Torero

The term useful idiot is not the same as "idiot" or "idiotic". For the statism conspiracy the useful idiots are the state employees (council personell, tax collectors, teachers, lawyers, soldiers, etc etc.). They are not evil, but useful idiots; working for an evil system. They can be smart. For many conspiracies, like 9/11, NASA and also the AGW hoax on top of that just normal people not counted in by the perpetrators help them because the topic interests them and they want the "official stories" to be true. Still no idiots, but very useful for the powers. Compare them to missionary workers going to Africa because they believe they do good work for a good cause.

Conspiracies, just like the statism conspiracy, rely on a small group of insiders and a huge set of useful idiot minions.

Irrelevant and highly dubious. Morality from religion and from philosophy are also not mutually exclusive, in many cases even congruent. "more solid ways"? If you have no moral standards of your own, even actively try to "liberate" people from them, because you call them "restrictions", how can you ever claim that your ways are "more solid" than those of others (in some cases religious, in some not)? Having no moral standards according to your views is then "better" and "more solid" than having moral standards based on religion. But if you have no moral standards, on what basis do you discriminate between "good" and "bad" acts? I didn't use the word "cheering", I used "having no problem with". So only if it affects your life and those of others? Imagine 2 people, let's call them Bonnie and Clyde, and they beat a homeless guy without family, friends or anyone else caring for him to death, just because that increases the personal happiness of Bonnie and Clyde, that would thus be no problem at all for you? Again: your world thus doesn't get farther than yourself and the people you care about. So any violence/theft/rape against someone you do not care about but increases the "personal happiness" of the perpetrator is "ok with you". Then I don't understand your "I think this is the best answer so far" on my point of reciprocity in the original thread about this question. Because that was about people in general, not the small circle of people I (or you) care about. I suggest you refrain from abusing the word "egoism" as it is "egocentric" what you display. The crucial difference has been explained before.

1 - "how many" is many? and how do you quantify this? 2 - "better off" - what is your definition for "better"? 3 - what do you mean with "shackle"? 4 - "unnecessarily" - on what basis do you discriminate between "necessary" and "unnecessary"? 5 - why would moral behavior be a "restriction"? Also you said "why truth is better than happiness" but there's no contradiction here. Truth is not the antonym of happiness. One can be perfectly happy with the truth. Or unhappy with lies. Or happy with lies and unhappy with the truth. From points 1-5 would follow that if someone gets "happy" by killing other human beings, that person should not be "restricted" by moral "unnecessarily" according to your views? Or if stealing, raping, deceiving, hitting random people on the street makes someone "happy" that is perfectly fine with you? Even that it makes that victim unhappy? Even more; you would actively support throwing away the "shackles" of moral "restrictions", "self-liberating" this immoral freak? Don't you have any standards other than "personal happiness" or do you?

A layer? Or a boulder? Because Orthocerenkalk is transported to the south by the glaciers (so in fact; "generous" so you could find that trilobite so far south); boulders, cobbles, pebbles. It is ~ 500 Ma old; Ordovicium, indeed an age where trilobites were thriving. Area of origin of red Orthoceren limestone is Sweden.

Indeed, this is "information". Doesnt mean it's true information... This "Tyler Durden" from Zerohedge claims a combination of the 3 options I listed, only on the basis of photos -and you seem to believe that-? 1: The car manufacturers have to buy more and more land just to park their cars as they perpetually roll off the production line. 2: The amount of cars keeps on piling up on it until its overflowing. Nissan then acquires more land to park up the cars, as they continue to come off the production line. 3: UPDATE: Currently May 16th, 2014, all of these cars at the Nissan Sunderland test track have disappeared? Now I don't believe they have all suddenly been sold. I would guess they may have been taken away and recycled to make room for the next vast production run. The car industry would never sell these cars at massive reductions in their prices to get rid of them, no they still want every buck. If they were to price these cars for a couple of thousand they would sell them. However, nobody would then buy any expensive cars and then they would end up being unsold. Trust me, they are just mountains and mountains of brand spanking new unsold cars. There is no real reason why you should be driving an old clunker now is there? It is a sorry state of affairs and there is no answer to it, solutions don't exist. So the cars just keep on being manufactured and keep on adding to the millions of unsold cars already sitting redundant around the world. No sales analysis figures No production analysis figures Just photos and handwaving interpretations Assumptions all around - e.g. that companies would pay money for extra parking spaces for cars they don't sell - "ever"! To fit some story. And when the story doesn't fit anymore (cars "suddenly" taken away), then they are "recycled", not shipped to growth markets or sold for less, no just Arbeitstherapie? Really, Thomasio, do you believe this BS?? Ok, that's good news. Indeed a big problem of the crapitalist system we live in.

