« prev   random   next »

0
2

The Story of Your Enslavement

By Dan8267 following x   2016 May 3, 7:43pm 6,554 views   21 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


Lousy ending, no real action proposed, and a few points I disagree with, but the premise is compelling. Certainly worth discussing.

1   curious2   ignore (0)   2016 May 3, 7:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

the premise is....

false. Most animals fear death, and many are easier to control. Countless dogs wait patiently for walks because they know that if they pee on the carpet, somebody will find out eventually, and there will be trouble of some sort.

2   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2016 May 4, 5:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ignorance is bliss.

/The Matrix

3   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2016 May 5, 10:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Is this called beating a simplistic meme to death with righteous indignation? SJW boooooosheattt!

4   Indiana Jones   ignore (0)   2016 May 5, 10:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says

SJW boooooosheattt!

That's right. Just shut the trap and defend the status quo. I got mine!

5   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2016 May 5, 2:42pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This video is 95% BS.
It assumes humans have always been slaves to some unseen 'owners'. So there wasn't any motivation - ever - to actually create an open and just society. Any period where things were relatively good, such as the relative wealth of the middle class in the 50's to 70's, was just necessary for "productivity". It's hard to be more cynical.

This is BS. We know what taxes are spent on. They don't go to 'owners'. Statism is hardly a threat. We know how the society is organized and the rational behind every bit of this organization. We know it's not easy to do anything differently. We know you can be an entrepreneur or an employee. We know most entrepreneurs fail, but some are widely successful. The layer of profits capitalists extract from their companies and the work of their employees is the price of an insurance: employees don't take the risks. You're totally free not to pay: create your own company.

There is 5% truth in this in that corporatists in the last 30 yrs managed to put Americans in competition with third world labor, and therefore they destroyed the bargaining power of labor. They managed to have more or less control of regulations, which indeed makes America look like a 'farm' of sort, with some toll booths, commoditized products etc.... But saying this makes you a slave of 'owners' is throwing the baby with the bath water. Only a few aspects of the current organization are bad.

More importantly this ignores how good things still are now. It's hard to think of a more open and just society, where most people are treated with respect, live without fear of violence and are free to build a life as they see fit. You have to be a totally spoiled brat to indeed think things are bad. You have to be totally ignorant of how things go in some other countries, where armed bands come into your home, take what you have, and maybe rape your daughter too. If and when liberal democracy collapses, you will regret your 'owners'. That much is clear.

6   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 May 5, 3:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

The idea in the video I find interesting, which hasn't been discussed yet, is that the primary reason we have freedoms in western societies is because free societies produce more wealth and thus allow the ruling class better lifestyles than more tyrannical and oppressive societies. For example, we choose our own careers instead of being force to perform menial labor because allowing us to do so produces engineers, scientists, inventors, etc. that greatly increase the wealth of a society over a society where people are told what work to perform regardless of their natural abilities and interests.

I do think there is some truth in this idea. If it weren't profitable to the ruling class, would we really have such choice in our labor? Throughout most of history we did not.

7   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2016 May 5, 3:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

the primary reason we have freedoms in western societies is because free societies produce more wealth and thus allow the ruling class better lifestyles than more tyrannical and oppressive societies.

No. The primary reason is because free society are more creative and produce more wealth... for everyone involved.
You have to be incredibly cynical to focus on one aspect of this, discard all known explanations for the current existence of large inequalities and attribute a nefarious motive to your own freedom.

8   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 May 5, 5:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says

No. The primary reason is because free society are more creative and produce more wealth... for everyone involved.

That doesn't contradict the premise the video presented. Having more wealth for grunts does not concern the ruling class one way or another, but having more wealth for the ruling class is a great motivation for the ruling class. Are you proposing that if a set of freedoms increased the wealth of society at large, but decreased the wealth of the wealthy, then that set of freedoms would be protected and encouraged by our government?

Well, that proposal is empirically false. Take for example, weed. Legalizing weed would be a great economic boom for many reasons.
1. It creates many productive jobs.
2. It would increase consumer demand which is 70% of our economy.
3. It would decrease nonproductive, wasteful spending on law enforcement, courts, and prisons.
4. It would greatly increase creativity. See The Beatles.

So, according to the above proposal, the government would be claimering to ensure that everyone had the freedom to grow, consume, buy, and sell marijuana. Yet, marijuana remains highly illegal because the prison, police, and pharmaceutical industries make lots of money because it is illegal.

Hence, freedoms that decrease the wealth of the ruling class are not tolerated in our society regardless of how much they would benefit us or the wealth of people in general.

9   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2016 May 5, 5:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

Are you proposing that if a set of freedoms increased the wealth of society at large, but decreased the wealth of the wealthy, then that set of freedoms would be protected and encouraged by our government?

Are you suggesting this never happened? Of course it did, in the 20th century US. For example social security was created etc...
Yes we now have a government that is 70% focused on corporations. Again this was not always like that.

Dan8267 says

Take for example, weed.

