RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. My contact details are here.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kill Capitalism
Author Message
R00t Offline
Pariah

Posts: 566
Joined: Jun 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #31
 

Quote:Power does not corrupt every single person, but the amount of people in the world that it wouldn't corrupt is far less than the others. Also the power hungry are going to be more corrupt in the first place.

Sure they are, but as you pointed out below, there are others who can equalize the equation, i.e. Bill Gates. Once again, this is why I am a proponent of allowing a computer to systematically cut off how far someone can grow. An analogy would be like pruning a plant. You trim down the leaves, so it not only looks better, but grows better as well.

Quote:I wasn't clear on that point. The act of amassing wealth is not harmful in itself but the drive behind it, greed, is. It's not that "the root of all evil is money" but the lust of money. Amassing wealth can do great good, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for example.

Exactly. My point is this:
You allow for someone to amass as much wealth as they want, until they reach point X (Be it a defined amount of money, a certain control of the marketplace, etc.), and then they are forced to retire.

Quote:I agree. Even in a completely democratic system there is a possibility for corruption and fraud. Though the level and chance of it is less than if only a few people control everything. That is why decentralization and then the dismantling of the state is necessary.

Not neccesarily, as I come back to the computer controlled system. The system could be centralized as much as we wanted. The logic still in the computer, lowers the chance of fraud highly, as the computer is designed for that purpose. To keep the market honest, and to limit power from any amount of overruling people. This would allow for any system to exist, with the reduction of fraud.

Quote:A employer/master-employee/slave relationship is harmful. If you are unable to freely exercise your mind you will be unhappy. You can exercise this power freely on your own time, but think about the effects of school on the enjoyment of reading and learning. Consumerism is partly created this way. A combination of unfulfilling jobs and endless advertising turns people into morons.

And once again, whose fault is this? The people who allowed themselves to be turned into morons, or the unfulfilling jobs and endless advertising? Oh, and once again, keep this in mind: Certain jobs need to be filled, no matter what. Until we can invent and mass produce robots to do some of the tasks that people do every day, and keep it cost effective, there will still be garbage-men, assembly-line workers, farmers, etc.

Quote:Starting your own business just makes you the slave owner, it doesn't get rid of wage slavery.

I never said it did either. It simply puts yourself, or the more ambitious one on top of the heirarchy. Once again, under this system, everyone ideally starts with the same capabilities as their peers.

Quote:I thought you were a libertarian. Wouldn't putting in the checks and balances override personal freedoms and the free market?

One could argue that they are a neccesary evil. Certain restrictions are required to ensure the overall freedom and expression.
And, I would like to make clear at this point I am arguing ideals. A computer system would be incredibly difficult, time consuming, and revolted against to implement, but ideally, the results of this system, in my opinion, would far better serve humanity then any human drawn form of government, in the regarding of economics. Libertarianism is my real-world solution, that is actually plausible in the real world. (Not to say a computer system isn't plausible. It'd just be less of a pain to insitute a libertarian style of thought, as compared to a computer style of thinking.)
09-25-2006 02:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
Post: #32
 

Quote:And once again, whose fault is this?
It is the fault of a capitalist economy.

Quote:Not neccesarily, as I come back to the computer controlled system.
I went off on a tangent there. As you said, a central computer might be able to reduce corruption by a great deal. But it still doesn't get rid of the problems of capitalism.

Quote:Certain jobs need to be filled, no matter what.
Those jobs would be just as easily fulfilled without capitalism. If you live in a community you would be able to come to an agreement with the others about the bad jobs. Having rotating jobs would work far better than what we do today. Since the exposure to a bad job would be small it wouldn't have much impact on people's wellbeing.

