851) Arminius, 14.03.2016, 03:05, 04:57, 10:02, 10:21, 10:34, 10:51, 11:03, 11:23, 11:53, 11:59, 19:14, 20:34, 21:01, 21:13, 21:31, 22:18, 23:08, 23:10, 23:19, 23:21, 23:32, 23:42 (4166-4187)

Jerkey wrote:

„SEATO, similarly stands as a formidable bastion in Asia, and it is no longer only a veritable US institution, but a mult layered association of intricate political web.“ **

The SEATO existed merely from 1954 to 1977.

Jerkey wrote:

„Klausowitz ....“ **

His name was Clausewitz.

Outsider wrote:

„Economics can be explained by referring back to human nature, and what is it that explores human nature?

Sounds like a typical reversal of hierarchy, looking at nature from the perspective of human social norms, instead of observing nature and how social norms emerge within it.“ **

No, that is not true. I regard the developmental way from human nature to human culture and from human culture to human nature. Economics is neither a begin (basis etc.) nor an end (goal etc.) in my philosophy. It is merely a part of the two ways (near the middle of each of them).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Speaking of videos; I just made this simulation of a single sub-atomic particle which looks surprisingly like the emulation (if one could actually see ultra-minuscule EMR pulses) and could be included in a video. A black-hole would be merely a much, much larger version of that same thing.

But I really need to convey the following pic in an animated way:

That one isn't so easy to simulate.“ **

You do not need to simulate all your pics.

Economics, especially market economics, uses much mathematics.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You do not need to simulate all your pics.« ** **

Yeah, but which do and which don't?“ **

I don't know all your pics. And those which are really not easy to simulate should not be simulated, because there are many ways to explain RM:AO (and you probably know the saying: "time is short" [similar to: "time is money]).

Jerkey, please answer the question. Otherwise I will do it for you.

We can start here, if you want:

Sebastian Anthony (EXTREMETECH) wrote:

„By 2025, »sexbots will be commonplace« – which is just fine, as we’ll all be unemployed and bored thanks to robots stealing our jobs.“ **

Do you agree?

Hahaha wrote:

„The problem lies where psychiatry fabricates mental illnesses ....“ **

That is really a huge problem. Mental illnesses are fabriacted in an industrial complex of mentally ill brains.

Ierrellus wrote:

„Was Sartre right about what lies at the core of human nature?“ **

No, he was not right about that. His interpretations are too extreme.

World War III Angry wrote:

„The closest thing probably is understanding how it was before you were born, that state of nothingness. So, yes, you can, based on the logical example of what death is, ceasing to exist.“ **

The uterus is not the „nothingness“.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So again: You are the one who did not understand what almost all others wrote in this thread.« ** **

Glad I'm not the only one having this experience. The discussion should have been over before it began - he hasn't made a solid non-semantic point yet, and the only thing keeping his »argument« going is a convenient series of misunderstandings and omissions whenever somebody points out the mistake he's making,“ **

Yes.

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»World War III .... With what enemies?« ** **

United States and its allies versus Russia along with China and their allies.“ **

Yes, that is very probable.

Mithus wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I don't know all your pics.« ** **

„Picture Bank 1
Picture Bank 2“ **

Thanks.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes.« ** **

Hey, I don't know if you were following, but remember the part where I accused his arbitrary reformulation as just being a cheap attempt to bash religion by importing the New Atheist usage of »belief« into philosophy?“ **

Yes, I was following ....

Uccisore wrote:

„Well, there it is in his new update- doing exactly as I predicted for the reasons I predicted.

It sucks that the only rebuttal is to just say again all the things he ignored when they were said before. I mean holy shit:

»3. Religion, faith, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Jainism, Taosim, are beliefs, not knowledge.«

How are you supposed to deal with something like that in any sort of rigorous way?“ **

Good question. .... Hmmm .... Should one just ignore him? .... Probably .... However: It sucks very much.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Good question. .... Hmmm .... Should one just ignore him? .... Probably .... However: It sucks very much.« ** **

Well, epistemology is one of my favorite subjects and it doesn't come up often. So yeah, it sucks a lot. One thing I noticed is when you said »knowledge is a type of information« you were using it in a slightly different way. There 'knowledge' which means something like »facts«. and then there's knowledge that means something like »being aware of (certain of?) a fact.«. Maybe a slightly more precise way to have worded the OP would be »Is knowing also a belief?«.“ **

Yes. Or: „Do belief and knowledge have the same root(s)?“

Hahaha wrote:

„Yes, mental illnesses are fabricated every year. It's all a very lucrative financial business ....“ **

Yes. It belongs to the same fleecing system .

Hahaha wrote:

„Psychiatry as an arm of the state is very important in curving down and controlling the masses or population also.“ **

Exactly.

Hahaha wrote:

„It's used to reaffirm authority in people's everyday life or existence. It's not enough to control people physically as authority must ensure mental obedience as well.“ **

It brings a lot of money, thus a lot of more power to them.

HaHaHa wrote:

„I'm currently at the bar trying to get drunk. On my first drink now.“ **

I'll report my progress here as I go on overtime.

Cheers!

HaHaHa wrote:

„Second shot of Vodka. Still not drunk yet.“ **

Are you listening to music now?

Hahaha wrote:

„No, just zoning out wishing I was on another planet. Cheers.“ **

A bar without music?

Where are you?

Hahaha wrote:

„There's music I'm just not paying attention to it. I am in my own little world ....“ **

Ah, yes, and there is no place for music. I see.

852) Arminius, 15.03.2016, 00:02, 00:22, 00:26, 00:33, 01:17, 10:43, 11:07, 11:11, 11:13, 11:29, 12:43, 13:06, 17:21, 17:31, 17:44, 19:00, 19:02, 19:06, 19:56, 22:12, 22:30, 22:39 (4188-4209)

Okay ....

What time is it?

Here it is 12:26 am.

Are you feeling okay now?

Goodnight!

(*Hickup*)

Most humans want to change the world.
Only few humans want to protect the world.

