|
| Thread: The common purpose |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted October 10, 2009 03:16 PM |
|
|
The common purpose
I've always been confused by many actions done by many different organisations, always these were justified through some interest how complex it may ever have been.
However, when thinking about it, couldn't we all really agree on the one and same purpose, and strive to achieve it? Having such a common purpose in the first place would mean it'd be much easier to decide if a given action is a good idea or not.
So how could such a purpose be possible? We all most likely want different things? But it's not the difference that puts us together, it's the similarity in us being unique. You see we all have something we want, even the one who doesn't want anything, is one who wants it to stay as it is.
What our common purpose is, must be that everyone can get their wants achieved, but how to make certain this freedom exists, meanwhile no one will be hindered? Because if interests overlaps, problems will arise, and it all will have been in vain.
Well given everyone wants something, we could define it as, the freedom to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't decrease the freedom of others (i.e. being dependent of others).
Thereby, our common purpose, could be written as the freedom to do what we want (have the possibilities to get what we want), as long as it doesn't require depressing of the freedom of others.
What entitles us to this freedom? The only thing that is different between us, and everything else, the very fact that we're actually an existing entity, that we're aware, that we are. That very fact gives us the possibility to choose, and we'd of course always choose what we want, otherwise we wouldn't want it, let it be the same for all of us then.
How should we then be able to do so? Of course, as we want to be independant of others, we've to make certain we've sufficient amount of energy available for a society that can run itself, yet be backed up, so even if anything goes wrong, it'll self repair.
Likewise, we need research to gain the technology we yet don't have, so we can take advantage of this energy.
But how to achieve all this energy? We can only do so, by our common commitment, by keep on developing and evolving the society, by making new discoveries, by improving the technology, but never let the purpose be lost on the way, remember what it's we're doing it for, for all of us.
We invented the state, in the purpose for the common good, but what we never did was to make this purpose specific, personal preferences such as religion came in the mix, and we need to make it clear, that the purpose of the state have always been, and will always be, to secure the freedom of all of us. That's why the state should only focus on things that gives us this freedom, which means research in science, healthcare, education, transport options, but it should never get entangled with stuff that is out of its purpose, the state is not an economic machine and should never be one.
We invented capitalism, so everyone would have an easy and clear purpose, however, in some way, it seems like capitalism as well have had a negative effect, in stead of only producing more work, whereby we'd get to our common goal faster, it has sadly also made the people in power, interested of that power, not to help others, but to only help themselves. Capitalism is a great way of us to achieve great progress, but once again, we should never forget our common goal, we should strive for a future were economics is not needed, because the energy to get your wants to come true is present, likewise is the technology to manage this energy. Thereby there's no need of work from others, and thereby there's no need of an economic system, those who want, can do what they want, that's the whole purpose, but no one needs to anything, if they don't wish to.
Don't ever loose yourself, your fate in this world, because then we'll forget our common goal and without it, all our efforts are meaningless and in vain.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 04:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:59, 10 Oct 2009.
|
It's a fairy tale really. Just because you don't directly decrease freedom of others does not mean that you don't. Property is one example, laws with anything except physical offense are another (physical offense is the exception because it is a DIRECT freedom infringement which you already ruled out).
If property is limiting freedoms (and it is) for others, then what about exploiting things? Basically all of them are limiting freedoms.
And you wonder why people can't agree.
BTW by "property" here I mean mostly land property, but resources are a good candidate as well.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 05:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
whereby we'd get to our common goal faster, it has sadly also made the people in power, interested of that power, not to help others, but to only help themselves.
I just bought the invisible hand (I know, I'm horrible) and it says:
it's not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Rich people need poor people. Of course, this world is far from a utopia as long as democratic liberalism isn't evrrywhere. It'll take a while... perhaps this can only be achieved one all the oil dried up for instance.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 05:31 PM |
|
|
I disagree, and thus, the common purpose is fake.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 07:17 PM |
|
|
i somewhat agree..common perpse is to survive.
In order to survive we need food,medicine,hygine.
To eat get those we need money.
To make money we work,but more money is coming with higher eduction (somewhat). And thus we have a stimulate for higher education->More money. The biggest differnce i see in capitalism vs communism is the stimulate. For progress education is nessery. In capitalism that is.