Quote:I never said it did either. It simply puts yourself, or the more ambitious one on top of the heirarchy. Once again, under this system, everyone ideally starts with the same capabilities as their peers.
Just because a few people can get out of the system doesn't justify it. The majority of people would be at the bottom of the hierarchy. Even though it may be "their fault" it doesn't make it right. Social Darwinism is incorrect as it misinterprets "survival of the fittest" to mean individuals within a species.
09-25-2006 03:22 AM
Quote this message in a reply
R00t Offline
Pariah

Posts: 566
Joined: Jun 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #33
 

Quote:It is the fault of a capitalist economy.
Blaming on capitalism, does not a good arguement make.
It is not the inherent fault of capitalism, that people are forced into dull jobs. I would contend that it is the lack of self-motivation, that prevents someone from being happy, in a fuflling job.

Quote:I went off on a tangent there. As you said, a central computer might be able to reduce corruption by a great deal. But it still doesn't get rid of the problems of capitalism.

Which you haven't really argued in the first place.

Quote:Those jobs would be just as easily fulfilled without capitalism. If you live in a community you would be able to come to an agreement with the others about the bad jobs. Having rotating jobs would work far better than what we do today. Since the exposure to a bad job would be small it wouldn't have much impact on people's wellbeing.

So, instead of having one person doing a job. They all have to rotate.
Instead of making only a few people unhappy, we make everyone unhappy.
Am I the only one reminded here, of the draft?

Quote:Just because a few people can get out of the system doesn't justify it. The majority of people would be at the bottom of the hierarchy. Even though it may be "their fault" it doesn't make it right. Social Darwinism is incorrect as it misinterprets "survival of the fittest" to mean individuals within a species.

It being their fault, by all rights, does it make it correct. If you are given equal chance of your peers, and don't take it, then blaming the system makes no sense, when the system has clear rules.

And I know that the majority of people would be the on bottom of the heirarchy. That's the way a good portion of them work.
09-25-2006 09:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
Post: #34
 

Quote:It is not the inherent fault of capitalism, that people are forced into dull jobs.
Capitalism creates the master-slave relationship. A job becomes dull when a person is not allowed to use their mental and creative abilities. They are suppressed so that maximum efficiency can happen. Due to the master-slave relationship, people have no choice but to let that happen, somehow start a business, or starve on the streets.

Quote:I would contend that it is the lack of self-motivation, that prevents someone from being happy, in a fuflling job.
If you are under the authority of someone else your happiness goes down. It isn't lack of self-motivation but authoritarian and hierarchical relationships. I love learning but hate when I am forced to do so. I may love a job but when I am being controlled by someone else I would dislike it.

Quote:So, instead of having one person doing a job. They all have to rotate.
Instead of making only a few people unhappy, we make everyone unhappy.
Would you rather pick up trash one day a month or every day of the year? Also as I said it is voluntary. If you really hated it you could leave.

Quote:Am I the only one reminded here, of the draft?
What I said has nothing to do with being forced to do anything. You would be free to join the scheme if you wanted to. If you didn't want to you would have to deal with your own garbage somehow.

Quote:If you are given equal chance of your peers, and don't take it, then blaming the system makes no sense, when the system has clear rules.
Blaming the system makes perfect sense. I blame slavery for getting so many gladiators killed. According to you it would be their fault because there are clear rules (survive and be freed) and if you die, well, they didn't have enough motivation. Slavery is wrong because it treats people as a means to an end. Capitalism is just consensual slavery. The only thing you can do is choose your master, or if you're lucky become one.

Quote:And I know that the majority of people would be the on bottom of the heirarchy.
The reason that school is bad is the same reason that capitalism is bad. Both are hierarchical. I hate school because my learning is under the authority of someone else. I have no choice but to learn what they say. This kills the love of learning. Capitalism kills the love of doing. If you do not have freedom you will be unhappy.

I will repeat again, all hierarchical and authoritarian relationships are harmful! Only few people have true freedom in a capitalist society, the people at the top. I want everybody to have this freedom. I hate capitalism for that reason.
09-25-2006 09:55 AM
Quote this message in a reply
R00t Offline
Pariah

Posts: 566
Joined: Jun 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #35
 

Quote:Capitalism creates the master-slave relationship. A job becomes dull when a person is not allowed to use their mental and creative abilities. They are suppressed so that maximum efficiency can happen. Due to the master-slave relationship, people have no choice but to let that happen, somehow start a business, or starve on the streets.