Well I don't think this is a good example for your argument because if pot was legal, arguably owners would make a ton of money, while users would burn their neurons. I don't have a strong opinion on that. But I don't think the motivation is to prevent an economic boom: I think it so happens a lot of conservative people don't want Americans to turn into an army of pot-heads with slow enunciation.

I'm just worried here that there is a level of anger at the 'system' that is not fully justified by facts.

10   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2016 May 5, 6:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The proper mix is about 70 or 60 and 30/40 Capitalism and Socialism, leavened with healthy nationalism that's based on celebrating achievements.

One thing we need to do immediately is provide a national employment agency for people receiving unemployment, matching laid off workers with employers. If employers keep rejecting qualified applicants on spurious grounds, or attempt to repeatedly low ball by offering well below average wages, they pay a fine. To get an Work Visas, companies should be required to go through the process of being matched with qualified employees, and if they get more than 5 matches, they cannot insource a foreign worker. One of the 5 will be a good match, otherwise they are being hyperfinicky or an attempting to practice labor arbitrage.

11   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 May 5, 7:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Are you proposing that if a set of freedoms increased the wealth of society at large, but decreased the wealth of the wealthy, then that set of freedoms would be protected and encouraged by our government?

Are you suggesting this never happened?

So what if it happens some of the time. If it happens some of the time but not other times then it does not logically follow that The primary reason is because free society are more creative and produce more wealth... for everyone involved.

It might be that the primary reason we have liberties is that such liberties produce wealth for everyone as oppose to the primary reason we have those liberties is that they produce wealth for the owner class, but such a statement is not self-evident, but merely an assertion, unless you have the premise that liberties that produce great wealth for everyone always, not sometimes, are promoted and protected by the government.

The weed counter-example disproves your premise especially given how much economic benefit it would provide to such a wide range of people. Other counter-examples include prostitution, profanity in radio and television, all sorts of banned pornography, and the use of cryptography the government cannot break.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well I don't think this is a good example for your argument because if pot was legal, arguably owners would make a ton of money, while users would burn their neurons.

This is wrong on so many levels.

1. Weed does not cause brain damage. That was a false claim promoted by people who oppose, often for financial reasons, the legalization of weed.

2. The people growing or selling weed would not be the only ones to economically benefit. People who could use weed as a pain killer instead of purchasing expensive and less effective pharmaceuticals would also benefit. In fact, in a free market no drug would be illegal. By definition, the illegality of weed makes the pharmaceutical market not free as consumers are forced to purchase more expensive and less effective substitutes of a product that they could either buy from someone else or grow themselves. To believe in the war on drugs is to reject free markets. In any case, it is undeniable that such coercion decreases the efficient allocation of resources including the drug consumer's money.

3. The legalization of weed would create many ancillary businesses like bong design and creation, weed smoking lounges, products to flavor weed, magazines and blogs advertising weed-related products. Sure some of these businesses exist now, but they number and size of these businesses would increase greatly. This means many more people being economically productive even though they aren't buying, selling, or growing weed itself. The gold rush was more profitable to the people making and selling iron picks and filtering pans than the people hunting for gold.

4. The lack of resources wasted on unnecessary and undesirable actions like imprisoning people would greatly diminish allowing those resources to be spent on better things like infrastructure, capital goods, education, energy independence, technological advancement, etc.

So yes, legal weed would greatly benefit our economy and is a perfect example of how liberties that would benefit the economy as a whole are not tolerated by our state because a few parasites profit from the oppression of such liberties.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm just worried here that there is a level of anger at the 'system' that is not fully justified by facts.

You are projecting. I'm an engineer. When I see a problem, what I see is an opportunity to improve the system. Problems are not hated by people like me. Problems are simply things to be solved. That's what I do for a living. That's what my entire world view is about, problem solving. There is no emotion involved. It is purely a logical puzzle to be solved. I like solving problems. I like it more than sex. That's not an exaggeration. I doubt you could understand that, but for some people solving problems is a meaningful use of the very limited time we have in existence. It's sure a hell of a lot more fun than football, eating, or watching television.

12   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 May 5, 7:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thunderlips11 says

The proper mix is about 70 or 60 and 30/40 Capitalism and Socialism

I'm not sure that is a meaningful statement. An economic system is not like a glass of a solution that can be expressed as the ratio of parts. It's like a bridge in that it's how the parts are put together. How would you even measure how much of the economy is socialism vs capitalism? Are they even mutually exclusive? When tax dollars are used to buy weapon systems from private defense contractors isn't that both socialism and capitalism?

thunderlips11 says

One thing we need to do immediately is provide a national employment agency for people receiving unemployment, matching laid off workers with employers.

Agreed. And I'll go one step further. All H1B visas should be replaced with immigrants who get immediate U.S. citizenship as do their families. All such workers and all outsourced workers (those STEM workers in India, for example) must be paid at least 20% more than the market rate for U.S. developers. If it's so critical to hire workers in India, then the companies that do so can pay higher wages for that opportunity. Importing workers should be more expensive than using local resources.

13   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 May 6, 7:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

How would one possibly run a society more sophisticated than a herd of monkeys without some form of taxation. You could charge fees for essential services, but since the services are essential and therefore unavoidable, those fees are effectively taxes.