I don't know where you get this claim, but that would be very very hard to believe. Let's say Bayerische Motor Werke (BMW) -you didn't specify it by manufacturer- produced 100,000 cars in München in 2015. Then only 50,000 cars were sold. What happens? 1 - the person making the sales prognosis gets fired for hugely failing market analysis and production planning 2 - the company adjusts its production for 2016, based on a combination of last years sales (50,000), domestic market analysis, more advertising, etc. so they make let's say 60,000 cars (a 20% margin -w.r.t the 50,000- for growth potential) 3 - what to do with the remaining 50,000 cars? The company plans a combination of A and B: A - they are sold for reduced prices (let's say 20,000 instead of 25,000 euros) in the domestic market B - they are shipped/transported by train to growth markets where the middle class and upper middle class able to afford a BMW are growing; Catowice, Qatar and Cambodia for instance Or do you think that BMW (and any other car manufacturing company): 1 - does not reduce production so every year they will have only 50% sales vs production? 2 - just keeps the cars getting dusty on some parking lot outside of München? 3 - dismantles the cars again like some communist Arbeitstherapie? And what I asked before; have you ever run a company or worked in one?

If it really would be - dense - what do you mean exactly? - cheap - what is your cut-off value? - plentiful - uranium still needs to be mined - clean - questionable - reliable - except when disasters happen enough, wouldn't we expect that the portion of nuclear fission would be much larger? In 2012 it was not even 11% of the total electricity market; 2.5% of the total energy consumption:

Have you looked at the photos from Kimmeridge Bay, Dorset (Jurassic Coast), Southern England? A pretty famous site for fossils: "Just a rock with strange patterns" does not produce the same pattern all the time, right? Of course there are rocks showing strange patterns (that mostly have their own explanatory theories) but if you find thousands of them the pattern is more than just a pattern. The material is different too; enclosing shales, limestones, siltstones or sandstones and calcareous or silicium-rich fossils. What you also can do with some time and patience is using small drill bits to scrape away the rock surrounding the fossil and end up with the fossil in your hand. On the French side of the Channel you can just pick the ammonites (in many cases pyritized; pyrite (FeS2) (also called "fool's gold") replaced the original material over time) from the beach. The age of formations is documented so you would have an idea. Also certain animals are restricted to certain periods because of mass extinctions. I am surprised that rosencrantz was able to find a trilobite in Eichstätt, Bavaria because the rocks there are of Mesozoic age (<250 Ma = Mega-annum = million years ago) when they were already extinct. Rosencrantz, was it exactly there that you found it or in the neighbourhood? And was it inside a rock or a single washed out specimen? The latter can come from erosion of older rocks higher up and transported to where you found it. The geological map of the area shows Upper Cretaceous (Oberkreide; light green) and Jurassic (Malm, Dogger, Lias) rocks only, no Paleozoic (Perm, Carboniferous and older): What is coloured purple and called "Ries-Auswurfmassen" is material produced by the impact of a meteorite some 14.5 Ma ago, the famous Ries impact crater. The yellow and lighter colours are younger material (Tertiary, so <65 Ma old). Pues st434u, veo que sos argentino? In Argentina a lot of dinosaur fossil remains (bones, tracks and eggs) have been found. Paleontological sites of Argentina

Archaeology is the science of studying historical human culture and their finds Paleontology is the science studying fossils So I assume you saw paleontologists looking for fossils. I don't know where you live but fossils are found worldwide. It's actually quite fun to look for them. A world-class site to find ammonite and belemnite fossils are the beaches bounding the English Channel; Kimmeridge Bay in SE England Cap Blanc-Nez in NW France And Jay (OP), if you're still around, see my review on your call into the show.

I really couldn't tell if you were trolling or really so naive to believe Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton on her blue eyes... "It gets us out of the war", is that the same promise as "Change!" that Obomba gave 8 years ago?

As far as I know there's no law in place preventing the owner of a company to divide it amongst his workers/interested parties. Like if tomorrow (I hope not) Stefan and Mike (and Stoyan) would decide to divide FDR amongst all their listeners, that's possible. What is the problem is the force. Why should an entity (in this case this Labour leprechaun) be forcing company owners to split the company among its employees and not simply sell it to other interested parties or leave it to their children?