It is wrong to change the world to the extent as it is done currently. It is logically false, it is ethically false, it is aesthetically false. So it is philosophically false.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„The Most Destructive Paradigm: Owning Earth ....

Humans should be free to settle wherever they want to.“ **

No. They should not. 1) Unfortunately, it is alraedy a law, a human right, that humans are free to settle wherever they want to, although it is also already a fact that it has been leading to desastrous situations. 2) Owning Earth as the most destructive paradigm and the free settlement of humans belong together, and both have been leading to desastrous situations.

The current human rights (including the right to settle wherever humans want to) are rights that support owning the Earth. So the current human rights are false. No human should de allowed to own the Earth. Most of the human rights begin with the words „every human“ or „everybody“ or „one“ (human - of course) - and that is a huge problem, because these words do not stand for all humans but for those humans who have the most power. So those with the most power are allowed to own the Earth, whereas all other humans settle in concentration camps called „cities“.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„When humans are contained, restricted, they also are more controllable.“ **

When humans are in concentration camps called „cities“, then they are more controllable. Where do humans prefer to settle, if they are allowed to settle wherever they want to? In cities.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„An open border policy has thus little to do protectionism but the ability to move freely.“ **

An open border policy supports to own the Earth and to control people even more effectively (see above).

Celine Kayser wrote:

„Protectionism is no more less than a prison without bars.“ **

Protectionism is a part of the immune system of a society.

Copied post in another thread.

Changing the world means owning the world.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„Territoriality can be found in all species. Human territoriality is just taken to the extremes.

Naturally since human beings are the apex predator at the top of the food chain it makes sense as to why human beings have achieved an existence of global territorial domination.

What separates human beings however from all other species is economics in a purely monetary and currency sense. No other species has this kind of organization or systemization on living and existing.“ **

Yes, and that is because of their upright gait, their free arms and hands with fingers than can oppose (=> thumb), their very large brain, their language that leads to philosophy/science and all the technological/technical skills that lead to owning the Earth, the solar system, the universe.

My kynical invitation as a response to a cynical behavior: „Take part in the project »owning the universe«“!

Economics is not the number one. Economicis is subordinated but also superordinated. It depends on to what and whom.

Hahaha wrote:

„Air pollution is killing about 4,400 people in China every single day, according to a new study (**).“ **

But note why the US climate research organizations like to report on Chinese pollutions.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Most humans want to change the world.
Only few humans want to protect the world.

It is wrong to change the world to the extent as it is done currently. It is logically false, it is ethically false, it is aesthetically false. So it is philosophical false.« ** **

Humans are part of the world, so if you want to protect the world you have to change the humans. It's that simple.“ **

Unfortunately, it is not that simple, just because humans are part of the world, and it is false to change the world.

Hahaha.

How are you?

Hahaha wrote:

„Nursing a hangover.“ **

Caused by how many shots of Vodka?

Hahaha wrote:

„Other than that, I'm fine.“ **

Okay. That is the main thing.

And why are you WORLD WAR III ANGRY?

World War III Angry wrote:

„A key to philosophy is language.“ **

Yes. Of course. Duh. Without language no philosophy and science.

Copied post in another thread.

World War III Angry wrote:

„Why would you bother to only respond to the subject? I mean obviously that doesn't say much at all and is a duh.. but the content in the body isn't necessarily a »duh«.“ **

There are more words than the only one you mentioned: „duh“. I agree with the subject. I know the topic very well. So I do not need to say much more about it. Do you understand that? Perhaps you thought that my response was not meant seriously. But it was meant seriously.

Hahaha wrote:

„I lost count after eighteen.“ **

Yes. .... Tomorrow I will be „at the bar“ too.

Hahaha wrote:

„After last night suffice it to say I will not be drinking again anytime soon.“ **

Sure.

So we have to wait with posting here till then, because we do not want to derail this thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„We'll keep this thread open just in case I start drinking again.“ **

Agreed.

853) Arminius, 16.03.2016, 07:54, 08:14, 09:48, 13:04, 16:24, 16:33, 17:14 (4210-4216)

We are not „literally made of emotions“ (**). And computers are made by us, the homo sapiens. Do you know what the word „sapiens“ means?

Hahaha wrote:

„Meanwhile crossing the border of Greece into Macedonia .... Onwards north.“ **

Onwards northwest, to be exact.

But are you sure that „this“ is still the border of Greece into Macedonia? I mean: the Macedonians closed their border some weeks ago.

Hahaha wrote:

„Oh, I am sure it is. The borders might be closed but they're still finding ways in.

I specifically got that photo from a news agency and that was what it stated..“ **

So the European media is lying. As always and everywhere. Okay.

There are three favorite routes.

	1) This is one route (the route you were talking about):	2) This is another route (from Libya that has no state anymore):	3) This is a currently less used route (Marocco has still a state):

This three favorite routes have several reasons: (1) the first route (the route you were talking about) because of the fact that Greece is close to Turkey that is a „neighbour“ of Syria where most of the so-called „refugees“ come from or should come from; (2) the second route because of the fact that Libya has no state anymore; (3) the third route because of the Spanish territories in North Africa (Ceuta and Melilla). But the main reason is that the European borders are open - more or less (more more than less). They are not closed.

Again and again. An endless invasion (**).

Hahaha wrote:

„Wonder if there is any routes through eastern Europe via Turkey.“ **

From Turkey to Bulgaria and so on, yes, but I guess that the situtaion in Bulgaria is similar to the situation in Bulgaria's neighboring country Macedonia.

Hahaha wrote:

„Looks like they're headed to Italy or Greece.“ **

Yes, and they are probably coming from Libya.

I guess the names „Vlora“ and „Durres“ are the names of the Albanian cities Vlora and Durres. So probably this people are in Albania.

Hahaha wrote:

„Absolutely, Libya is currently destabilized and is experiencing tremendous civil war.“ **

Yes. Cui bono?

I guess the names „Vlora“ and „Durres“ are the names of the Albanian cities Vlora and Durres. So probably this people are in Albania. This would also explain much more, because the Albanian mafia has become more and more powerful in many European countries, especially in the rich ones. I guess you know what I mean.

