Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: Musings by Killer300
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Killer300

"Of late, a debate that has been dominating things lately is the debate between Vincent and Helsworth on world unity, which Commissar has sort of entered. Before Vincent gets into rage mode, I'm not entering that debate. Why? Because it's, frankly, in many ways, completely pointless. No offense to anyone in it, but it accomplishes nothing here. Why? Because we are now already heading towards a unified world, but it isn't through the U.N. Communication technology, among other things, is doing it. Look, I'm not trying to start a fight with this thread, but I'm just sick and tired of people debating a subject in a way that ignores a large part of the issue. What is it? That the end of soveriegn nations is inveitable now. A global culture is forming already. Part of the conflicts in the Middle East come from countries not wanting that. Which is understandable, because this unification is being done badly. We assume there is some sort of choice in it, but that's no longer the case. It would be like saying to a hurricane, "I don't want a hurricane, go away." The only way to not participate would be to not technologically keep pace with the world, and that would be more than political suicide, that would be the end of that nation basically, for it would soon be overtaken by rivals with better technology.

Again, let me repeat that this isn't an attack on anyone involved in the debate. I'm simply throwing in my two cents, and I'm hoping that this at least gets it moving in a different direction. Things like nationalism are going kicking and screaming because we are handling things like this badly. The world forming into one nation isn't something we can choose anymore to some extent. Now, we could perhaps get a United States of Humanity, or something like that. However, that's another story.

Another reason I bring this up is because people assume unification is coming from different sources than it is. The world unifying comes from communication, not politics. Politics, if anything, keeps trying to split it apart more. Both the right and the left have reasons to not want a unified world, parts of them anyway, and I'm not going to get into that. Progress, in this case technological, is literally steam rolling over the complaints from nationalist, reactionary, and other political elements. It already has done this in other areas, like copyright, and will probably continue to do so for awhile. This ties back to why it isn't really our choice, technology like the Internet will continue to innovate the world, whether we want it to or not.

Finally, if we are to prepare for this world, we need to adapt. We live in one world now, things like economic interdependence makes it where no matter who you are, you are affected by everyone else. This is why things like anti-immigration are frankly, anarchronistic now. If you want to solve that, either prepare the area for the influx of new residents, or try to fix the place they're coming from. Don't just try to build a wall around your country, figuratively and literally speaking, because now that won't work. Now, you'll only be wasting money. This also makes it where it's much harder to shield yourself from the effects of things like recessions, even if the country that it started in is thousands of miles away and you have seemingly little relation to them.

All of this, this interaction throughout the world, will only become more and more the case with time. I hope this has been constructive, and at least improved the debate raging."

I think we all remember this post. What am I doing here? Presenting more of my musings I guess.

"Okay, there is a serious irresponsibility present in neo-liberals, along with many other parts of the right. It, simply put, is the inability of them to find a way to pay for the government. They keep on saying, cut taxes, not realizing the immense economic damage caused by it. It doesn't matter if you don't have to pay as much in taxes if that money is eaten up by other costs, like healthcare costs, wage cuts, and numerous other effects. That's assuming the government cuts spending the amount it needs to in order to accommodate certain types of taxes. You could also create massive debt, the very thing you try to avoid, because of reckless spending present in things like the military-industrial complex and subsidies.

My point? You want a big military? Plan to pay for it. You want to cut taxes? Be willing to cut military spending in equal, if not greater, amounts compared to everything else. The reason why the U.S. is in the debt situation it's in right now is because of reckless TAX CUTS, not reckless spending, although there is plenty of that in the military.

Going back to my main point here, schools like the Austrian School suffer immensely from never providing a time taxes can be raised, i.e. inflation or deflation, only saying to cut taxes. The problem is that the government has to be funded, and things like sales tax not only are unjust if the only income source, but also lack the needed income. Why? Simple, the more you raise sales tax, the less people consume by comparison to how much they used to. This can encourage black market elements if too high, and the next you know, there goes your budget. Income tax is mandatory, simply because it can provide the money needed to fund a modern state. Punishment taxes should at least be considered. Corporate tax is more iffy, although I don't find it to be a double tax, unless your income tax is already extremely progressive, not something that is universal. Inheritance tax I would support, on the grounds that otherwise you can get rich kids that never have to work a day of their lives, not a precedent you want to set. Rich kids need to be made to work like everyone else.