So we get high education,and make enought money to buy us food,secure place to live,hygine,and medicne. But we have money left,and spare time. so we have colture->Entertainment.
It's a Big sort of buisness,money is being made in bundles,people spend alot on it. sometimes more then the nessities.
And the point is that this is not an overview on a SIM game it's the life!
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 07:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
i somewhat agree..common perpse is to survive.
not for all. Ask people who suicide willingly.
The "common" purpose isn't so common after all 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 07:26 PM |
|
|
an anti argument is also of people that commit murders,however those are against the rule,as there are allways such who do that for one or another reason,sometimes that being is due to medical conidtion of insenity. so i faulty your argument.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 07:27 PM |
|
|
Actually a much better one would be someone like me: I don't have the ultimate goal to survive, I do so only because I have certain goals which I can only to living. However, if I could sacrifice to get those goals done, I would. So life is only a means to get them, not the end.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
we should strive for a future were economics is not needed, because the energy to get your wants to come true is present, likewise is the technology to manage this energy. Thereby there's no need of work from others, and thereby there's no need of an economic system, those who want, can do what they want, that's the whole purpose, but no one needs to anything, if they don't wish to.
Post-scarcity is impossible. Even if somehow we developed technology that made everything that is scarce right now virtually unlimited, new forms of scarcity - unimaginable to us right now - would arise.
E.g. there was no demand for cars before cars were invented.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just because you don't directly decrease freedom of others does not mean that you don't.
If I'm able to counter any given example satisfyingly, would you then agree about the common purpose? (I.e. everyone have the opportunity to do what they want (fulfill their personal goal), as long as it doesn't limit the freedom of others).
Quote:
Property is one example
Correct, the reason we've property "we own" in the first place, I believe, is because we need to have the freedom to decide wether or not others should have the ability to, see us, hear us, etc. Like we've the freedom of speech, we also have the freedom of listen (meaning if you don't like it, you're always welcome to go away, etc.), and with private property it becomes clear who is the offender, and who isn't.
E.g. if your neighbor plays loud music which penetrates the walls of your property, then your neighbor is practically trespassing, which means that you're the one with the rights on your side.
However you're right, it's limiting the freedom of others that they can't go where they want to go, eventhough it does no harm.
My solution would be to create a private room, that does not depend on physical objects (at least in the sense of this world), i.e. simulated worlds (you're a matrix fan right?  ) where no one can enter, and if they force their way in, they'd be seriously hurting you (i.e. it doesn't go against the common purpose anymore, and is not a paradox neither).
How to do this, I don't know, but that could be a possible solution at least.
Quote:
laws with anything except physical offense are another
You've to be more specific, or I don't know what I'm answering. If it's an economical crime, as an example, I believe in a world where there's no need for trade, as everyone is independent (except of course dependent on the whole system of independency working (see first post)) whereby there's no economic, and there's no economic crimes.
Quote:
Post-scarcity is impossible. Even if somehow we developed technology that made everything that is scarce right now virtually unlimited, new forms of scarcity - unimaginable to us right now - would arise.
How can you be so certain? It's impossible to prove an impossibility as far as I know, so I'm very curious.
Quote:
E.g. there was no demand for cars before cars were invented.
True, but there was always demand for transport, I agree we might do transport in unimaginary ways, but as long as the energy for doing it, and the technology for making it possible, is there, I don't see the problem in this.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 08:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Correct, the reason we've property "we own" in the first place, I believe, is because we need to have the freedom to decide wether or not others should have the ability to, see us, hear us, etc. Like we've the freedom of speech, we also have the freedom of listen (meaning if you don't like it, you're always welcome to go away, etc.), and with private property it becomes clear who is the offender, and who isn't.
E.g. if your neighbor plays loud music which penetrates the walls of your property, then your neighbor is practically trespassing, which means that you're the one with the rights on your side.
However you're right, it's limiting the freedom of others that they can't go where they want to go, eventhough it does no harm.
Freedom and harm, or freedom and safety, are two completely different things.
Quote:
My solution would be to create a private room, that does not depend on physical objects (at least in the sense of this world), i.e. simulated worlds (you're a matrix fan right? ) where no one can enter, and if they force their way in, they'd be seriously hurting you (i.e. it doesn't go against the common purpose anymore, and is not a paradox neither).