854) Arminius, 20.03.2016, 15:19, 15:24, 15:33, 15:37, 15:40, 15:42, 15:44, 15:48, 15:51, 15:55, 15:58, 16:03 (4217-4229)

It seems that you (**) think it would be very easy to change between western and eastern philosophy. I do not think so. One can learn much about a philosophy of a foreign culture but not live it as if it were the philosophy of one's own culture (the culture in which one has grown up). The change between different national philosophies can already be a problem, so the change between greater different units like the western culture(s) and the eastern culture(s) is not as easy as one may think.

Moreno wrote:

„Hahaha wrote:

»Psychiatry as an arm of the state is very important in curving down and controlling the masses or population also.« **

I would say rather that the state is an arm of the corporations. If the corporations can create a market somewhere then they get the state to privatize something or market the corporate solution or validate the corporate solution as the only solution. The DSM5 privitizes pathology. Your mind is now a market for products.“ **

Both statements do not contradict each other. Psychiatry as an arm of the state, and the state as an arm of the multinational corporations and banks.

Amorphos wrote:

„2op. You think america is bad, our new budget plan takes from the disabled and gives to the rich, pays the rich more in dividends and takes some more of them out of the highest tax bracket. When I was a young punk I thought all this bs, homelessness etc, would be gone by the time I got to my age, but its just got worse ~ silly me.“ **

Amorphos, you were a punk?

When did you start to be a punk?

When did you finish to be a punk?

No future:

An observer observes how an observer observes an observer who observes how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes ....

Cheegster has an interesting philosophy youtube channel called „Philosophy On Ice“. There I found a video with the title „You Are Dying“.

„We don’t know much about our own death. This means that it is an incredibly fearful thing to most humans, and we mostly spend our time trying to avoid it. The fact that we know of this impending doom however, means that we can in turn really enjoy life. In this video, I discuss why knowledge of our own death is actually a good thing for us. Let me know your view with a comment!

Martin Heidegger's Being & Time.“ **

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»This webforum lacks philosophy, although and because its name is ›I Love Philosophy‹.« ** **

The problem here is in defining philosophy. Personally, I don't find existentialism to be very philosophical. I don't find most religion to be particularly philosophical. Many would consider both subjects squarely in the philosophical purview. On the other hand, I think physics and math have quite a lot to do with philosophy. I think rhetoric and policy and economics are philosophical endeavors. Many would disagree.

We try to accept all comers. That means essentially everyone will see something on here to which they'll think, »that's not philosophy«.“ **

The reason why this webforum lacks philosophy is more the lack of permabanning trolls than the definition of „philosophy“. In other words: ILP has too many trolls.

According to Nigel Farage „the French voice ... in Europe is little more ... than a pipsqueak“.

The title of the said article is: „Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism“. But it could also have been: „Both Capitalism And Socialism“.

For the capitalists Henry George was too socialistic, and for the socialists Henry George was too capitalistic.

I do not think that Georgism can successfully change the current globalistic structures, institutions, regulations (laws, rights). Changing the latter is just the basis for the success of the former. But beside that, I do not think that Georgism is the right solution of the current problems, especially the ecological problems which are merely solvable by strong prohibitions and restrictions, probably also accompanied by a new metaphysical system, a new religion and theism (the climate change as the new deity is already in the making). Either we relinquish or we die out. It is like: „comply or die“. But:

James S. Saint wrote:

„More precisely, it is obfuscation and extortion leading to a Comply or Die world. There actually is a way to avoid it. But you do have to be able to clearly see it first. .... Hence »philosophy«.“ **

Outsider wrote:

„Say, for the sake of simplicity, that there are 100 people in a society. Of all these 100 people, everybody does their role in maintaing the society - some are police/military, and they defend it from other humans and animals that would attack it (protectors). Others are providers and make clothes, food, etc. etc. However, one person decides that they don't want to work. They would rather get handouts. They decide to exploit the system that gives a certain amount of money for a child, and have 9 kids (all of whom, like their parent, refuse to actually work), and so they live better than an average person who has to work. That individual has, indeed, successfully escaped the natural consequences of their own behavior. However, the society still has to deal with it one way or another. A society has to give almost a tenth of its food, clothes, etc. to individuals who don't contribute to its maintenance.“ **

That problem is called „the tragedy of the commons“.

Outsider wrote:

„THIS is why it is an important question to ask: »What would happen in nature?«. Because the more things a society allows that are anti-nature (like people refusing to work for a living and being given shit for free instead, when in nature the opposite would happen and they would die off), the more the society allows things which contribute to its own collapse as more resources are drained than given back. Basically - an individual can escape dealing with nature, but the system is still faced with it and forced to find ways to maintain the high degree of artifices (what we call a living standard). The cost for weakness and degeneracy is always paid, either by the individual, or the system. The cost can be transfered and so escaped by one entity, but ultimately it can not be made to disappear and so somebody, somewhere ... will pay.“ **

Yes. At last the tragedy of the commons leads to the extinction of those who work or contribute otherwise and support those who do not work or do not contribute otherwise and do not supprt anybody, although the latter have own children and the former not. So those who have offspring survive as long as they can have offspring, and the others who have no offspring die out. So it is worthwhile in a commons to be lazy, if a certain number of members is not lazy. But it is to be expected that more and more members of the group will behave lazy and group earnings will fall further, since - morally spoken - a typical human maxim is not the maximization of the own advantage but the avoidance of the own disadvantage. So the tragedy of the commons escalates and escalates, and the whole group gets into a rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict. In addition to the rationality trap that I just described, there is also the opposite case in which common resources are increasingly exhausted. In this way, not only many environmental problems, but, interestingly, the population explosion in many countries can be explained. The Neomalthusianist Garret Hardin believed that a liberal access to public goods will at last be the ruin of all. Therefore he called for corresponding restrictions.

You could just as well say it the other way around (but you just do not want to):

We easily say that „it might be 10th street“ when we actually mean „I believe it is 10th street“.

