Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

castille · Nov 3, 2003, 10:12 am

Here is an experiment.

Everyone post up a vision of what your perfect world is going to be like.

I will bet my LIFE on the fact that everyone's "perfect world" will come into conflict with someone else's "perfect world".

As the man, Adolf Hitler, once said: "Fascism is my vision, Communism is the Russian vision, and democracy is the American vision. So my vision now is to firstly crush the Russian and American visions."

G. Adams · Nov 3, 2003, 11:26 am

My perfect world would be a humanless one. But as I wouldn't get to see it in that state, it's kind of catch 22 for me.

**Pooeypants** · Nov 3, 2003, 01:01 pm

In my perfect world we would all work for the better of mankind, where there is no such thing as money and we can all go exploring in space and discovery new worlds...gawd damn I'm advertising Star Trek.

booneoli · Nov 5, 2003, 05:03 pm

Well ovcourse I would be ruler and everyone would give their money to me and I would be rich!

nature of reality · Nov 5, 2003, 09:15 pm

"My perfect world would be a humanless one. But as I wouldn't get to see it in that state, it's kind of catch 22 for me. "

That is the most telling of our your red persuasion, you hater of mankind. Lets hope there is enough rational people to oppose those who wish destruction on everyone else in the name of the common good. And if you wonder why there is suffering in the world, never forget it is because of your viewpoint

RebelWithanAK · Nov 5, 2003, 09:48 pm

Strictly speaking, he's most likely referring to his opinion that humans are imperfect. We are. It has nothing to do with being Red.

Spaces · Nov 5, 2003, 10:22 pm

It is certainly a question that provokes some nice imagery and sentiments but the complication is that once "perfect" is considered then all manner of issues like subjectivity, relativeness and the like come into play. You yourself note the possibility for conflict.

Bearing this in mind then I will contribute what I think would be the perfect, or at least reasonable, "direction" in which to proceed toward the perfect world.

First, there would have to be a massive assessment by society as to what genuinely constitutes such perfection in their terms. Many will immediately regard such a venture as highly unlikely because even discounting individual stubbornness there is the element of time and with it a continually changing demographic. I underline the 'terms' part because it would localize certain parameters and thus avoid speculations which verge on wild fancies. Nothing wrong with the fancifully wild but when we're dealing with the measure of a world and meaning the occupants thereof then a certain context has to be minded. Remember that in this assessment the two most vocal constituencies are going to be those of the skeptics and the believers and both of them will have to deal with many compromises on the table. May I add that the usage of those designations are meant in general and not in the specifics of areas like theistic discourse. Of course, that type of discourse would come into consideration at one point or another in the planning stage of the perfect world and there again the conflicts would be plentiful. If in fact there could be an accord from both as to a novel operating context then I think there would be some gains with respect to the distance which has to be traversed. Again, I know that some will probably sink a little deeper into the armchair, sip on the brew and hum "Fool on the Hill" while regarding this.

On a more overarching scale what we have is the individual/collective complex. One is part of the other but still a tremendous chasm is shadowed between the two. There will have to be a more substantial connection between the two than the present frayed and shaky rope-bridges. For the individual it is the usual sense of insignificance, of being swamped on all sides by demands that while they seem reasonable for the stability of large numbers they do very little when it comes to personal equations. The collective on the other hand encompasses all of these equations for the sake of a major one and lest we forget there is the element of governance involved and along with that the entrustment of particular individuals to carry out the calculations to the benefit of all. History has shown that many of our "guides" have been quite lousy at math but awfully good at self-serving algebra. No need for me to belabor that the standards in the mathematics department would have to rise considerably even if just for the hope that if calculators are necessary then at least we can expect something better than an all-thumbs capability. I would enjoy citing present examples but we're considering a perfect world here and with such some things are best forgotten.

As 'Pooeypants' pointed out in his humorous self-revelation of Roddenberry affectation the economic aspect of it all is assuredly crucial. We are talking some major overhauling here on a concept whose gaskets make sanitary tissue seem like tree bark. Consumerism no doubt would be also be a part of the perfect world but in a decidedly different regard. The part that money plays and works in our lives would have to be extensively stripped down from what it is now and refashioned to an effective mechanism for the utilization of all. As it stands now it is a mechanism which directs the flow into too many cul-de-sacs with the consequence of ever-growing and drying-up tributaries which in the long run bode well for no one. With money being practically the chief material catalyst of activity in our society its misuse has made for an obvious imbalance between ideas with their varying applications and qualities and the material and its characteristics. These two have to be in concert, the channel wherein they mingle at the present would have to be dredged of obstructions. Nowadays one does not have to look far to see the discrepancies and regardless how much spin is put on it, the numbers don't lie and no amount of creative accounting can escape reality, the reality which demands balance sooner or later and here too history has many examples. In a way, the economic structure of a perfect world compared to the one at the present is like comparing the ocean to a river system; differing contexts.