I'm still seeing no problem with the master-worker relationship (Slave is really just a slanderous term, when there is actually no slavery. Arguing wage slavery still fails to take into account Entrepeneurism.) A job only becomes dull when a person allows it to. The employer is not in charge of one's personal mental and creative abilities. They are simply in charge of the company they work for. They are also not surpressed, as everyone has the ability, (Within some reason, I understand that right now we have a situation where some a born poor, and unfortunately have to stay that way) to progress as they choose, pending their ability to compete with their peers.

Quote:If you are under the authority of someone else your happiness goes down. It isn't lack of self-motivation but authoritarian and hierarchical relationships. I love learning but hate when I am forced to do so. I may love a job but when I am being controlled by someone else I would dislike it.

I realize that I am stretching my arguement a bit here, but your arguement can immediately be labeled fallicious, by Christianity, Judaism, etc. I would contend that there are just as many happy Jews, Christians, and Muslims as they are Atheists. They are under the authority of God, yet they are still happy.

You are specifying terms to your like. You love to learn, but hate when you[/i] are forced to do so. [b]You may love your job, but when you are being controlled by someone else you would dislike it. This is not to say someone else would not be content with their position, or to be under someone else.

Quote:Would you rather pick up trash one day a month or every day of the year?

As opposed to what? Having someone else do it every day of the year? And in what quantity? Who decides the shifts?

Quote:Also as I said it is voluntary. If you really hated it you could leave.

And possibly be alienated by the community. Oh joy.

Quote:What I said has nothing to do with being forced to do anything. You would be free to join the scheme if you wanted to. If you didn't want to you would have to deal with your own garbage somehow.

Burn it!

Quote:Blaming the system makes perfect sense. I blame slavery for getting so many gladiators killed. According to you it would be their fault because there are clear rules (survive and be freed) and if you die, well, they didn't have enough motivation.

I'm seeing no fault to this logic. The only problem I would have is the conditions under which they were put there. If it's their choice, they can go ahead. Forcing someone to be a gladiator on the other hand, bothers me.

Quote:Slavery is wrong because it treats people as a means to an end. Capitalism is just consensual slavery. The only thing you can do is choose your master, or if you're lucky become one.

Now.
Correct me if I'm wrong......
But isn't that a paradox? Consentual slavery? I could only see that working in bondage terms. And it even shallows in there.

You can choose your master, or if you're skillful enough, become one.

Quote:The reason that school is bad is the same reason that capitalism is bad. Both are hierarchical. I hate school because my learning is under the authority of someone else. I have no choice but to learn what they say. This kills the love of learning. Capitalism kills the love of doing. If you do not have freedom you will be unhappy.

I'm still waiting for the basis of this entire arguement.

Quote:I will repeat again, all hierarchical and authoritarian relationships are harmful! Only few people have true freedom in a capitalist society, the people at the top. I want everybody to have this freedom. I hate capitalism for that reason.

So, let's recap here.

1. It's consentual slavery appearantly, which means you choose to be in that position.
2. If you have enough skill, you can advance in the heirarchy.
3. We haven't actually proven heirarchical and authoritarian relationships are harmful.
4. We haven't shown that only those at the top have true freedom.
09-26-2006 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
Post: #36
 

Quote:I'm still seeing no problem with the master-worker relationship [..] A job only becomes dull when a person allows it to. The employer is not in charge of one's personal mental and creative abilities. They are simply in charge of the company they work for. They are also not surpressed, as everyone has the ability [...] to progress as they choose

People cannot turn feelings on and off at will. The effects of the environment are largely out of our control. There are probably people who could be happy in a concentration camp, but the majority are going to be extremely effected by the environment.

The employer is not going to try to suppress mental abililites. People who start up sweatshops probably aren't thinking about employees at all, but because of the conditions it happens anyways. Employers only have a duty to make money and so that is what their main focus is going to be. They are simply in charge of making money. There are good bosses who do want to help people but the bottom line is what really counts. I'm not saying that people are selfish, just that an employer needs to make sure they keep making money.