People throw around the word „might“ too loosely.

Your enemies are the words „belief“ and „believe“, probably also the words „religion“, „theism“, „God“.

You opened your thread because you believed that you can easily kill certain words or at least their meanings.

There is nothing that proves your statements. Again: Your statements are ridiculous. So they are not suitable for changing anything of the epistemology or anything else.

Jerkey wrote:

„Minus the above admitted mistakes above, the argument stands on geopolitical grounds. The scenario has changed totally. The disintegration of the Brit Empire, and the foundation of former colonial nations, on supposedly democratic principles, let loose billions of 'emancipated' populations, who had changed the map of political shift toward new horizons.“ **

That is why I am saying not some Euroapean nations but the whole Europe has lost the 31 years lasting World War (I and II). The US and the SU (Soviet Union) have one it, but the latter lost the so-called „Cold War“ which the former won also. Now, the problem the US faces is similar to the problem the US faced before the begin of the WW1 and before the begin of the WW2. This similarities are very obvious. So we will have war pretty soon.

Jerkey wrote:

„The past prior to the great wars showed the political economic centers in London, New York , Berlin. This no longer holds true. Other centers are competing, ; Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, among the most formidable.

With the rise of a new economic order, the significance of the older ones have relatively diminished. Europe and the US , rather then gaining from dissolving treaties and alliances, would loose, in terms of having the muscle of enforcing them, and overcoming pressure from the new markets. ASEAN replaced SEATO, and it is mostly a regional organization, filling the vacuum.“ **

The population of ASEAN is approximately 620 million people and its income is about US $ 2.6 trillion (this income is not very high, because is merely as high as the income of the UK).

Jerkey wrote:

„The opening of hostilities due to economic pressures is nothing new, ww2 is an example, where choking the production of military equipment by the pressure on Japan in it's steel production resulted in open hostilities.

In a capitalistic world, arms guarantee of the flow of manufacture and trade. These are other reasons why, these institutions should not be discontinued.

This is an opposite point of view argument, credible, not necessarily that with which I would be absolutely in agreement with, however, as economy is the main driver in a world dominated by trade, rather then ideology, it would seem, that the new 'democratic'
nations cause the difference in this shift.

Arminius, thanks to pointing to mistakes in the argument, they are helpful, but inessential to the argument as a whole.“ **

Sorry for beeing late with the response.

855) Arminius, 21.03.2016, 18:36, 19:04, 19:52, 20:06, 20:59, 21:43, 21:55, 22:11, 23:29 (4029-4037)

Carleas wrote:

„What's the best method for identifying and banning those trolls?“ **

„The best method is shooting the trolls dead“, John Wayne would probably say.

But, honestly, I would say that the method Uccisore is making use of is already a good one, but it is not good enough.

A good example: **

Carleas wrote:

„And how effective do you assume banning to be for preventing someone from posting on ILP?“ **

Much effective, Carleas, because trolls can be identified very quickly.

Enjoying life is not important for you (**)?

„Enjoying life“ does not mean „hedonistic life“.

Garret Hardin wrote:

„Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.“

The tragedy of the commons means an evolutionary suicide.

World War III Angry wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You could just as well say it the other way around (but you just do not want to):

We easily say that ›it might be 10th street‹ when we actually mean ›I believe it is 10th street‹.

People throw around the word ›might‹ too loosely.« ** **

I don't think that's the case. Saying »I believe it is 10th street« to someone usually means »I don't know it's 10th street, I think its 10th street though«, does it not? Otherwise, someone who knows it's 10th street would say »It's 10th street«. Very confidently.“ **

That has nothing to with what I was talking about.

It is true that:

„You could just as well say it the other way around (but you just do not want to):

We easily say that „»t might be 10th street« when we actually mean »I believe it is 10th street«.

People throw around the word »might« too loosely.“ ** **

World War III Angry wrote:

„The good thing about this example is, there is usually no cognitive biases wrapped up around this issue of finding something, usually. So its pretty simple. I don't think people throw the word »might« around too loosely.“ **

It was an example, the reversed example of yours, and I could have given many other examples too. The sentence „people throw the word »might« around too loosely“ is as correct or incorrect as the sentence „people throw the word »belief« around too loosely“. That was what I was saying.

Seems you are just being contrarian to engage in sophistry.

World War III Angry wrote:

„Seems you're just being contrarian to engage in sophistry.“ **

Seems you do not know what you are talking about.

„Ich glaube“ in German means „I believe“ in English, and „Ich denke“ in German means „I think“ in English. Since the late 1960s, certain German people have been fighting a „word battle“; the reason for it is the goal that „Ich denke“ shall be used instead of „Ich glaube“ which shall die out; the people shall believe that they think and shall not notice that they believe and not think; in this way new believers shall be bred, namely those who do not think / know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they think / know.

Brainwashing.

A will as such can only be a free will and is not observable, not cognoscible , thus not provable or disprovable, so we can agree with Schopenhauer and say that the will is Kant's „thing as such“.

Human beings have a relatively free will. ** **

Copied post in another thread.

Does Haidt not know the word „liberalist“?

World War III Angry wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›Ich glaube‹ in German means ›I believe‹ in English, and ›Ich denke‹ in German means ›I think‹ in English. Since the late 1960s, certain German people have been fighting a ›word battle‹; the reason for it is the goal that ›Ich denke‹ shall be used instead of ›Ich glaube‹ which shall die out; the people shall believe that they think and shall not notice that they believe and not think; in this way new believers shall be bred, namely those who do not think / know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they think / know.« ** **

Do you have any references for this?“ **

Yes: my experience and studies.

856) Arminius, 22.03.2016, 00:40, 01:13, 11:36, 11:39, 11:53, 12:00, 12:23, 12:30, 12:51, 13:12, 14:51, 16:59, 18:32, 21:02, 22:04, 22:08, 22:13, 22:14, 22:16, 23:18, 23:27, 23:35 (4239-4260)

What if we have no chance anymore to get out of the rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict?

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Possibly, the machines will prevent the extinction of all human beings, or they will not prevent but accelerate it.