These are just samplings of the many elements that would have to be addressed in such a venture. Take just about anything that causes complications in our world and it will become apparent how much work would be needed to achieve even a relatively better level than what now prevails. It may also be that the speed and effectiveness in progress that we have now is what is proper for our position. Even trying to make a better world is problematic enough so it's no surprise that some will regard a perfect world as wishful thinking or a very remote actuality. Lastly, there's the matter if what we consider perfection is in fact true perfection at all. For all we know , cosmological perfection may not even include humans. But that’s another area altogether.

Personally, I'm hoping that by perfecting my own perception I may get to live some perfect moments here and there. Now, an entire world with all its inhabitants living in the perfection which our highest mind ponders. . . that would be something.

[color=blueviolet]Spaces[/color]

Nov 6, 2003, 01:05 am

my perfect world is now where i am leaving in now.

G. Adams · Nov 6, 2003, 06:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
"My perfect world would be a humanless one. But as I wouldn't get to see it in that state, it's kind of catch 22 for me. "

That is the most telling of our your red persuasion, you hater of mankind. Lets hope there is enough rational people to oppose those who wish destruction on everyone else in the name of the common good. And if you wonder why there is suffering in the world, never forget it is because of your viewpoint<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And my mother always said the world revolves around me, and now NoR is blaming world suffering on me, so confusing...

I think you looked at my post from the wrong angle. The question was what was my perfect world. I never said I wanted everyone dead, I never said I hated people ( though after speaking to impenitant...) etc It doesn't even have to be earth we are talking about. I just said I would like to see a world without human interference.

You right wingers are so eager to find an oppurtunity to throw mud at the left that you don't even know what I'm saying.

Impenitent · Nov 6, 2003, 11:18 am

G

no human interference means no humans exist to interfere...

"My perfect world would be a humanless one." - no humans exist

it isn't throwing mud, it is the logical consequence of what you said...

(and you can hate me all you like, the truth isn't always pleasant)

G. Adams · Nov 6, 2003, 11:35 am

The question was simply what is my view of a perfect world? Not Earth, okay, this was a world, a theoretical one, a fantasy one. A world without humans does not suggest that humans don't exist, it simply suggests there are no, nor have been, humans on that world.

nature of reality · Nov 6, 2003, 10:02 pm

and why are there no humans?

because you are a hater of men. and your policies and beliefs are designed to this end, with man either 1. destroyed or 2. Living like a beast of burden (from each according to ability, to each according to need is how you treat draft horses).

Section 8 · Nov 6, 2003, 11:23 pm

NOR, I suggest you read Volconvo ediquette. As G has explained, he is merely stating that humans are not perfect. Henceforth, a perfect world would not include humans. Remember you can agree to disagree, no one hates mankind. You're acting as if your word is the ultimate truth, but it is not. Please reevaluate your debate, using polite terms and evidence supporting your claim.

Down · Nov 7, 2003, 05:18 am

I think I agree with G. Adams. A perfect world is a humanless one. Humans are imperfect. If you wish to deny that, NOR, you might want to take another look at humanity.

Black Fox · Nov 7, 2003, 05:35 am

Hmm...

A perfect world for me would be one where every adult was free to live their life without the threat of harm from another person, or without being controlled by another person.

One way this might happen wuold be that everyone would have a mobile 'pod' that they could live in. This pod would would provide all the things that the inhabitant needed to live (food, water, energy, sanitation, etc.). Other people could only gain access to the pod with the express invitation of the inhabitant, and it would be impregnable and invulnerable to attack.

This means that this be a world where it would be impossible to seek to control other people through wealth (because everyone would be able to provide their material needs) or through physical means (because everyone could retreat to the safety of their pod if threatened. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be able to do much about emotional control, where someone you are in love with can abuse you to their hearts content.

castille · Nov 10, 2003, 01:04 am

Problem is, who is going to produce those pods, and work to maintain those pods? What if one pod fails due to failure or lack of energy?

My perfect world would be using robotics to work as slaves, while assigning humans with 1 robot each to do with it as they like. Then let it go from there.