It is in the best (or most commonly thought as best) interests of an employer to allow a person to only do their own specific job. The division of labour creates better efficiency but reduces people to lower states.

Here is Adam Smith on the effects of the division of labour:

Adam Smith Wrote:He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.

I know there are exceptions where people get to do their own things, eg Google, but they aren't the norm. They are still exploitive and take away freedom.

Quote:Slave is really just a slanderous term, when there is actually no slavery. Arguing wage slavery still fails to take into account Entrepeneurism.
It maybe slanderous but it is true. Slavery is the legal ownership of another person. When I work I am owned by the employer. I have signed a contract saying that I am going to do so-and-so. I am being payed to obey them, the authority.

Capitalist entrepeneurism implies wage slavery. Doesn't someone have to work for you?


Quote:I'm seeing no fault to this logic. The only problem I would have is the conditions under which they were put there. If it's their choice, they can go ahead.
Freedom means you always have freedom even when you agree to do something. If you sell yourself into slavery it may be consensual, but you still give away your freedom. I am forced by practical reasons to get a job. If I don't, I will starve. The only jobs I can get are the ones where I sell my labour and freedom. It is equivalent to having a gun to my head. Get a job or die. When I get a job I follow what my employer says, or else I starve and die. I can get away with some things but I ultimately am forced to obey. Capitalism is authoritarian and hierarchical which takes away my freedom which so called libertarians are so fond of saying we have.

The only freedom I have is to choose which master, not freedom. Even if I did "get out", most people are still going to be stuck.

Quote:Forcing someone to be a gladiator on the other hand, bothers me.
I hate slavery because it takes away freedom. Forcing someone to be a slave is worse than being one consensually but they both take away the same freedoms.

Quote:They are under the authority of God, yet they are still happy.
Just believing that you are under the authority of god isn't enough. Unless you are a prophet or crazy then you would never get instructions from god. I would contend that some people are unhappy because they believe in god. If they see god as an authority over them then they may see their sins and feel great unhappiness and stress. Most people don't feel god is commanding them to do anything, they may think it but that is different.

"Religion is the opium of the masses" is supposed to be an insult, but it is true. But what's the problem with opium? I think that religion serves a very useful role and can make people happy. The total happiness may be the same for an theist and an atheist but the theist could possibly have more highs and lows.

Quote:This is not to say someone else would not be content with their position, or to be under someone else.
I hate school. My dad loved it. The education was just as ineffectual.

Quote:As opposed to what? Having someone else do it every day of the year? And in what quantity? Who decides the shifts?
In some sort of town hall meeting-dealie. There might even be someone who would do it for free so that they can make crap out of it. It's all hypothetical, it would depend on the situation.

Quote:Burn it!
Of course you could. The neighbours might complain though.

Quote:But isn't that a paradox? Consentual slavery?
Consentual slavery is when you sell yourself into slavery. After that it may or may not be consensual.

Quote:1. It's consentual slavery appearantly, which means you choose to be in that position.
2. If you have enough skill, you can advance in the heirarchy.
3. We haven't actually proven heirarchical and authoritarian relationships are harmful.
4. We haven't shown that only those at the top have true freedom.

1) The average person can choose to be a wage slave or die.
2) If you have enough skill, you can advance in the heirarchy.
3) Authoritarian relationships degrade people.
4) The people at the top control so that means they have freedom.
09-27-2006 07:10 AM
Quote this message in a reply
R00t Offline
Pariah

Posts: 566
Joined: Jun 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #37
 

Kirby Wrote:People cannot turn feelings on and off at will. The effects of the environment are largely out of our control. There are probably people who could be happy in a concentration camp, but the majority are going to be extremely effected by the environment.

This is agreed, but once again, we are circumventing another point I have made: The only problem I would have is the conditions under which they were put there.

This is to directly argue that if you put yourself in a concentration camp, then it is your fault. A metaphor for such a status would be Sadism and Masocism, in the form of bondage. While the two parties are partaking in inflicting acts upon each other, the situation is mutually understood, and the scenario, and the conditions are both understood as well.