Copied post in another thread.

It is not difficult to find out which of the English speakers use the term „I think“ or the term „I believe“ how often, in which situations and with or without switching. Until the end of the 1960’s German speakers used the term „ich glaube“ very much oftener than the term „ich denke“ - maybe this ratio was 90 to 10. Since about 1990 certain German speakers have been using the term „ich denke“ very much oftener than the term „ich glaube“ - maybe this ratio is 99 to 1 (and for all German speakers maybe 80 to 20 or 70 to 30). So the ratio of the use of the terms „ich glaube“ and „ich denke“ has reversed within merely two decades (1970’s and 1980’s).

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

The following problem can also be better explained and better solved by economics:

Copied post in another thread.

It is not good when people do not know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they know.

Economicis is both subordinated and superordinated. It depends on to what and whom. Economics can both affect and be affected.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»It is not good when people do not know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they know.« ** **

Yes, I know.
.... Emmmm..
I mean I believe it to be true.
Well, I fear it to be true.
Or at least I suspect it.
I doubt that it isn't true.

Oh hell, what do I know.“ **

Yea.

Artimas wrote:

„I agree with Ucc. If I were mod I'd be a bit ruthless. No ad hom, people have been getting away with personal attacking instead of attacking the position in a debate.“ **

And that must apply to each member of ILP. „Exceptions“ are not allowed.

The word „liberation“ does not mean „freedom“. The suffix „ion“ always means a process. So the noun „iberation“ means the noun of „making free“ or „getting free“.

The famous skyline with its banking district is pictured in early evening next to the Main River in Frankfurt, Germany, January 19, 2016 (REUTERS / Kai Pfaffenbach):

Do you prefer the following picture?

Do you know the term „Brazilianization of the World“ („Brasilianisierung der Welt“ - Ulrich Beck; cp. also Franz Josef Radermacher)?

This means that all nations of the world tend to have the same distribution of wealth that Brazil has.

Here are some real examples from 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).
The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.)

But the „study by the central bank found on Monday, laying bare a wide gap between the richest and the poorest in Europe's biggest economy“ (**) says that „the top 10 percent of Germans have almost 60 percent of the wealth“ (**), and that is not true.

Anthem of Europe.

An die Freude - Ludwig v. Beethoven; words by J. C. Friedrich Schiller.

Are you (**) asking Artimas or me?

„You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.“ - Frank Zappa.

Cheers!

„One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds.“ - Frank Zappa.

„I believe that people have a right to decide their own destiny; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only as long as) individual citizens give it a temporary license to exist - in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy you own the government - it doesn't own you. Along with this comes a responsibility to ensure that individual actions, in the pursuit of a personal destiny, do not threaten the well-being of others while the pursuit is in progress.“ - Frank Zappa.

„There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.“ - Frank Zappa.

„Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid.“ - Frank Zappa.

Carleas wrote:

„So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time?“ **

It is right that I recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach. But one requirement is that the moderator is capable of practicing it rightly. If so, then the moderator can ban early and often. Ad homs, insults, off topic should lead to ban or even permaban, but again: the moderator must be capable of practicing it rightly.

Carleas wrote:

„Mostly you, but the question is for the room (and bakes in some of Artimas' ideas that you seemed to agree with).

I appreciate Uccisore's moderation style, it's very different from my own and in many cases better. He can clarify if I misstate his approach, but as I see it, Uccisore is better at enforcing obvious standards of quality, where I tend to emphasize articulable standards. I generally err on the side of permissiveness, where I think Uccisore would err in the other direction (to a lesser extent, of course, and we would likely disagree about what it means to err in the case of moderator intervention).

I think both approaches are useful, both have their time and place, and both have in turn won us praise and cost us users.

More generally (and this I don't intend as in contrast with Uccisore), I'm pretty easy going, and I don't find trolls that annoying, nor am I offended by offensive ideas. And I value noise; there can absolutely be too much, but there can also be too little noise.

Most importantly, I distrust humans when it comes to moderation, myself included; trolls that disagree with me are more annoying than trolls that don't. That's why I favor articulable standards, it keeps me honest and removes human lapses from enforcement. I think that's important on a philosophy forum, because it's easy to find ideas that someone considers appalling amid discussions such as these.

So I tend to under-enforce, because I expect that to be less harmful. But I could be wrong.“ **

Howsoever. .... Trolls must be punished.

Think of John Wayne.

Artimas wrote:

„I like to typically use a black mark system, first time usually always being a warning, maybe even a second warning, then a suspension from posting but threads still viewable perhaps, then if they come back and keep on going then a ban is probably good. Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending.“ **

I can agree with that.

857) Arminius, 23.03.2016, 10:50, 11:26, 13:00, 13:26, 13:44, 13:44, 17:02, 17:59, 22:02 (4260-4268)

Unfortunately, the economical problems, especially those of the US, have become so huge, that it is not possible anymore to hide the fact that the US and the EU are enemies - sometimes one can have the impression that they are alraedy military enemies too. The economical facts have been dominating the military facts for a long time. That is not good and not the reason why all this alleged „partnerships“ and „mutual securities“ were originally made for. The NATO was built as a defensive alliance, then it changed to an aggressive attacking alliance, now it is a chaotic bunch that still attacks the rest of the world, although more chaotically and sometimes also itself, but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories.

And the Arabs alone did not cause the alleged „Arab Spring“ that led to the flood of the alleged „refugees“ (young boys willing to conquer Europe with terrible violence).

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Enjoying life is important. That is why the DNA machine has to be made, to improve the quality of life. And if you want to be immortal, you need the consciousness transporter (duh.) The brain serum has to be made so scientists will have the energy and knowhow on how to build it. And from there, you need to do the death research, in case someone dies by accident, so you will know where their consciousness goes, in order to improve their quality of life.“ **

In order to know where the consciousness „goes“, you have to scientifically experience the consciousness, and that is not possible, because the consciousness is no physical but a metaphysical phenomenon, so it is not scientifically but philosophically knowable. The consciousness is merely indirectly but not directly provable. So it is not as provable as, for instance, a particle. It is also not a program. So it is also not directly provable by a computer program or something like that.

Kriswest wrote:

„It seems most forget that energy does not cease, it changes.“ **

Yes, energy will probably exist forever.

Look at the rectangles in the following picture:

Energy is probably everlasting.

And most forget the subject/object-dichotomy.

Kriswest wrote:

„Death does not stop energy, it would just change it.“ **

Yea.

Moreno wrote:

„Hahaha wrote:

»I enjoy many things of culture. Don't misinterpret me on that part, it's just that I don't think any of it is necessary for our survival.« **

I agree. It seems you think that the only way to survive is to not have much culture, ever, in any form.“ **

Rousseauism is no solution. There is no need to civilly go back to nature. Nature dominates anyway.

Concerning consciousness and the subject/object-dichotomy:

The objectivist says „the consciousness is a product of our brain“, but the subjectivist says „the consciousness is a product of my thoughts“.

That are two very much different statements.

Copied post in another thread.

Moreno wrote:

„How do you imagine things getting to the better with or without collapse? What does it look like?“ **

It is a cyclical process. Catastrophes come again and again. We do not need to make any contribution to catastrophes. But we do. It would be better to relinquish any contribution to catatstrophes or to decisions which lead to catatstrophes, if we were more capable of relinquishing. We should stop changing the world and start protecting the world.

A better world would be a protected world, especially for the offspring. But it is very likely that the human rulers and some other humans will not stop changing the world (thus: destroying the world) and will get the worst world. So the next human-made catastrophe will come sooner as expected.

We should eliminate or at least replace the globalistic institutions, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world, and also eliminate or at least replace the globalistic „human rights“, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world. We have to protect the world; we have to protect our chidren and their children and so on; we have to protect our countries; we have to protect the right of domicile (I mean it as the exact opposite of the right we now have: the right to settle wherever one wants to); we have to protect ourselves by protecting our nation, our origin, our traditions ... and so on. We need rights to protect ourselves in the sense that these rights can successfully stop protecting the rights of the globalists.

Hahaha wrote:

„ILP revolt.“ **

It would be the first one.

Or:

858) Arminius, 24.03.2016, 16:35, 17:41, 18:51, 18:53, 18:58, 19:09, 19:19, 19:59, 20:34, 22:19, 22:39 (4270-4280)

Carleas wrote

„Arminius wrote:

»Artimas wrote:

›I like to typically use a black mark system, first time usually always being a warning, maybe even a second warning, then a suspension from posting but threads still viewable perhaps, then if they come back and keep on going then a ban is probably good. Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending‹ **

I can agree with that.« ** **

So is the problem is that we have two too many marks?“ **

I can agree with Artimas’ suggestions concerning the mark system, but, for me, the mark system is not the main aspect of handling the problem. The main aspect of handling the problem are the administrator(s) and moderators, especially their personality and motivation. Therefore I mentioned the good example givemn by Uccisore (**|**).

Carleas wrote:

„»If a member's behavior is disruptive to discussions, staff will intervene to prevent further disruption. Ideally, a private message or a post in a given thread will be enough, but if it not, additional actions may be taken based on the number of similar actions a user has incurred in the past 6 months:
1st warning: board warning, no further action;
2nd: the user will be barred from posting for 24 hours;
3rd: barred from posting for 4 days;
4th: 1 week:
5th: 1 month;
6th: 3 months;
7th: 3 months, but seriously, 7 warnings in 6 months when you can't post for 4.5 of them? Why do you come back?.«

Or, if it's that there's no permanent ban at the end, the reality is that there's no such thing as a permanent ban on the internet. We could say 'permanent', but that just means that the user name is dead, not that the poster is banished in practice.“ **

I am convinced that the number of the trolls will soon lower after the trolls will have realized their absolutely indisputable undesirability.

Jerkey wrote:

„Convincing argument! ** **
Yet, the very chaos , according to the view which prevail, in EU and USA is, that the forces at work to manage the chaos need the combined resources of both economies. The fact remains that the US is the biggest spender in the world for military spending, and the her deterrent absence would encourage the Immediate destabilization of world peace. For that reason alone, a NATO as a military alliance cannot be suddenly disengaged from being a sort of policeman of the world.“ **

Who said that the United States have to be „the biggest spender in the world for military spending“?

Jerkey wrote:

„Where did I hear that term before?“ **

What term do you mean? The following sentence?

Jerkey wrote:

„The joint power of NATO imposes constraints upon the forces which would do Europe harm.“ **

Do you mean this sentence?

Jerkey wrote:

„In addition, there are still very staunch and formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding against such fairly recent, and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany.“ **

East Germany is now West Poland and West Russia. Middle Germany is now called „East“ Germany, and that is incorrect. And there is no peace contract. So the Germany as the German Reich (Deutsches Reich) still exists. All the huge reparations and other productive an monetary payments are paid by Germans because of the existence of the German Reich. And I remember well, when the „Iron Curtain“ fell and many Polish and Russian people were willing to give the German territorries back to Germany. So where are those »formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany«. I have never met such „enemies“.

These „enemies“ are produced by Westerners.

Jerkey wrote:

„The geopolitical map of Europe, is a fairly recent development, and East and West conflict did not totally erase from the consciousness of former belligerents, not even 2 generations old.“ **

No, the West-East-Conflict (Cold War) was a „fairly recent development“. The geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict was relatively similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict, but the geopolitical map of Europe during the West-East-Conflict was neither similar to the geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict nor similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict. So the development you are talking about is not „fairly recent“ as you said but fairly similar to an older development.

Again:

A defensive military alliance that attacks the rest of the world but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories is no real military alliance, at least no defensive military alliance.

You must be capable of defending yourself before you start attacking somebody, unless you want to be attacked.

The problem is that they can not be brought into real harmony. They are always in conflict with or at least in parallel to each other.

I am an authority, and my evidence is my experience.

What is your suggestion: „in or out“?