How to do this, I don't know, but that could be a possible solution at least.
I like how you think as that would be a solution, albeit not the ultimate one (depends how much the "outside" world this simulation affects, in the Matrix for example, the machines affected many humans, harvesting them etc.
Quote:
You've to be more specific, or I don't know what I'm answering. If it's an economical crime, as an example, I believe in a world where there's no need for trade, as everyone is independent (except of course dependent on the whole system of independency working (see first post)) whereby there's no economic, and there's no economic crimes.
For example, laws that don't allow you to do certain things, like having a personal nuke. Notice that these have nothing to do with triggering the nuke and affecting others, of course, but if we're speaking technically, it is one.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 08:48 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
Before I reply, I'd like of you to answer this:
Quote:
If I'm able to counter any given example satisfyingly, would you then agree about the common purpose? (I.e. everyone have the opportunity to do what they want (fulfill their personal goal), as long as it doesn't limit the freedom of others).
So I know if we're actually going anywhere with this topic.
If you still disagree, in that case why?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 08:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can you be so certain? It's impossible to prove an impossibility as far as I know, so I'm very curious.
For example, human capital is always going to be scarce - we're never going to have an infinite population of humans that have all the skills necessary to do every job very well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@TheDeath
Before I reply, I'd like of you to answer this:
Quote:
If I'm able to counter any given example satisfyingly, would you then agree about the common purpose? (I.e. everyone have the opportunity to do what they want (fulfill their personal goal), as long as it doesn't limit the freedom of others).
So I know if we're actually going anywhere with this topic.
If you still disagree, in that case why?
Not exactly, because to me, it's not just "others" who have to be taken in the equation. For example, it isn't my business to tell a criminal not to kill someone else I don't even know, but that doesn't mean he doesn't affect me as well, if I am a guy who doesn't like that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted October 10, 2009 09:11 PM |
|
|
what i wrote is that much unrealted that it is only attended by tedeath?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 11, 2009 02:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
what i wrote is that much unrealted that it is only attended by tedeath?
My idea of the thread was to let some people try to falsify the idea of a common purpose, and others who agree help me countering it, as you seem to pretty much agree (as I read it), I didn't see any point in making a comment.
Also with only 5 people in this thread so far, I don't think it interests that many.
The objective of the thread is to specify a common purpose we all can agree upon, then I'll try to take it to other forums as well and see how people react here, etc. etc.
If I started ignoring people who are actively participating in the thread in relation to the topic, I'd pr. definition have given up on my own beliefs.
Quote:
For example, human capital is always going to be scarce - we're never going to have an infinite population of humans that have all the skills necessary to do every job very well.
I'm not quite certain of the meaning of the word capital in this context.
Anyway, about the skills necessary to do every job required for everyone wants to be satisfied, I suggest an automatic society, where works by those alive is not required (machines), but if you wish, you'll always have the possibility (getting all wants).
Quote:
Freedom and harm, or freedom and safety, are two completely different things.
Harm should be understood in relation to the topic, i.e. against the main idea. Which means in this case, limiting the freedom of others.
Quote:
I like how you think as that would be a solution, albeit not the ultimate one (depends how much the "outside" world this simulation affects, in the Matrix for example, the machines affected many humans, harvesting them etc.
I may misunderstand you, but if you've an idea of the solution to your own counterexample in the first place, why not share it from the beginning, note stuff that needs to be done and then take the debate from there, it'd have saved 2 steps and 1 day. (You don't always have to be the devils advocate for making a good debate).
And yes I agree, it's not ideal before at least this simulated world is not affected by the outside world, which most likely is impossible. Yet it shows that it's manageable to get the idea of private property and a common purpose of freedom for all to do what they want, except you can't limit the freedom of others, to coexist (as again, it's basicly the freedom to choose if you want to be by yourself or not, the freedom of privacy).
Quote:
For example, laws that don't allow you to do certain things, like having a personal nuke. Notice that these have nothing to do with triggering the nuke and affecting others, of course, but if we're speaking technically, it is one.
Well that's true, though this is shortly put, and probably a much easier solution exists, the way to make it work as intended would only to be making it legal to own the nuke, but not illegal, no, but impossible, to trigger it, and get the consequences you'd expect of today.
So as an analogy, in stead of a knife going through butter, it has to be a knife that fails dramatically as it tries to pierce a wall of diamond.