Kirby Wrote:The employer is not going to try to suppress mental abililites. People who start up sweatshops probably aren't thinking about employees at all, but because of the conditions it happens anyways.

Indeed. And those who work under the sweatshops are only subjecting themselves to these conditions. The arguement, "Well it's the only business in town", falls short to the ability to move, to start another business, or to persuade a larger corporation with a reputation for being kind to it's employees, to move in. This is also not to discredit substance farming.

Kirby Wrote:Employers only have a duty to make money and so that is what their main focus is going to be. They are simply in charge of making money. There are good bosses who do want to help people but the bottom line is what really counts. I'm not saying that people are selfish, just that an employer needs to make sure they keep making money.

And once again, there is no flaw in this arguement. The assumation is that it is the fault of the employer for stifling the abilities of the employees, when it could just as easily: A. Be in the complete inverse, and the employee is stiffling the employer, or B. That neither side is mutually destructive, and it is a simple apathy to thinking.

Kirby Wrote:It is in the best (or most commonly thought as best) interests of an employer to allow a person to only do their own specific job. The division of labour creates better efficiency but reduces people to lower states.

Which you have continually failed to prove.

Kirby Wrote:Here is Adam Smith on the effects of the division of labour:

[quote="Adam Smith"]He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.
[/quote]

To quote a man after my own heart, Voltaire.

Voltaire Wrote:A witty saying proves nothing.

That is an arguement based on quotations, so I will contend against Mr. Smith. The habit of exertion is willfully lost, and not the fault of a system. One must first make the choose to be lazy and stupid, before they actually become lazy and stupid, unless they are predisposed to such conditions, in which case any system under which he or she operates, will regardlessly leave them lazy and stupid. His assertion then, that it renders him incapable of bearing a rational conversation, or any form of sentiment, and the inability to form any just judgement, is nullified as an accusation towards any system, and is rather the result of apathy.

Kirby Wrote:I know there are exceptions where people get to do their own things, eg Google, but they aren't the norm. They are still exploitive and take away freedom.

Which is once again, the fault of whom? You have not proven that it is the fault of the employer, in which case I would then label the fault of the employeee. A company, much like a government, can only drive it's power from the consent of the people. If the people refuse to consent, (I.E. Labor Unions, Strikes, etc.), then the Governments cannot function as it should, and must either meet the demands of the employee, or be put to banish.

KirbyIt maybe slanderous but it is true. Slavery is the legal ownership of another person. When I work I am owned by the employer. I have signed a contract saying that I am going to do so-and-so. I am being payed to obey them, the authority.

Capitalist entrepeneurism implies wage slavery. Doesn't someone have to work for you?[/quote="Kirby Wrote:
Not at all. You can simply strike it on your own, and preform single-handedly on a local basis.

When you work, and have signed a contract, you recieve benefits for your work, and have the option to terminate the contract at any time. This is not at all slavery, for slavery is either permenant, or must be very difficult to terminate the contract. When you sign the contract, I would once again use the bondage analogy.

[quote="Kirby"]Freedom means you always have freedom even when you agree to do something. If you sell yourself into slavery it may be consensual, but you still give away your freedom.

Then it was your choice to give away your freedom, no?

Kirby Wrote:I am forced by practical reasons to get a job. If I don't, I will starve. The only jobs I can get are the ones where I sell my labour and freedom. It is equivalent to having a gun to my head. Get a job or die. When I get a job I follow what my employer says, or else I starve and die. I can get away with some things but I ultimately am forced to obey. Capitalism is authoritarian and hierarchical which takes away my freedom which so called libertarians are so fond of saying we have.

Incorrect. I would bring susistance farming into the equation. Or, simply working for yourself, or inside a local community.

Your arguement also uses "Where I seel my labour and freedom". This is in direct complaint to your distrobuted labor arguement. You must give your labour and freedom in some form, even if it is only for maintaining yourself, or your coummunity.

