To save the planet - make more meat!

(Karim Wassef) #41

There’s a difference between espousing the values of charity and helping others - OR - enforcing legislation that forces people to give up what they’re made so others can benefit.

I believe in charity and in a social structure that values all human contribution. But when governments choose to take from some and give to others based on equality of outcome … that’s a disease in my view.

They look similar - but they’re very different.

One is by choice and ethical virtue - aspiring to a deeper human love… the other is forced by a human system and goes contrary to human nature and drive.

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #42

Such as using my tax dollars to support corporate welfare? :grin:

Sorry, “corporate welfare” is a loaded term. But why should my tax dollars be used to support corporations that bring in money hand over fist, but not people in need?

(Karim Wassef) #43

Where should we invest?
The key word here is “invest”… not give.
An unchecked market isn’t right either, but governments legislating where to “give” is also broken.

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #44

But the same economic arguments that apply to “investing” in corporations also apply to “investing” in people. Taxes are not inherently evil, nor is government spending. After all, if there were a better system, surely someone would have thought of it at some point in the last fifteen thousand years.

But examine your premises. And take a look at any attitude that says people are not of concern to government. By American political philosophy, at least, government is supposed to be “of the people, for the people, and by the people.” That is what used to make the American system such a threat to the established powers in Europe.

Seriously, I fail to see why aggregations of money should be privileged over actual human beings, but that’s probably just me.

(Karim Wassef) #45

We can agree that bacon is good…

Money is the machine and there will always be some who have more…

The US has actually made remarkable progress by avoiding the pitfalls of socialism generating waste… and in the last few thousand years, this seems to be working better than most.

Ok… meat. This isn’t scientific, but the rancher vs. farmer comparison is funny

(Doug) #46

Paul, I was just saying that pigs, chickens, etc., take vastly less land area than cows and sheep.

Most definitely. Capital indeed tends to accumulate in the hands of the few, not the many. Unbridled capitalism leads to a relative handful of super-rich people, with the rest being akin to serfs.

The U.S., as with many “capitalist” countries, has a huge amount of socialism at work - we have “public” education, hospitals, parks, universities, prisons, libraries, transportation, police, fire departments, the military, roads, bridges, etc. - we have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Veterans Affairs…

(Karim Wassef) #47

government “helping” ranchers:


The internet itself is the one that deserves the biggest acknowledgement, not just social media, tho social media does make up a large portion of the affected populace that benefit from it.

“The historical hierarchy is becoming diffuse”

Ive seen this happen myself as well on lot of platforms but if you want real change, physical revolution is needed in my opinion, because person to person micro-investments that do help to reverse mindsets are just way too slow approach and the proof of that is that we are the minority and have been for very long time. Anyone whose aware of whats the reality of our world and is capable of critical open minded thinking is always going to be the minority. And people up in the top have made sure of it that it stays that way.

I agree with Omar on equality of opportunity being too ideal goal to reach globally, virtually its impossibility and u can only try to strive towards it like many northern European countries have done very succesfully.

It looks fine to me mate, english isnt my native language either and it must look funny in some occasions to the natives that read it. :grin:

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #49

Ketonians of the world, arise! You have nothing to lose but your fat! :grin:

(Doug) #50

True, yet it always seems complicated to me. One’s individual context looms large, as does our focus. If we’re talking about historical macroeconomics, then I’d say the U.S. is close to the end. Debt and unfunded liabilities = over $1 million per taxpayer. How is this going to go? Nobody has a crystal ball, but it’s going to end ugly. How good is a system if it’s unsustainable?

What were “the good times”? Many people look fondly backward to the post-World War II era, through 1966 or so. Yet for women and minorities it was often not so good.

The 1970s was rather a ‘down’ decade, yet even with inflation a lot of people were doing well - picture union factory employees like within the autoworkers and steelworkers. The unions were a huge force in restraining the excesses of capitalism. The pendulum swings - we have less than 1/3 as many union workers now, versus the peak, on a percentage basis. This is true of human psychology and markets in general - it is a progression from one extreme to the other.

1980s and 1990s - back to the general “good times” feeling. I think people not only got used to having things be ‘good,’ but also internalized the expectation that things always get better and better. Incredible deficit spending by the government reinforces this.

A little more of a mixed picture in the new millenium. Yet we still lead a charmed life, economically - very low interest rates, the U.S. Dollar still functions as the reserve currency of the world to a large extent, we’re the “market of last resort” for much of the world, as well - it’s in the interest of many exporting countries to keep us propped up.

The future - there’s a lot of potential out there for some serious disruptions.


Problem is we can’t even define “human nature.” White imperialists (aka the famous ones waxing philosophical on human nature) tend to define human nature in negative terms - that we’re all naturally selfish, violent creatures - because they themselves are selfish, violent creatures and need to justify their habits.

Define “contribute,” because that’s really mucky there. And even then, why? Why should they?

Except there is no equality of opportunity. White people get more of a headstart by virtue of being born white. Cis men get more opportunity than women, trans men, and nonbinary people. Straight people are afforded more privilege than queer people. Government has to intervene, because straight white cis men will not give up their privilege on their own.

Any every time the elite get corrupted, they must be removed from power.

(Karim Wassef) #52

my hope is that freedom to capitalize on your innovation and ingenuity is still alive in the US. That freedom combined with human nature and an expanding free marketplace of ideas in an open social media will lead us away from the potential nihilistic destructive extreme.

(Doug) #53

We certainly can identify some overall truths, though, KC. People really do work harder, produce more, etc., when what they get is tied to their efforts, versus pooling everything and then doling it out on a per-capita basis or according to “need.”


Millionaires existing while poor people working three jobs continue to starve is a disease in my view. I have no sympathy when it comes to taxing the rich. Tax 75% of their income, they can come at me with the world’s smallest violin for all I care.


According to whom?

(Doug) #56

According to those who observe people, history, national realities, etc.

(Karim Wassef) #57

It’s dangerous to assume that any one group is victimizer and another is victim. That’s what happened in Germany in the 40s and it didn’t work out very well. Accepting “sides” that are not based on ideas is a dangerous slippery slope. We should look at individuals.

The elite in socialist countries don’t go peacefully - ever.

contribute = make the world better. better is captured in people’s willingness to choose their contribution over something else.

The person who invents the air conditioner deserves to be compensated over the person who makes fans. Innovation should be rewarded.


You never heard of history being written by the victors? You cannot state an objective definition of “human nature” because we cannot remove ourselves from our own experiences, and the majority of recent history for the few hundred years has been shaped by white, colonial, imperialistic forces who tend to justify their actions because “might makes right.” It’s the equivalent of saying “he couldn’t stop himself from forcing himself on that women, he’s a man.”

(Karim Wassef) #59

ok - we’re in the realm of beliefs here…

let’s get back to meat?
I cannot find a single study that scientifically looks at ranching vs. farming. Anyone else more successful?


A little early to be Godwinning ourselves, isn’t it?

Neither do they in capitalist countries, either.

Define “make the world better.” The Moldy Cheeto has never made the world a better place, should he be rewarded just because he’s a business man?