Quote:
Not exactly, because to me, it's not just "others" who have to be taken in the equation.
I don't quite follow, so I'll ask in to it:
When you write "just "others"", does that mean you want more into the equation?
If so, what would like to add to all that's consciously aware, and why?
Quote:
For example, it isn't my business to tell a criminal not to kill someone else I don't even know, but that doesn't mean he doesn't affect me as well, if I am a guy who doesn't like that.
Well, two things to this, using the same way of thinking as I did in my first post:
We all have goals in our life, either for change or not for change, thereby all we want is the freedom to do our goals, which means a common purpose would be such a freedom for all, yet to make certain everyone is equal, to not have the freedom to limit the freedom of others. Which means of course everyone will have limited their freedom to some extend.
So for the part of telling the criminal to not kill someone, it's important to see both the criminal as yourself, and the victim as yourself, and then final hold both holds in relation to the common purpose as written above, and realise it's limiting the freedom of yourself if someone kills you, given you don't want it, whereby the victim should not be killed, and it's our duty to make that certain, because only by making it certain for all of us, we can make it certain for ourself, that we can attain our own goals.
Secondly about the way it affects others, I believe, as long as others have not have their freedom reduced in any physical way, then this is an argument of irrational emotion, which I'd like to be without.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 11, 2009 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I may misunderstand you, but if you've an idea of the solution to your own counterexample in the first place, why not share it from the beginning, note stuff that needs to be done and then take the debate from there, it'd have saved 2 steps and 1 day. (You don't always have to be the devils advocate for making a good debate).
And yes I agree, it's not ideal before at least this simulated world is not affected by the outside world, which most likely is impossible. Yet it shows that it's manageable to get the idea of private property and a common purpose of freedom for all to do what they want, except you can't limit the freedom of others, to coexist (as again, it's basicly the freedom to choose if you want to be by yourself or not, the freedom of privacy).
Oh yeah sorry about not mentioning it before
Quote:
Well that's true, though this is shortly put, and probably a much easier solution exists, the way to make it work as intended would only to be making it legal to own the nuke, but not illegal, no, but impossible, to trigger it, and get the consequences you'd expect of today.
So as an analogy, in stead of a knife going through butter, it has to be a knife that fails dramatically as it tries to pierce a wall of diamond.
The only problem is, that it's impractical, obviously.
What about copyright?
Quote:
I don't quite follow, so I'll ask in to it:
When you write "just "others"", does that mean you want more into the equation?
If so, what would like to add to all that's consciously aware, and why?
I said before. Unless we go into the virtual world (where you won't affect the outside world), exploitation (resources or land) will happen. For example, a person may have an affinity to some place (even though it doesn't "own" that place, because that's bad in itself), but then some idiot comes and drills it up.
It's not that the other person (with affinity) is restricting the idiot's freedom, because it's the idiot who takes an action, the other one is just plain neutral (towards that place or whatever). So only the "idiot" here can be held guilty.
I believe this, in a way, addresses the last point as well. For example, suppose there's a third person, who is not affected directly by the former two at all.
That doesn't mean such person shouldn't, for example, take "sides" and "ally" with the one with the affinity toward the land (not the idiot), or vice-versa.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Master
Disgraceful
Tavern Dweller
Spam
|
|
posted October 11, 2009 07:36 PM |
|
|
snowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnowsnow
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2009 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not quite certain of the meaning of the word capital in this context.
Anyway, about the skills necessary to do every job required for everyone wants to be satisfied, I suggest an automatic society, where works by those alive is not required (machines), but if you wish, you'll always have the possibility (getting all wants).
"Human capital refers to the stock of skills and knowledge embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value." - Wikipedia.
And, whatever Death might say, machines will never replace humans in all tasks.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 01:02 AM |
|
|
The common purpose should be to let everyone live thier life with as little government interference as possible. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all unless it infringes to a great degree on the rights of others.
A small and limited government so that it does not oppress us. I don't need a big brother government I am quite capable of taking care of myself, thank you very much.
When the government becomes too involved in our lives then it has to start oppressing lots of poeple to get the tax money needed for it to be big brother. Then I am expected to live my life the way big brother wants me to rather than how I want to.
Limited government. Low taxes. Max freedom.
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