14   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2016 May 6, 11:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

In fact, in a free market no drug would be illegal. By definition, the illegality of weed makes the pharmaceutical market not free as consumers are forced to purchase more expensive and less effective substitutes of a product that they could either buy from someone else or grow themselves.

To be clear 'Free market' certainly doesn't mean that everybody is free to sell anything. It means within the areas we want to allow trade, we allow people to freely set the prices and other terms. Free markets requires regulations such as ensuring information is available to the buyer on what is being bought, ensuring are not deceived (scams), are not poisoned, etc, etc... The role of free market is to automatically balance supply and demand as an epiphenomenon of pricing. This is perfectly independent of deciding what should be acceptable in a society.

Dan8267 says

It might be that the primary reason we have liberties is that such liberties produce wealth for everyone as oppose to the primary reason we have those liberties is that they produce wealth for the owner class, but such a statement is not self-evident, but merely an assertion, unless you have the premise that liberties that produce great wealth for everyone always, not sometimes, are promoted and protected by the government.

No it is not self-evident. Yet, not just in the US but all western countries, authorities have provided such liberties, and I see absolutely no reason to reject the simple possibility that this is for the welfare of many rather than a few, as is implied in the video. Some of these countries have huge welfare systems that you can't explain if everything is decided by owners.

And it is your video that is asserting that the entire history of the world was only various attempts by "owners" to extract wealth from a slave populace. To contradict it I just need to show that sometimes authorities promote liberties as wealth producing for everyone rather than just for 'owners'.

This is not to say that there are no people trying to extort money at every turn. Absolutely these people are there. Yes we live in a system where you will get fleeced if you are not careful or fighting back. Yes, there are lobbyists that are writing laws for the benefits of their corporations. This is a jungle out there. Man praying on men is the rule rather than the exception. But one person or group wins a day and gets screwed the next day, etc... This is what life is. What I don't see is a group of illuminatis ruling the world, doing what they want with the populace, for protracted historical period. There is no such system as the video is describing.

15   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2016 May 6, 12:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

Despite a few well-intended people in high ranking political positions, our government is almost entirely run by people who are only interested in their own selfish desires for wealth, power, and a false immortality through historical caricature [...]. This indicates a systematic problem in which well-intended people are prevented from achieving political power and reshaping the system. How this mechanism works is worth discussing, but the fact that it exists is painfully obvious whether it's a case of the system only allowing corrupted people to achieve power, as I believe, or people becoming corrupted by the system, which I think is at most a small contribution to the problem.

Yes. The more I look at it, the more I see that power is almost exclusively exercised by groups that defend specific interests, rather the general interests, BUT...
- first, these are not always the same groups: which means there is not one class of owners. Sometimes it is democrats owned by public unions, groups representing blacks, sometime it is specific lobbyists passing a law, etc...
- second, outside of their areas of specific interests, these groups tend to behave in the general interest, which is shared by all groups.
- third, there are balancing mechanisms, for ex if banksters become too powerful you get an "occupy wall street" that makes things more difficult for them, and the pendulum tends to swing the other way.

So in all, it is how democracy stumbles forward: what we get is the result of a fight between different groups wanting different things, rather than the actions of illuminated benevolent leaders. It's very far from perfect, but it is certainly not as bad as described in the video. What it all means is that "people should defend their laws like the walls of their cities." i.e. You get only what you fight for. If you don't, you let others do what they want. No one will watch for you by default - or almost no one.

16   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 May 6, 1:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says

how democracy stumbles forward

Democracy has been dead since Rome became a republic.

17   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2016 May 6, 2:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

how democracy stumbles forward

Democracy has been dead since Rome became a republic.

Strife is everywhere, and strife is justice. It has never been any different.

18   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2016 May 6, 7:08pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

George Carlin: "You have owners,they own you."

19   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 May 9, 7:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says

Strife is everywhere, and strife is justice. It has never been any different.

Irrelevant. Strife does not make a banana into a submarine or a republic into a democracy. They are distinct entities and only fools confuse the two. Unfortunately, the wold is full of fools.

20   jazz_music   ignore (7)   2018 Sep 30, 11:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
You get only what you fight for

Ergo all the distractions and fear mongering to prevent us from promoting our interests.

Also the alternate facts, the fake news, the creation of a whole world founded on myth and feelz.

In the 60's our owners discovered that the best and brightest young minds were focused on fighting against their wars, culture, recreational drug use, music, festivals, drifting, sex without obligation, and so they cracked the whip by introducing the tax cuts and legal "reforms" that increased wealth extraction steadily over decades increasing austerity to force greater productivity out of the population under pain of loss of stability and civil freedoms.

So fight for what you want against our owners and not each other.

The choices are to stand for something or to fall for anything.
21   jazz_music   ignore (7)   2018 Sep 30, 11:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

1. Weed does not cause brain damage. That was a false claim promoted by people who oppose, often for financial reasons, the legalization of weed.

This daft fucking bastard disagrees.



Look at who serves our owners.

That is the most important thing.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions