that's usually how the door is open to control by big business-- i'd like control in the hands of the citizens, thanks much.

no, really, libertarianism sounds nice & all but works only in theory-- how would libertarianism deal with exxon-valdez? or... katrina?

It does apply. I've known a few homeless people to die from each of the above. Admittedly, it's not as wide-spread as in other areas. The problem I find in addressing poverty in this country is that it always seem paltry by comparison to countries with 50%+ unemployment and no free health care, but that's not to say there aren't large swathes of the country living in poverty. It's not the severe poverty, but I do think that idea tends to distort matters more than it does help people who are fucked in the UK.

that healthier balance of wealth could only happen within capitalist/democratic boundaries (ideally) unless you're thinking of devising a whole new system.

the gaps in distribution can be minimized, but never erradicated. It part of human nature that some will strive for more power, and the best we can do is try to regulate that power as much as possible. There will always be the need for the investor and the gravedigger.

we can fight for both of them (and everyone else) to have the minimum standards of human decency and health, but apart from that, people have different ambitions.

you have reached a certain degree in that equality and your periodic recession cannot be avoided due to the fact that you haven't reached with other countries, you can't protect yourselves from them, and until they are in similar situations, they have to grow, and when they do, you slow down.

that's right.

who here has an ipod? an iphone? who bought music in the past 24 hours? who has shit made in sweatshops? who wants MORE?

raise your dirty little hands.

oh yeah, i smell your hundreds of now-open armpits all the way here.

Oh I want that fucking gadget, whip these little chinese children if you must, if they work hard enough they'll be able to get a frapuccino every two days, and i´ll get my shit at a reasonable price, might not even have to go overdraft this time.

let me allocate this shit on the news:
- homeless man dies in the UK due to the cold - 30 seconds - interviews, footage of the location, a photo if there's one to be found
- another 30 people die in another terrorist attack somewhere in the middle east - 10 seconds, no footage
- it is estimated godknowshowmanypeople have disappeared in india and have been human trafficked - 10 seconds, specialist talks for 4 seconds
- prince william spends the night with homeless people to find out how shit it is - 60 seconds: footage, interview, and a little smile from the presenter

no American politics is a silly facade of "two-parties" which makes people swing back and forth back and forth, because when they are obviously fed up with one guy, they naturally are persuaded to go for the "other" guy even if both guys simply do the same thing for 150 years.. In all honesty, we are still perpetuating the blunders and mistakes of the Lincoln era, just Obama realistically is keeping up the Bush administration economic, domestic and military policies into their 9th year..

the US needs to either go TRUE multiparty, or accept its limitations and go democratic UNIPARTY to get out of the swinging pendulum effect, or go Parliamentarian and solve these problems of competition by proportionate representation.

Whatever you say doll-face.

oh hello genteel death.

Touché.

so you've merged, how romantic.

Cunt off you turdbath.

do you wanna keep going? i can do it, i had a million liters of coffee today.

the US constitution was actually designed specifically to prevent the minority from tyrannizing the majority. Problem is, politicians are all bought and sold so perfectly that the constitution is seen as "superfluous."

what matters now, supposedly, is the "will of the people." which is very very easy to control and shape.

individual humans are the cleverest things around. groups of humans are the dumbest, most narrow-minded idiots in existance.

I'm down. And not like the syndrome, as in your case.

sorry Rob, you lost me with "the US constitution was actually designed.."

ask these kind folks about the US Constitution and its authors intentions..







All that rhetoric really helped out these folks didn't ;)

perhaps we should begin to make our own arguments, rather than trust the judgment of those unfortunate bastards who wrote pure hypocrisy.

is it the first time you use this one? you must be really proud of yourself.

Cheap renewable energy means independence for people. The more independent people are, the less capitalism works.

Capitalism functions off of people's needs. They want to have everything you need, and they want you to pay dearly to suckle at their teet like a piglet should.

From that logic, they wouldn't have allowed the Internet to reach us, considering how many industries it could potentially harm: the music, film, publishing, educational etc.

but we wanted it, and once we want it and we're willing to pay for it, someone will do it, they have no choice.

I'll admit it's better when I'm freestyling on the mean streets.

lets be nice to each other GD.

No, that's the stink of your defeatist slave mentality. It works up quite a sweat.

Shit fam, you know how I roll.

you haven't answered his questions.

maybe you should call me and insult me on my voicemail so i can use it for inspiration

I'm having an early night. You wait until I've had a few to drink though. You just wait. Cunt-towel.

You haven't answered them, yourself.

Perhaps it may be because I can recognize when questions are rhetorical.

I have an I-pod. I love it.

I can barely wait, Glice.

There's a strong argument made by Zizek that the internet, and all that it represents, might prove to be one thing that capitalism's logic ultimately won't be able to reconcile itself with. He argues that if capitalism is moving further away from traditional ideas of industry into more fluid, less tangible, knowledge based sources, then the internet - and the entire digital realm that it represents, while doing wonders in generating enormous quantities of information, will eventually frustrate capitalism (in Zizek's view terminally) through it's underlying (and I suspect ultimately irreversible) principle of free exchange. Whether the Left will be able to step in with a more viable system during capitalism's predicted crisis is, of course, up to the Left itself.

it'll work as long as there's something to sell and somewhere to advertise.

the internet works without needing to sell or advertise anything.

companeis have made it the status quo that advertising is needed but it is not.

you need to re-read the constitution.

ha ha haaaa! i snorted.


no, not really-- i meant it. people from rich countries spew all manner of sanctimonious leftist dogma at the same time that their consumerism creates the very inequalities they decry-- then their armies go sweep up the mess. half of this board is into fashion (sweatshop central), another half is into their various electronic gadgets which require rare minerals from warn-torn africa, & so on & so forth, consumerism in one hand and a "down with the man" banner in the other.

people buy something and they are "congratulated" instead of receiving condolences on their newly acquired burdens. there's even a thread here where people tell "what they bough today." whatever...

personally, i'm actually trying to consume less & use less shit every day. not because i'm a hippie, but because owning too much crap is uncomfortable. but i did originally come to amerikkka to partake of the feast-- ha! even though i'm against it. what can i say. i'd rather not be killed.

anyway, check this out, it's funny:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008...-corporations/


wait, wasn't feudalism doing that before there was capitalism? i'm pretty sure those castles weren't built by the lords that ruled them.

when have you ever had a society in which the powerful do not draw their power from the less powerful?

kings, emperors, warlords, aristocrats, apparatchiks-- draining the blood of slaves, indentured servants, vassals, commoners, citizens-- time and again societies organize themselves as pyramids. we're hierarchical beasts as far as our DNA is concerned (it's mostly DNA, rather than social programming, that builds the brain).

i'm not saying i support exploitation, but it looks like it's always going to be there-- of course, it's fun to decapitate aristocrats, but that only lasts for so long. there's always a new elite to supplant it. i guess if we keep killing them eventually they will thin out. good luck there.

the internet is a significant vehicle for advertising as well.

let's not forget that website developing, hosting, blah blah, still costs a lot and companies are willing to spend a lot because it is a great investment in terms of publicity.

So...he's saying that because information is becoming more free and more accessible so will cars, food, electronics, paper, houses, minerals, service at restaurants, public transport, energy etc? Have I misunderstood?

How is capitalism "moving further away from traditional ideas of industry into more fluid, less tangible, knowledge based sources,"? What does this even mean?

well for example the move from an economy based largely on industry and the production of tangible goods to an economy based on thinks like derivatives and "wealth" that only exists on statments or screens

this is what i sort of think. i remember in about 1996 reading interviews with chuck d and he was saying that the internet was going to bring about the collapse of the music industry and i thought he was totally off his rocker, but lo and behold...

...he was :(

http://medialoper.com/how-the-music-...ofits-in-2008/

Down wid da kids.

Do me, do me right now.