One of the main examples of hugely out of control tax cuts is in recessions(although not the great depression as I'll get to in a minute but wait.) If you cut taxes, that doesn't mean the people you cut taxes for have more money. The poor, for example, already don't pay very much in tax. So, a tax cut won't help them, at all. The middle class more, but both the poor and middle will be punished the most by budget cuts. They will lose much needed services, and many times, their jobs, if they work for the government. This creates a viscious cycle, where budget cuts slash jobs, reducing demands, causing more jobs to be slashed, causing less demand, and so on in spiral downwards until someone increases spending.

Now, for the Great Depression. Yes, there a tax raise that perhaps aggravated, however the government really messed up in two major ways, one in a bad intervention, the other in a lack there of. The first was that it imposed a tariff. Okay, tariffs have a place, but NOT during a recession, or a depression. It reduces demand for your exports, hurting the local economy significantly. The area it failed in is it did NOTHING spending wise. It didn't spend on the economy, not until the New Deal did the huge amounts needed get utilized. If the tax raise had an effect, it was tiny compared to the huge damage caused by the tariff and lack of economic intervention.

Not only do tax cuts not help in recessions as much as claimed, and not only do they humoungously damage budgets, but they don't even stimulate that well. Okay, yes, you can have punitive tax levels that hurt the economy, I'm not saying that isn't possible. What I am saying is that tax cuts aren't the solution that the right would like them to be. If you want to stimulate the economy, directly spend on it. Build infrastructure, invest government funds into education to get a smarter workforce, and invest in building a reserve to help in crashes.

On top of all this, tax raises can actually be immensely helpful for inflation. Why? They reduce out of control spending on the hand of consumers that probably played a huge part in the inflation. This is where sales tax can be great, as long as you cut it once the inflation is under control. Debt, another major cause of inflation, happens many times because of tax cuts. So the whole anti-inflation parade of the right isn't very truthful, for their methods of reducing inflation will only make things worse. Tax cuts means more money to spend in the ever rising out of control inflation. It also removes money that's needed to pay off debt.

So over all, tax cuts can't do what they're promised to, and simply put, are irresponsible. If you want to cut taxes, it has to be done carefully, not recklessly like lately with the Bush cuts, and I'm sure more upcoming cuts by the GOP. Also, why do you want to cut taxes? The reason has to be carefully examined, and it has be decided whether that is really the best solution, and frequently, that just isn't the case."

Why am I putting these together? Well, combine a falling of nationalism with people mentioned in the latter. What do you think will happen? On one hand, you have neo-liberal policies that are soon going to fail. Utterly. Not only that, but if it occurs the way I think it will, it will mean this. If our economy somehow survives TOTAL COLLAPSE, no one is going to buy into markets period anymore, much less neo-liberalism. What does that mean? Who knows. I'm guessing myself either Syndicalist economics or a regression in economics to an earlier state, i.e. bartering however this would mean technological collapse which I'll get to... now.