Or alternatively total anarchy would be a good idea. Survival of the fittest, or whoever has the bigger gun/bow/spear. That way everyone could be equal, while having individual freedom.

Black Fox · Nov 10, 2003, 05:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Problem is, who is going to produce those pods, and work to maintain those pods? What if one pod fails due to failure or lack of energy?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> First of all, I'm assuming that the production of such pods is technologically feasible. I'm also assuming that each pod sources its energy from cheap/renewable means (either nuclear fusion or solar energy).

Then since there's a demand for the pods, we can assume that there will be many businesses falling over themselves to produce, repair and maintain them.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
My perfect world would be using robotics to work as slaves, while assigning humans with 1 robot each to do with it as they like. Then let it go from there.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I don't think that your idea is so different from mine - think of a pod as a sophisticated robot, except that in your world, I don't know who will own the robots that produce food, clothes, etc.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Or alternatively total anarchy would be a good idea. Survival of the fittest, or whoever has the bigger gun/bow/spear. That way everyone could be equal, while having individual freedom.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I'm sure you don't really believe what you are writing. How can people be free or equal under such a system?

castille · Nov 10, 2003, 07:40 am

True, I suppose in future it would be possible to develop such "pods" to become self-sufficient. Of course, you still get fierce independent minded individuals who want to get out of their pod into the strange new world (which I believe will revert back to the stone age forests). But mostly everyone will be happy in their virtual world.

Even businesses would end after making those pods - since they have no need to function anymore.

Of course, the problem is if some alien race invades us and we end up becoming their slaves...or if we tear ourselves apart in civil war before the pods are invented.

On the anarchism comment, well think about it - a world without law and order is free and equal. Everyone is equal; you start off with your clothes and whatever guns you can find. From then you grow as you like. Everyone is obviously free - no police force, so its survival of the fittest.

Anarchist Patriot · Nov 12, 2003, 10:18 pm

1) Equal distribution of wealth
2) Free health care for all
3) Unlimited educational opportunities for all.
4) An end to homelessness
5) An end to war.
6) Allowing adults to engage in whatever behavior they care to as long as it does not harm others.
7) Put all mortgage brokers in prison!

castille · Nov 17, 2003, 07:50 am

Whats wrong with mortgage brokers? They're simply people who you pay to find a better loan for you. Better than expensive bank loans.

Nov 3, 2003, 10:12 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Here is an experiment. Everyone post up a vision of what your perfect world is going to be like. I will bet my LIFE on the fact that everyone's "perfect world" will come into conflict with someone else's "perfect world". As the man, Adolf Hitler, once said: "Fascism is my vision, Communism is the Russian vision, and democracy is the American vision. So my vision now is to firstly crush the Russian and American visions." Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 3, 2003, 11:26 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	My perfect world would be a humanless one. But as I wouldn't get to see it in that state, it's kind of catch 22 for me. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 3, 2003, 01:01 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	In my perfect world we would all work for the better of mankind, where there is no such thing as money and we can all go exploring in space and discovery new worlds...gawd damn I'm advertising Star Trek. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Nov 5, 2003, 09:15 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	"My perfect world would be a humanless one. But as I wouldn't get to see it in that state, it's kind of catch 22 for me. " That is the most telling of our your red persuasion, you hater of mankind. Lets hope there is enough rational people to oppose those who wish destruction on everyone else in the name of the common good. And if you wonder why there is suffering in the world, never forget it is because of your viewpoint Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 5, 2003, 09:48 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Strictly speaking, he's most likely referring to his opinion that humans are imperfect. We are. It has nothing to do with being Red. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 5, 2003, 05:03 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
booneoli Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	Well ovcourse I would be ruler and everyone would give their money to me and I would be rich!

