For everyone else looking for meaningful change, here's
Otto Scharmer's talk at the 33rd E.F. Schumacher Lectures:
How many think this room is TOO NICE (For our lecture)?"
That says it all before they even get started. Ahh, to bring back the days of economic justice and equity. Was it really only 100 years ago when your clothes had to last for decades? You didn't dare wash them much, that would wear them out in the first decade.
If only we could have back the dark ages. When there was no rampant consumerism that demanded a family have more than one drinking cup. The King barely lived any better than his subjects. How MANY quotes have philosphers made about people who don't want things don't feel deprived at not having them?
That's right, here I'm watching the football playoffs, engaging in a game of 'Internet Football' while I'm at it.
By that logic, every school board and school textbook committee would be an ego-centric supreme leader and every school curriculum an exercise of coercion.
And it is. So much is said about it being that way. 'Economics as if people mattered' would remove the political Dr. Feel Good Drug Curriculum that dominates education and would focus on things like 'Employability' in a SUCCESSFUL economy a mandare, with allowing mindless jobs that require a minimum wage of over $2/hour and healthcare for the willfully useless a violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.
Oh, wait, wasn't it Lenin who said 'Those who don't need to work, don't need to eat?' That wasn't the suggestion, it was the LAW. When there weren't enough dropping dead on their own, Stalin took direct action. The woman in that video made the fool remark "Learning from the future." No, the future is supposed to learn from us, but for that to happen we have to learn from the past. Those who cannot remember the quote of George Santayana are condemned to paraphrase him. And those who ignore the dicotomy of economic equality and economic justice would condemn all of us to repeat. . . .
. . . .Oh, how about the fact that the long term prospects of any government that depended on plunder was collapse? How about governments with tax rates that exceeded income? One was 800%. This is what it takes to maintain a dole for the unproductive poor. As Winston Churchill said, you can only have economic equality with equal poverty. To stick with the George Santayana theme:
'
It is not society's fault that most men seem to miss their vocation. Most men have no vocation.'
I would like to live in a resource based economy without the need of money.
Oh yeah. Like when the government lets you move onto some land and let's you provide some of the productivity in return, you then run around making trades with your neighbors. . . . It's called FEUDALISM! Boy, that worked well. Even with no actual taxes paid for infrastructure there was always roads and canals. At the cost of only the armed men who rounded up workers and their tools to take them out to make them build. The Vargars, meanwhile, could live in the hills, loot crops and other things from time to time, maybe hold a few people up on the roads, extort payoffs for those working to be left in peace --- What a life! Long story about fencing the common land, private ownership, Vargars (Literally people living as wolves) forced to move to the city and work for a living. Thus begins security and prosperity with the advent of ---CAPITALISM!
These monomanics giving speeches, are they selling tickets to attend or are they taking up collections? When I was working for TRW they would say 'If you make the customer say WOW, they will pay near any price.' But a lot of good these fantasies they hypnotize you with will ever do you. They are pretty well always talking about failed economic systems of the past that the sheeple who follow them should be embarassed at their ignorance at not knowing anything about them. What properties these theories in these speeches have, independent of your undeveloped imaginings, is an incoherent thing.
Instead of dwelling on meaningful change, could we finally come to grips with the meaning OF change?
George Santayana actually said:
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
All living souls welcome whatever they are ready to cope with; all else they ignore, or pronounce to be monstrous and wrong, or deny to be possible.
Professional philosophers are usually only apologists: that is, they are absorbed in defending some vested illusion or some eloquent idea. Like lawyers or detectives, they study the case for which they are retained.
Meanwhile, I'd love to go on about John Law, (The spiritual Godfather of Bitcoin) The 'Kipper und Wipper' vs. replacing gold and silver with paper money, (Even in America, when the price of gold was rising, people began to cut the "Excess" away from their gold coins so there would only be the value of the coin in gold) but would you really take anything from it that you didn't WANT to believe? Since Obama is a huge proponent of Law's theories, would it bother the Obama fans that Law was convicted of the murder of a romantic rival and sentenced to death but bought his way out of it? The term 'Millionaire' was coined because he made SO MANY in the public into millionaires, greatly driving up prices in general. . . .
. . . .But instead of opening their minds to the truth and reality, some people will just get mad and I'll give up posting on this thread.