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius:

»Economics is not the number one. Economicis is subordinated but also superordinated. It depends on to what and whom.« ** **

I can agree with that.“ **

Hahaha wrote:

„Economics is the prime mover of society where psychology and sociology merely explains the behavioral implications of its effects.“ **

I can agree with that.

Eric The Pipe wrote:

„I see many problems with Keynesian Economics, but I'll point out that even the Keynesians don't go along with everything he said any more . .... »We are none of us Keynesian any more.« - Milton Friedman.

Inflation is one of the easiest ways to raise taxes without having to ask for permission .... And that is just the tip ....“ **

Yes, but I remind you of the historical fact that Keynes was not the absolute winner of the Bretton Woods monetary conference. So the Bretton Woods system does not merely mean Keynesianism.

If the machines will become smart enough, then they will need no cages for the humans.

Yes, of course, but it already exists, and it is not the main issue. The main issue are the administration and moderation - without them all mark systems are useless.

859) Arminius, 25.03.2016, 11:54, 12:40, 15:16, 18:58, 21:31, 23:04 (4280-4285)

Outsider wrote:

„Arminius, I agree with you.

What I wanted to say in my OP but perhaps I failed to express myself clearly enough, is that politics have begun leaning so radically leftist that even the present right have bought into the leftist bullshit of -isms and -phobias, hence why conservatives are actually cuckservatives and rightists are pretty much socially left, perhaps only economically right.

To be a 'moderate' conservative (cuckservative) is to buy into -isms and -phobias.
Why is this bad?
First of all, it is WRONG. It is a survival instinct we are programmed with to prefer your own group and to have an aversion to other groups, or things like homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. It is not a diabolic, evil conspiracy idea conjured from purely satanic intentions of bringing somebody/something else down purely for the sake of evil or something, as the left would have you believe.
Second of all, because once you buy into it you pretty much leave yourself open to further cuckification and being infected by liberalism, as you have already accepted the basic premises of their cultural marxism.

This is why Alternative Right/Nationalism is needed and has pretty much replaced the conservatives (cucks) and the modern right, who are unworthy of their name.“ **

Formerly the conservatives were nationalists, not extreme nationalists but nationalists. Now the „conservatives“ are no conservatives anymore, because they support the globalists. So what we have been experiencing since 1945 or at least since 1989/’90 is an age of globalism.

Both nationalism and internationalism / globalism are part of the Occidental creations, and the Occident will defend its creations, regardless whether they are already destructive or not. So maybe the resistance to globalism will only be successful by coming from outside of the Occident, for example from East Europe.

Globalism does not work in the long term. Perhaps nationalism does also not work in the long term, but the nation is the biggest possible political unit that people can manage (something bigger - like globalism or any other imperialism - is not possible in the long term). So why are we wanted to do something that does not work in the long term? Why are people so stupid or/and crazy to support impossibilities?

Celine Kayser wrote:

„Planet broken beyond repair .... Stable financial system?“ **

If you ask me, then I answer you that the said financial system of Bretton Woods ended 1971, exactly on 15 August 1971 when Nixon relinquished the gold backing of the US Dollar. (And by the way: Keynes said during the Bretton Woods monetary conference that he wanted to relinquish the gold backing, but he meant the gold backing of the British Pound [ ], and had no success, because the USA dominated the Bretton Woods monetary conference, so the gold standard was set at $ 35.00 an ounce, as you can see it on the table above.) Since the 15th of August 1971 the gold price and a phantom system of expectations of expectations have been exploding. Of course: it is an instable financial system, probably the most instable financial system of all times.

Note: The 15 August is also a Christian holiday, a Christian holy day: Assumption of Mary.

Outsider wrote:

„Holy fuck. This level of stupidity. I just don't have the mental fortitude to deal with it anymore. Yes, Rome was a multicultural utopia which was all-inclusive and permissive and open-minded and tolerant and they waved rainbow flags around. They were not conquerors who slaughtered all who opposed them and imposed their own rule over the conquered peoples.

Rome was a multicultural utopia paradise and the reason they lost against the barbarians is that they stopped being inclusive and liberal so they were justly replaced with far more inclusive and liberal Germanic tribes who went on to liberally pillage and tolerantly rape and inclusively destroy everything in its path.

Ummm ... yes, that's what happened.

Sheeesh, some of you people are just hopelessly brain-dead.“ **

Agreed.

Cute, cuddly, depending on protection:

Yes, and they need even more protection than many people believe.

Bob wrote:

„Good Friday, the symbol of injustice and oppression – not just from military states, but also through the denunciations of institutions which serve such powers. The questions we have to ask ourselves is not whether we are intrumentalised for oppression ....“ **

Instrumentalisation is almost everywhere and very similar to cynism. It is just the same old (hi)story.

Bob wrote:

„What are we preventing by behaving as we do? Where do we intervene and ruin, rather that build up? Where are we part of the social entropy that breaks down cultures and development? In the end we have to ask ourselves where we think it will lead us! Where are we going in the course of a lifetime? What kind of a world will we leave behind us? Will it be goodbye or good riddance? What will our children lack, when we have gone, that we enjoyed in abundance?“ **

They will lack the enjoyment in abundance that we had, or they will lack nothing, because they will also enjoy in abundance. It depends on the future history and the question wether we have to change our behaviour or not.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Maybe protecting the world could become a new (pagan) religion without injustice and oppression, having said this, we alraedy have such a religion, at least its prestage, just look at the instrumentalisation of the themes „climate change“, „global warming“ etc. that lead to more power of the instrumentalisers and nothing else.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

860) Arminius, 26.03.2016, 00:07, 00:35, 01:34, 03:19, 12:43, 13:01, 13:19, 15:02, 15:09, 15:54, 19:52, 20:23, 23:04 (4286-4298)

What is your shortest answer?

Kant in 59 thread topics (Stand: Today): **

Iambiguous wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What is your shortest answer?« ** **

That's always been the same too: We don't know.

Which then begs the question, »Can we know?«

Well, we don't know that either.

Aside of course from all those here who insist that in fact they already do know: in their head.

And not just the solipsists.“ **

Thank you for your answer.

But possibly I was referring to Amorphos' question when I wrote:

„What is your shortest answer?“ ** **

So my ultimate question in philosophy could possibly be: „What is your shortest answer?“

I guess you know the story of the Roman soldier that died at Pompeii, whose bones were found at his post, because someone forgot to relieve him.

„Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him.“ - Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life ** (original title: Der Mensch und die Technik - Beitrag zu einer Philosophie des Lebens, 1931, S. 89 **). **

Okay.

Jerkey wrote:

„Iambiguous wrote:

»It's always this one: Why does anything exist at all?« **

Nothing ever exists, at all. We just think it does.

And this disproves existence before essence.“ **

Jerkey wrote:

„Because I feel that Shakespeare was right. All the worldly is a stage. Now, if you believe that, then the next line, is not too far of a stretch, ----to be or not to be, ------ our existence is neither in the comprehension of choice, we are thrown into this world, (an existential mantra); we are determined to act out our prescribed roles.

If so, then our preception so, and our knowledge based on them are perfectly determined by our roles.
We are determined to play the prescribed roles, and our so called existence make perfect sense:

To purvey our necessary link between those who came before us, and those, who will come after us.
Our existence is merely a link, a very minute one at that, to enable the chain of being to proceed.“ **

Jerkey wrote:

„How minute? Think of what Helena Blavatsky said of the first tangent of life of three hundred trillion and forty billion years, then, you will begin to feel the minute es of individual existence.

Now, if it is existence in itself you are talking about, then the permutations become innumerable even within one life time.

Therefore, it is difficult to think or talk of existence. It simply doesen't exist.“ **

Jerkey wrote:

„WW III Angry wrote:

»So you think things exist, but not as they are thought to exist, right?« **

Yes and no. They exist as they are thought to exist, therefore, they don't exist. Cogito ergo non sum.“ **

But you wouldn't say that you are a solipsist, right?

Iambiguous wrote:

„Faust wrote:

»I'm with you, Mr R. No one wants to dine at a table with people who don't even know how to wipe their mouths. No matter how good the food is. people who don't bother to learn how to string together a sentence, punctuate, spell, etc just need to grow up.« **

Okay, but what about the argument regarding those here who are superb spellers and grammarians, but who don't seem all that particularly interested in philosophy?

In particular, philosophy that actually relates to the lives that we live from day to day in our social, political and economic interactions.

Isn't that far more pressing a problem here?

And isn't it the invasion of one or another rendition of the Kids that have more or less driven away folks that might otherwise still be here?

Rather than the shitty spellers?“ **

Would you also say that right thinkers are „shitty thinkers“?

Mr Reasonable wrote:

„I'm just gonna say it. Every day, I see all kinds of spelling errors, and people using the wrong words, and all sorts of things that just irritate ....“ **

The spelling of your username „mr reasonable“ is wrong. It contains three errors. The right spelling form of your username is „Mr. Reasonable“.

Other examples: **

Jerkey wrote:

„Without solipsism, there could not be a self realization ....“ **

But a solipsist says that there is no reality outside of the self (the I). So he does not need any realization. He thinks, and that is already all (no realization needed).

Bob wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I guess you know the story of the Roman soldier that died at Pompeii, whose bones were found at his post, because someone forgot to relieve him.

›Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him.‹ - Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life ** (original title: Der Mensch und die Technik - Beitrag zu einer Philosophie des Lebens, 1931, S. 89 **). ** « ** **

I don't see that the Roman soldier died because someone forgot to relieve him, but that there was no-one left to relieve him, because the Town he was guarding had been destroyed.“ **

That does not change the fact that the soldier did what he had to do. For us current Westerners that behaviour is absolutely unbelievable. I guess that almost no one of us current Westerners could behave like this Roman soldier behaved.

Bob wrote:

„Greatness is to die at the gate whilst the whole town is burning?“ **

I was not talking about greatness as such but about how greatness was valued in former times and how unbelievable it is for us current Westerners. It is an interesting phenomenon.

Bob wrote:

„Hmm, a bit pointless, like the point rider who escapes the attack on the group that came from behind and rides back to be killed as well.

Solidarity in hardship could be a little more productive.“ **

Q.E.D.. Your interpretation of that said Roman soldier's bevaiour is a typical interpretation of a typical modern Westerner. Indeed: „Solidarity in hardship could be a little more productive“. But are the current Westerners (the most individualistic people of all times) more solidary? I mean, the soldier did his „job“, his duty, which was the protection of the Pompeian people, and that was how solidarity was understood by most of the people at that time.

WW III Angry wrote:

„It isn't the defining feature of the West, is it, considering that wealth is usually inherited and that is the defining story of the West and a legacy of capitalism.“ **

No, no, no.

Wealth is also usually redistributed - not only inherited. Both capitalism and socialism are guilty of that said injustice.

WW III Angry wrote:

„I'm not so sure about wealth usually is redistributed.“ **

I though so.

WW III Angry wrote:

„Yes capitalism and socialism are guilty of that injustice. But the West being successful economically - due to capitalism - is now showing us the dangers of this wealth staying and growing in a very disproportionate way.“ **

Only the rich people (and not all rich people are rich because of inheritance). And in the US more than in Europe, because Europe is a bit more socialistic.

Arminius wrote:

„Do you know the term »Brazilianization of the World« (»Brasilianisierung der Welt« - Ulrich Beck; cp. also Franz Josef Radermacher)?

This means that all nations of the world tend to have the same distribution of wealth that Brazil has.

Here are some real examples from 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).
The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.)

But the „study by the central bank found on Monday, laying bare a wide gap between the richest and the poorest in Europe's biggest economy“ (**) says that »the top 10 percent of Germans have almost 60 percent of the wealth« (**), and that is not true.“ ** **

And this means - of course - that less and less people become richer and richer, whereas more and more people become poorer and poorer.

The Herculean task of the opposition (if there is any) of the globalists is, or, better, would be to stop this development without capitalism and without socialism.

==>