Nov 5, 2003, 10:22 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Spaces Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	It is certainly a question that provokes some nice imagery and sentiments but the complication is that once "perfect" is considered then all manner of issues like subjectivity, relativeness and the like come into play. You yourself note the possibility for conflict. Bearing this in mind then I will contribute what I think would be the perfect, or at least reasonable, "direction" in which to proceed toward the perfect world. First, there would have to be a massive assessment by society as to what genuinely constitutes such perfection in their terms. Many will immediately regard such a venture as highly unlikely because even discounting individual stubbornness there is the element of time and with it a continually changing demographic. I underline the 'terms' part because it would localize certain parameters and thus avoid speculations which verge on wild fancies. Nothing wrong with the fancifully wild but when we're dealing with the measure of a world and meaning the occupants thereof then a certain context has to be minded. Remember that in this assessment the two most vocal constituencies are going to be those of the skeptics and the believers and both of them will have to deal with many compromises on the table. May I add that the usage of those designations are meant in general and not in the specifics of areas like theistic discourse. Of course, that type of discourse would come into consideration at one point or another in the planning stage of the perfect world and there again the conflicts would be plentiful. If in fact there could be an accord from both as to a novel operating context then I think there would be some gains with respect to the distance which has to be traversed. Again, I know that some will probably sink a little deeper into the armchair, sip on the brew and hum "Fool on the Hill" while regarding this. On a more overarching scale what we have is the individual/collective complex. One is part of the other but still a tremendous chasm is shadowed between the two. There will have to be a more substantial connection between the two than the present frayed and shaky rope-bridges. For the individual it is the usual sense of insignificance, of being swamped on all sides by demands that while they seem reasonable for the stability of large numbers they do very little when it comes to personal equations. The collective on the other hand encompasses all of these equations for the sake of a major one and lest we forget there is the element of governance involved and along with that the entrustment of particular individuals to carry out the calculations to the benefit of all. History has shown that many of our "guides" have been quite lousy at math but awfully good at self-serving algebra. No need for me to belabor that the standards in the mathematics department would have to rise considerably even if just for the hope that if calculators are necessary then at least we can expect something better than an all-thumbs capability. I would enjoy citing present examples but we're considering a perfect world here and with such some things are best forgotten. As 'Pooeypants' pointed out in his humorous self-revelation of Roddenberry affectation the economic aspect of it all is assuredly crucial. We are talking some major overhauling here on a concept whose gaskets make sanitary tissue seem like tree bark. Consumerism no doubt would be also be a part of the perfect world but in a decidedly different regard. The part that money plays and works in our lives would have to be extensively stripped down from what it is now and refashioned to an effective mechanism for the utilization of all. As it stands now it is a mechanism which directs the flow into too many cul-de-sacs with the consequence of ever-growing and drying-up tributaries which in the long run bode well for no one. With money being practically the chief material catalyst of activity in our society its misuse has made for an obvious imbalance between ideas with their varying applications and qualities and the material and its characteristics. These two have to be in concert, the channel wherein they mingle at the present would have to be dredged of obstructions. Nowadays one does not have to look far to see the discrepancies and regardless how much spin is put on it, the numbers don't lie and no amount of creative accounting can escape reality, the reality which demands balance sooner or later and here too history has many examples. In a way, the economic structure of a perfect world compared to the one at the present is like comparing the ocean to a river system; differing contexts. These are just samplings of the many elements that would have to be addressed in such a venture. Take just about anything that causes complications in our world and it will become apparent how much work would be needed to achieve even a relatively better level than what now prevails. It may also be that the speed and effectiveness in progress that we have now is what is proper for our position. Even trying to make a better world is problematic enough so it's no surprise that some will regard a perfect world as wishful thinking or a very remote actuality. Lastly, there's the matter if what we consider perfection is in fact true perfection at all. For all we know , cosmological perfection may not even include humans. But that’s another area altogether. Personally, I'm hoping that by perfecting my own perception I may get to live some perfect moments here and there. Now, an entire world with all its inhabitants living in the perfection which our highest mind ponders. . . that would be something. [color=blueviolet]Spaces[/color]

Nov 6, 2003, 01:05 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
weng Guest Posts: n/a	my perfect world is now where i am leaving in now.

Nov 6, 2003, 06:54 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,) "My perfect world would be a humanless one. But as I wouldn't get to see it in that state, it's kind of catch 22 for me. " That is the most telling of our your red persuasion, you hater of mankind. Lets hope there is enough rational people to oppose those who wish destruction on everyone else in the name of the common good. And if you wonder why there is suffering in the world, never forget it is because of your viewpoint<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And my mother always said the world revolves around me, and now NoR is blaming world suffering on me, so confusing... I think you looked at my post from the wrong angle. The question was what was my perfect world. I never said I wanted everyone dead, I never said I hated people ( though after speaking to impenitant...) etc It doesn't even have to be earth we are talking about. I just said I would like to see a world without human interference. You right wingers are so eager to find an oppurtunity to throw mud at the left that you don't even know what I'm saying. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 6, 2003, 11:18 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	G no human interference means no humans exist to interfere... "My perfect world would be a humanless one." - no humans exist it isn't throwing mud, it is the logical consequence of what you said... (and you can hate me all you like, the truth isn't always pleasant) "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 6, 2003, 11:35 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	The question was simply what is my view of a perfect world? Not Earth, okay, this was a world, a theoretical one, a fantasy one. A world without humans does not suggest that humans don't exist, it simply suggests there are no, nor have been, humans on that world. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 6, 2003, 10:02 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	and why are there no humans? because you are a hater of men. and your policies and beliefs are designed to this end, with man either 1. destroyed or 2. Living like a beast of burden (from each according to ability, to each according to need is how you treat draft horses). Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 6, 2003, 11:23 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	NOR, I suggest you read Volconvo ediquette. As G has explained, he is merely stating that humans are not perfect. Henceforth, a perfect world would not include humans. Remember you can agree to disagree, no one hates mankind. You're acting as if your word is the ultimate truth, but it is not. Please reevaluate your debate, using polite terms and evidence supporting your claim.

Nov 7, 2003, 05:18 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Down Molten Ash Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 30	I think I agree with G. Adams. A perfect world is a humanless one. Humans are imperfect. If you wish to deny that, NOR, you might want to take another look at humanity. http://www.sixtyten.com/images/siggy.gif <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:gray'>Man is afraid of that which he does not know.</span></span>

Nov 7, 2003, 05:35 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	Hmm... A perfect world for me would be one where every adult was free to live their life without the threat of harm from another person, or without being controlled by another person. One way this might happen wuold be that everyone would have a mobile 'pod' that they could live in. This pod would would provide all the things that the inhabitant needed to live (food, water, energy, sanitation, etc.). Other people could only gain access to the pod with the express invitation of the inhabitant, and it would be impregnable and invulnerable to attack. This means that this be a world where it would be impossible to seek to control other people through wealth (because everyone would be able to provide their material needs) or through physical means (because everyone could retreat to the safety of their pod if threatened. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be able to do much about emotional control, where someone you are in love with can abuse you to their hearts content.

Nov 10, 2003, 01:04 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Problem is, who is going to produce those pods, and work to maintain those pods? What if one pod fails due to failure or lack of energy? My perfect world would be using robotics to work as slaves, while assigning humans with 1 robot each to do with it as they like. Then let it go from there. Or alternatively total anarchy would be a good idea. Survival of the fittest, or whoever has the bigger gun/bow/spear. That way everyone could be equal, while having individual freedom. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 10, 2003, 05:34 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Problem is, who is going to produce those pods, and work to maintain those pods? What if one pod fails due to failure or lack of energy?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First of all, I'm assuming that the production of such pods is technologically feasible. I'm also assuming that each pod sources its energy from cheap/renewable means (either nuclear fusion or solar energy). Then since there's a demand for the pods, we can assume that there will be many businesses falling over themselves to produce, repair and maintain them. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by My perfect world would be using robotics to work as slaves, while assigning humans with 1 robot each to do with it as they like. Then let it go from there.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't think that your idea is so different from mine - think of a pod as a sophisticated robot, except that in your world, I don't know who will own the robots that produce food, clothes, etc. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Or alternatively total anarchy would be a good idea. Survival of the fittest, or whoever has the bigger gun/bow/spear. That way everyone could be equal, while having individual freedom.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm sure you don't really believe what you are writing. How can people be free or equal under such a system?

Nov 10, 2003, 07:40 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	True, I suppose in future it would be possible to develop such "pods" to become self-sufficient. Of course, you still get fierce independent minded individuals who want to get out of their pod into the strange new world (which I believe will revert back to the stone age forests). But mostly everyone will be happy in their virtual world. Even businesses would end after making those pods - since they have no need to function anymore. Of course, the problem is if some alien race invades us and we end up becoming their slaves...or if we tear ourselves apart in civil war before the pods are invented. On the anarchism comment, well think about it - a world without law and order is free and equal. Everyone is equal; you start off with your clothes and whatever guns you can find. From then you grow as you like. Everyone is obviously free - no police force, so its survival of the fittest. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 12, 2003, 10:18 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Patriot Molten Ash Posts: 143	1) Equal distribution of wealth 2) Free health care for all 3) Unlimited educational opportunities for all. 4) An end to homelessness 5) An end to war. 6) Allowing adults to engage in whatever behavior they care to as long as it does not harm others. 7) Put all mortgage brokers in prison!

Nov 17, 2003, 07:50 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Whats wrong with mortgage brokers? They're simply people who you pay to find a better loan for you. Better than expensive bank loans. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.