Okay, now we the Internet. The Internet is practically a technologically created god in many ways, considering the amount of influence it has. Fortunately, considering it would survive even if nuclear war occurred, it also acts as an excellent way to preserve technological progress, along with books. The same device that is causing globlization, among other things, is also what will, in a sense, save us technologically speaking.
Communication is fine, but look at first world countries which are still socially backward like Japan. Most japanese people never give up using the word gaijin (foreigner). Not only that, but in japanese society speaking one's mind isn't practiced nearly enough, as a result it just bottles up anger and frustration until it eventually explodes. I had a friend who went to Japan on a scholarship and stayed there for 3 years. I mean seriouslly, what the media portrays about Japan is totally different in real life. She told me that she saw a drunkard falling down flat on his face and no one intervened to help him, or to check on him, they just literally walked over him. An other example is that her neighbour was "offended" in some way by her kitchen fan and sent the land-lady at her door to complain about it. WTF? Why not just knock on the door and ask politelly for something? Because they don't any trouble, they don't want to be direct, they practice a ritual based on bullshit, and it's even worse than in the West. For example it is considered rude, if a japanese person compliments you on something, and you say thanks. The custom is that you have to say, "what this old thing?", or "No actually I'm not that happy with it", or "not at all". An other curiosity is japanese polite language, when it comes to clerks and employees/boss relation. Not only do you have to kiss up to the client/boss, but you also have to downgrade yourself. And it goes to ridiculous lenghts. "May I ask you for your honourable address?", "Wise manager may a humble man like me bother your honour with a raise?"...
Not only that but there's a lot of xenophobia and racism there, which a lot of folk aren't aware of. The mayor of New Tokio said a couple of years ago, that Japan is better than other western countries like the US because they have no considerable minorities like the US has (he specifically talked about mexicans and blacks). He also made other racist and xenophobic rants not just on blacks, but also on koreans, chinese and whites, and yet this guy was elected. An other bad thing about Japan is that they don't have a law on racial disrimination. Their constitution only states that everyone is equal in the face of the law, but does not state, what is considered a breach of this equality.
Also when Christmas comes, Japan is even worse than the US vrom a consumerist standpoint. Everyone wants to buy, just for the sake of buying, they don't even believe in christianity, but yet they act like compulsive consumers, and also every Christmans they eat strawberry cake or cherry cake, don't remember which flavor... Also, check this out, japansese chicks don't like to split the tab. Men consider their women to get better at house cleaning/cooking and looking slim, while the women expect only the men to work and bring big $ and encourage their husbands to save. Maybe that's why government and central banks officials of Japan have so much trouble stimulating credit, even with 0 or near 0% interest rates, because the spouses of managers, households, shareholders press their husbands into saving. "No no no, don't invest in capital goods, don't invest in inventories, I have needs, I want to travel etc" Hehe
Also they have warning labels of all kinds on everything, busses, streets, parts, trains, posters etc. You can find yourself with a lawsuit just for asking a stranger on the street directions. It is considered strange to talk to strangers, not to mention the fact that japanese people can't speak english, because most of them don't know it, and those who do, are too embarrassed to speak it. This friend of mine also worked part-time as an english teacher, she told me that she only spoke in japanese with them because they were too embarrassed to try to speak in english. Also their own teachers can't spell nor write properlly in english. Their manuals of english are just filled with words and the exercise of spelling/writing is based on araging english words to match the sentence in japanese. They aren't tought anything like articles or pronouns. That's why when singers/japanese firms/advertising and commercial products which incorporate english into their adds, don't make any sense, like "NICO touches the walls", “Bump of chicken”, a band is actually called "Yellow Japanese Monkey" Lachweg
Sorry for my rant about Japan...
Anyway to quote Ferdinand de Saussure, "The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate."
What has brought the world "together" today is nothing more than empty commercialism. Only a very small part of people actually care about the rest of the world's problems.

Killer300

Umm, the Japanese rant contributed nothing, although was kind of entertaining to read. Now, I'm just happy for anime that isn't censored to death and all myself, but that's just me.Smile

Going back to the communication thing, the Internet among other things is forcing us together. There is no defying the Internet either, you either go with technological progress, or your country will be left in the dust, probably to be conquered by others. Hence, everyone is being forcefully swept up into a global system that didn't come about naturally, causing havoc.

Repeating my points way back, it's pointless to argue against globlization in some ways, for there is no preventing it. It would be like yelling at a tornado to stop tearing apart your house. It won't stop, it's a force of nature. This is similar, except instead of being a force of nature, its the force of progress. Brutal progress that rolls over resistence like a tank.
Rather, we must figure out how to make globlization do two things.
A. Not be destructive.
B. Give regions some sort of autonomy in a world rapidly removing power from countries.
You can call it progress, I think it's anything but progress. De jure they can bragg all they want, but de facto they made the whole world dependent on their parasitical banking practices, and as a result the whole world is at the mercy of the banking oligarchy. The internet is nice and all, I'm really addicted to it, but it can also be censored or forbidden by the "right" people in power. Not to mention the fact that it creates a lot of alienation.
The world has degenerated into a dystopia where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and dysgenic pressure has resulted in a uniformly stupid human society devoid of individual responsibility or consequences. One world government won't do shit for people, instead it will do what absolute power does, corrupt absolutelly.
Ibn Khaldun in his work notes that when a society becomes a great civilization, its high point is followed by a period of decay. This means that the next cohesive group that conquers the diminished civilization is, by comparison, a group of barbarians. Once the barbarians solidify their control over the conquered society, they become attracted to its more refined aspects, such as literacy and arts, and either assimilate into or appropriate such cultural practices. Then, eventually, the former barbarians will be conquered by a new set of barbarians, who will repeat the process.
Do you know what the goals/methods of Bertrand Russell were in regards to one world government/globalization?

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s."

"...the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology.... The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician’s paradise.”

"Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."

"...most civilized and semi-civilized countries known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship."

"There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority."

This guy was a dear friend of Kruschev and an adamant promoter of global green fascism and malthusian policies.
A world empire has been tried before in history and the promoters of it were always oligarchical scum, which fought against each other for power and influence. They funded rebels/revolutionaries/mercenaries and funded radical ideas such as pan-nationalism without competing empires to gain more dominance. Just look at what Lord Palmerston's Giuseppe Mazzini did, what certain members of B'nai B'rith did through the "Young Turks" to Turkey (an empire which surprizinglly had a good toleration of its minorities compared to other countries) for instance.

I'm sorry bro, but as long as the people ignorant and stupid, worshiping globalization as an unstoppable force, or something that is meant to be, without meeting any responsability or minimum standard of humaneness is just folly. I would rather have countries deliberating and holding their own referendums, instead of one government deliberating for me, a dude from the Balkans and for a korean. Regardless of how the organization scheme will seem more or less decentralized. I couldn't care less about a de jure organization called Government of Earth, or One people, if de facto it's just a regimentation of human beings as sheep for the "gentlemen farmer" ellite.

DRLHyper

Helsworth Wrote:
Also they have warning labels of all kinds on everything, busses, streets, parts, trains, posters etc. You can find yourself with a lawsuit just for asking a stranger on the street directions

(Warnning: The first of these could be considered suggestive/innapropiate by some... or could it?)

This is very weird if you are a Westener.

No comment

Funny. They even have "egoism warnings".

I apologize, but I could not resist!

Quote:
Anyway to quote Ferdinand de Saussure, "The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate."
What has brought the world "together" today is nothing more than empty commercialism. Only a very small part of people actually care about the rest of the world's problems.

I noticed that exact same problem. We have more advanced methods of communication, but in reality communication only happens due to businness needs.

Further, do not also forget that, that part of the people 'actually care' are some of the hardcore environmentalists.

DRLHyper Wrote:

Helsworth Wrote:
Also they have warning labels of all kinds on everything, busses, streets, parts, trains, posters etc. You can find yourself with a lawsuit just for asking a stranger on the street directions

(Warnning: The first of these could be considered suggestive/innapropiate by some... or could it?)

This is very weird if you are a Westener.

No comment

Funny. They even have "egoism warnings".

I apologize, but I could not resist!

Quote:
Anyway to quote Ferdinand de Saussure, "The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate."
What has brought the world "together" today is nothing more than empty commercialism. Only a very small part of people actually care about the rest of the world's problems.

I noticed that exact same problem. We have more advanced methods of communication, but in reality communication only happens due to businness needs.

Further, do not also forget that, that part of the people 'actually care' are some of the hardcore environmentalists.

Yeah they care more about endangered species than human beings. Wink Theres nothing more funny and hypocritical than a western environmentalist lobbying against the development of foreign countries and their respective people, while at the same time advocating for any conservation policy off the bat.

Killer300

When I say progress, I don't mean its a good thing, in this context. We are being forced into something the world hasn't sociologically developed for, something to keep in mind.
As I said, there is nothing to do about it. I myself would do this far differently, but the point is it's like yelling at a tornado.

DRLHyper

Killer300 Wrote:
When I say progress, I don't mean its a good thing, in this context. We are being forced into something the world hasn't sociologically developed for, something to keep in mind.
As I said, there is nothing to do about it. I myself would do this far differently, but the point is it's like yelling at a tornado.

The only problem I see, is that they are trying to unify through individualism. It does not work that way, it will never be. Soviets tried ultrastatism and failed - what makes people think ultraindividualism will work?

At the same time, such a unity would only come when a centralized structure needed to administrate overspace territories exist. Imagine a Mars with a population of several millions. How could it be administered from Earth, without an efficient administrative device?

However, the same problem is that without such need, the centralization would be ineffective or temporary.

Well I for one am screaming at that tornado and I will keep screaming until it ceases to be a tornado, or until I die. At least I'll be at peace with my conscious.

Killer300

The Soviet Union is a complicated case. If Stalin hadn't screwed it up, who knows, although Lenin had issues, I'm not denying that. Trotsky may have been able to keep it closer to its origins, or would've at least made it a lot more aggressive. It maybe could've won the Cold War if it had done the latter.

The point is the SU's failure was more because of internal problems rather than the idealogy itself. Not to mention Bolshevikism wasn't exactly the most Socialistic of the Socialist ideals, but that's a debate for another time.

On the other hand, neo-liberalism is a failure BECAUSE of ideals. Namely, they refuse to do anything that isn't market based, making them like religious fundmentalists who will never change their views regardless of contrary evidence.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's