You have also failed to prove that an authoritarian sentiment is bad, or a hierarchy is bad. Simply using the terms as negativity does not make for a good arguement.

Kirby Wrote:The only freedom I have is to choose which master, not freedom. Even if I did "get out", most people are still going to be stuck.

If you have proven that you can get out, then they also can get out, which means that it is their fault, not the employee/system.

Kirby Wrote:I hate slavery because it takes away freedom. Forcing someone to be a slave is worse than being one consensually but they both take away the same freedoms.

Perhaps.
But, then the question must come: Who are you dictate who I give my freedoms to?

Kirby Wrote:Just believing that you are under the authority of god isn't enough. Unless you are a prophet or crazy then you would never get instructions from god. I would contend that some people are unhappy because they believe in god. If they see god as an authority over them then they may see their sins and feel great unhappiness and stress. Most people don't feel god is commanding them to do anything, they may think it but that is different.

Actually, you can directly recieve arguements from God, through the bible. The worker-boss analogy then, would be some sort of Acceptable Worker Policy, or Worker Handbook issued to give direct terms, and the consequences for such terms.

The rest of your arguement relies on perception and statistics. First, we do not know how many people feel great unhappyness and stress, as compared to those who do. Second, we do not know if God is commanding anyone to do anything, and that is outside of the scope of this arguement. Third, I would once again, bring back the Bible analogy, as have reciving instructions.

ChaosSplintered]Burn it![/quote]
[quote=Kirby Wrote:
Of course you could. The neighbours might complain though.
So?

ChaosSplintered Wrote:But isn't that a paradox? Consentual slavery?
Kirby Wrote:Consentual slavery is when you sell yourself into slavery. After that it may or may not be consensual.
Which is a moot point to argue. The plain fact, is that you sold yourself into slavery at one point.
I cannot point a gun at a man's head, and fire the pistol, the complain that it wasn't my consent for the bullet to actually hit him, and not be punished under law. How can I sell myself into slavery, and sign the contract, then complain that it wasn't my consent for my liberties to be given away, and not be punished under economics?

1) The average person can choose to be a wage slave or die.
First, you have failed to prove that wage slavery is actually a negative thing.
Second, you have failed to prove that a wage slave has to remain a wage slave.
Third, you have failed to prove that a wage slave must initiailly become a wage slave.
And finally, you have failed to prove this arguement, on aforementioned grounds.

3) Authoritarian relationships degrade people.
I'm still waiting for you to actually prove this. Once again, I come to the bondage analogy. And let it be known, not all bondage is degrading.

4) The people at the top control so that means they have freedom.
Who only have consent from the people below, who I would argue, are the true masters.
09-27-2006 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  why capitalism is horrible HighSchoolFailure1337 46 15,282 06-12-2017 06:46 PM
Last Post: the Analogist
  Capitalism is the cause of prosperity thewake 9 5,289 01-06-2013 03:46 AM
Last Post: IamNoone
  Capitalism is the cause of world hunger. UnschoolShqiponjë 27 15,511 05-30-2012 02:26 PM
Last Post: thewake
  what is mutualism: alternative to social anarchism and capitalism iexist 0 1,472 03-01-2012 12:36 PM
Last Post: iexist
  Against INdustrial Capitalism/ Civilization (DEBATE) SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT 78 24,662 02-14-2012 02:44 PM
Last Post: Aya
  Corporatism Is Not Capitalism HeartofShadows 2 2,038 10-22-2011 02:45 PM
Last Post: gore goroth
  Capitalism: The Debate thewake 257 46,512 08-08-2011 11:59 PM
Last Post: thewake
  Capitalism is killing our planet. Swift 27 4,743 07-04-2010 09:05 AM
Last Post: Absnt
  Capitalism Fuels Fascism ~Mystery~ 125 13,853 06-03-2010 12:47 AM
Last Post: Denied
  Socialism/Capitalism (In a nutshell) Sociopath 22 11,630 03-13-2010 02:54 AM
Last Post: aaaaaaasd

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication