

im not following this one. those with unlimited wealth have no reason to restrain themselves and nobody can force them to do it. so they abuse their wealth... they buy power and government officials to make themselves even wealthier.

"Buying power", in the context you're using it, implies buying control of men, irrespective of the will of those men. If I "buy power" by simply buying off a government official who will tell you what to do, I'm not a capitalist.

You seem to be confusing "capitalist" with "rich person". Those terms are not synonymous.

they do more indirect violence to the less privileged than the indirect "violence" of taxation can ever accomplish through the threat of jail, starvation, or outright murder. you're offering the workers a choice: die on the job for me, or starve your family to work for me. you see no violence in that choice?

It depends on how that choice is arrived at. If I kidnap you and then force you to labor for me, then yes, that is violent. If I steal your food and then only give it back to you if you labor for me, then yes, that is violent. But if I'm the only employer in your system, and I've made no aggressive actions against your body or your property, then no, there is no violence there.

again, not making sense. what is that supposed to mean?

It means that power cannot corrupt you. You, however, can use power corruptly. "Power" cannot make a decision, nor can it define values. Only living things can define values and make decisions. If you use power corruptly, that has little to do with the power you have -- it has everything to do with the person you are.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Rum and coke mix together. They do not contradict each other. Their natures do not make them unmixable.

sure they do. and neither do capitalism and communism. now before you go "huh"... rum is an alcoholic drink, coke is a sweet carbonated drink. but both are drinks. capitalism is hands off economics, communism is totally regulated economics. but they're both still economic systems. and you CAN mix them... it's called socialism. a general freedom of economy, but with some regulation and protection against abuse. im sorry, but im a bit more concerned about the abuse of the weak by the strong than i am about the "abuse" of a rich guy having to pay a few taxes. quit being a pussy man

farfromglorified wrote:

"Their" body? How can they make claim to "their" body?

we covered that already.

farfromglorified wrote:

Based on what standard? How is a "human's body" worth more than any piece of property? If I offered to trade you 10,000 acres of land filled with gold for your labor, would you deny that deal?

becos my body is worth more to me than 10,000 acres of land filled with gold. if you wanted to buy my body in the sense that you OWN it as you own your property, it's worth a hell of a lot more than that lot of property. ownership is indefinite. you're talking, at best, about renting my body, not owning it. you cannot own someone else's body, ever. that is called slavery. their body is worth more than any piece of property becos it can never be bought.

farfromglorified wrote:

How? I'm not suggesting I have a right to kill a squatter or beat him to a bloody pulp. I recognize that the squatter owns his own life. The squatter, however, recognizes no ownership. If I simply physically remove him from my property, all I've done is exchange with him based on his own ideals and his own moral code.

but you are, your system demands it. your property is absolute and their body and soul and personhood (under your ideology) are worth no more than their labor can provide to you. so if a poor mcd's worker with no skills tries to steal your diamond, you are entitled to kill, maim, batter, and destroy him to protect the greater value of your diamond. becos he's worth less than the diamond. you said yourself right up above that someone's life and body aren't worth any more than property... their only value is their ability to work for you. they're the means to your end and have no inherent value themselves.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

not the whim of the state, the values of the people. it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with just compensation.

that salary tax is your rent for living in this great country

No, it doesn't. Everyday property in this country is expropriated without "constitutional amendment". If I buy a pound of marijuana from you, and I get caught, I will not be compensated it when the state removes it from my possession. If I sell you my labor, the state will take half of it without consitutional amendment or compensation. And if you take my property from me to build a highway, you already determine the value of my compensation. No amendment will be required to change the subjective definition you've already applied to "just compenstation".

1. the money is only a symbol, a marker to reflect how much your capital is worth. it doesn't mean the us owns it, just that they hve provided an easy way for everyone to swap goods so that i don't have to trade you 2 beaver pelts for a happy meal at mcd's.

Incorrect. The United States government invented paper money in order to incur debt, not to provide me with a way to swap goods. Everyday they act to devalue the currency in your pocket.

2. as i recall, the core of communism is empowering the proletariat, the working class. this means, in simple terms, the ceo does not get all the money and all the power... the workers do. thus, dick cheney and other ceo's making 100000000 times as much money as their workers violates the very core of communism, which is that all share equally, regardless of merit

Equal money and power are not prescribed by communism. Money and power relative to need are prescribed by communism. And nothing within a communist system has a greater "need" than the state. That is why the heads of communist states tend to have a bit more than the needs of the "proletariat".

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

To "call it like you see it", you need some kind of factual evidence. Otherwise, you're simply calling it what you want to call it.

I know you addressed it in regards to soulsinging's post, but alcohol and water do contradict each other.
One is flammable, the other extinguishes flame.
One dehydrates, the other hydrates.
One is a downer, the other an energizer.
One causes insanity type symptoms, the other helps to alieviate those symptoms.

As for calling it like I see it, my evidence is people buy property all the time. Then, often they sell it for a profit. Most of which they keep.

farfromglorified wrote:

Bum wouldn't imply a person claiming to own or have a right my property by merely sitting on it. Bum would imply all sorts of things.

Bum it is, then.

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course it would. One cannot have a "capitalist society" without capitalist individuals comprising that society.

So if you have a purely capitalist society, and someone living within that society doesn't believe that pure capitalism is the best method to run that society, then that society is immediately not capitalist anymore? Jesus Christ, dude, how the hell do you go about implementing and keeping a purely capitalist society? If you don't believe a purely capitalist society can exist, I'll agree with you. If you do believe it's possible, I hope to god the ones that don't agree with you are well armed.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

"Buying power", in the context you're using it, implies buying control of men, irrespective of the will of those men. If I "buy power" by simply buying off a government official who will tell you what to do, I'm not a capitalist.

You seem to be confusing "capitalist" with "rich person". Those terms are not synonymous.

how not? you paid money for services. that is capitalism.

farfromglorified wrote:

It depends on how that choice is arrived at. If I kidnap you and then force you to labor for me, then yes, that is violent. If I steal your food and then only give it back to you if you labor for me, then yes, that is violent. But if I'm the only employer in your system, and I've made no aggressive actions against your body or your property, then no, there is no violence there.

but how does one become or remain the only employer in the system? the same way the us government stays on top here... union busters, organized crime, teaching lessons to the workers, cutting costs by making the workplace hazardous, etc. you cannot tell me you've never read the dark side of the industrial revolution and abuse of free market capitalism. these regulations bemoan came about for a reason... it HAD to be done becos those on top were doing far more damage to many more people than any regulations could ever do to them.

farfromglorified wrote:

It means that power cannot corrupt you. You, however, can use power corruptly. "Power" cannot make a decision, nor can it define values. Only living things can define values and make decisions. If you use power corruptly, that has little to do with the power you have -- it has everything to do with the person you are.

and my point is that it is INEVITABLE that those with power will use it corruptly, becos it is addictive and like any good crackhead, you need more. it has nothing to do with the person you are. this is human nature. addictions twist the person you are into something else. and all things that spark good feelings (a line of coke or the thrill of making more money) are addictive.