I fear you didn't read well then. I only hinted towards socialist at the end of the post. And in none of my earlier posts I've called you a socialist, less a communist. What I have called you I've summarized in my last reply. And if I would come with a plan presented by an islamist, I cannot object to anyone calling me "supporting islamist ideas", could I? Not the whole story; - it's presented by a politician looking for votes (Labour is the opposition party at the moment) - it's presented by a statist - Labour is in the spectrum considered left-wing, no matter how you call it. Tories are right-wing conservatives but EU-minded, UKIP is a quite interesting force (anti-EU = always good) and also quite conservative. The only extreme right wing party in the British parliament is the BNP If you call yourself: - non-socialist - libertarian do you mind if I'm surprised you present some social-democrat statist with a plan that you consider "good" and in the "right" direction? therefore the idea isn't going to work and anyone supporting it must be a communist (which again you mistake for socialist). In fact this idea is VERY old, it is the core idea of socialism, it only was forgotten when in Russia the communists took over and declared a state organized capitalism to be socialism. Ever since that ALL attempts towards socialism copied communism, nobody ever tried the original idea of socialism. That's why socialism has a bad reputation now, while communism is the actual problem. Marxism, communism, socialism, national-socialism, social-democracy are all branches of the same poisonous tree. They may differ in the details but their roots are the same: "the forced distribution of wealth". In fact, the labor party is a center right wing authoritarian party, therefore as far away from my personal point of view as it could be, only beaten by the extreme right wing authoritarians, which would be UKIP and Conservatives. "In fact" not. In your opinion maybe. Another fact is, YOU are one of those who want to do a SLOW transition from authoritarian government to a free society, therefore YOU support the current authoritarian government, meaning YOU trust them to keep going until the slow transition to a free society is done. Wow, I am capitalized even now. I have clearly explained here that I do not have something "to want". I am livestock, I have no Aladdin lamp, no magical wand, no power over the world, no control over "transitions", no reason for utopian dreams, nothing. The only people I am able to influence are my social surroundings and on the anarchism topic my offspring; peaceful parenting and keeping them away from the socialist hell-hole of public education. That's all. And that exactly matches with the FDR approach; why I like it so much. Where it becomes peculiar is when you think that you do have something to "want" for "the world". That somehow you have power and influence over which "system" we will live in. Either because you have a magical wand, an Aladdin lamp or you have some direct contacts with the highest powers behind the scenes, otherwise it's just as impossible for you as it is for me. RoseCodex in his admirably eloquent quiet style has pointed that out earlier as well. I on the other hand am one who does NOT believe the authoritarian government has much time left, before the exponential increasing debt will cause a complete collapse of the system, therefore I am more into a faster transition, which does require active self defense against the stealing done by authoritarian governments. Yes, you want a "faster transition" but on the question "how" you come up with a politician, with voting, with 4+-year parlementary cycles. That is going to work? Still I am aware, we cannot do revolution like they do in North Africa or so, we have to begin within our existing system, pick any idea that would lead into the right direction, in this case worker owned manufacturing, support it and push for it by voting for the party. Voting has never led to a transition, let alone a "fast" one like you want to happen. On what basis with all your life experience do you think it will be different now, just when the crapitalists have more power and wealth (your own video) than ever?? There were no revolutions in the Middle East or North-Africa; the same clan of crooks are ruling the masses. Maybe a different puppet, but the theatre of the absurd is still the same... If they then don't fulfil the promise (which I fully expect) at the very least all other political parties will understand, what the voters want, namely worker owned manufacturing. Oh yes?? All (?) other parties will understand? Like that worked so well with the opposition against the European Constitution, back in 2005? When we Dutchies finally stood up against the establishment and by 67% voted "NO!"? Then we got the Lisbon Treaty and Mr. Hermann Burns von Rompuy bis Verhoffstadt as European president? Wow, that worked great! All other parties listened to the livestock. Sooner or later, where it becomes the sooner, the stronger the support is, we will get to a movement that the political parties cannot drop in an empty promise anymore, sooner or later there will be a politician that actually does implement a law supporting worker owned manufacturing. Anarchosyndicalism, as that is what you seem to advocate, is possible in a free society. See this excellent video where Stefan describes the whole thing in detail. Then we're one step done and can go for the next. I don't know but this doesn't sound like "a fast transition, come on guys, there's no time!" to me... Turning everything anyone says down, only because you expect he won't do it, while nobody else even says anything in this direction will never get you anywhere and accusing me of supporting the labor party is the precise opposite of what you should be doing if you were anywhere near libertarian. I haven't "accused" you of "supporting the Labour party". I have expressed my surprise as it conflicts with "libertarian" and according to your own "fact" that it is a right-wing party even with your self-proclaimed "left-libertarianism". It was you who presented this fellow as someone with "a good idea in the right direction", so if you do not want me to link you to this party, then I suggest don't present the guy in the first place?

Please show me where "I've called you a socialist"?? I have said: - you speak utopian language - you use statist speech - you speak like the guy in charge (with the Aladdin lamp) Yet at the same time I said: - you are libertarian and not a statist (see two posts back) In my last post I asked a simple question and you don't want to answer yet refer to previous posts. I didn't find any answers there apart from "let's convince the polticians (i.e. statists) by using petitions (because that "worked" with nuclear power in Germany) to push them to take decisions". If that is all you propose, then I am afraid that is in vain and I've outlined my arguments for that in the thread you started about the economic "collapse". It's like asking the mafia boss to please relieve the burden on your protection money. If you have other concrete proposals, please point not only me but also the other ones you have been discussing with in the last 225 posts to those concrete proposals, wouldn't that be fair to ask? Moreover, I do not understand what you mean with "left libertarian". How do you define that for yourself? Let's be clear: - this is a Labour politician -> Labour = left-wing, social-democrat, statist, right? -> Politician (i.e. a professional liar) "promising" that "with the next Labour government, this will be implemented", so making a promise to his voter population to attract them to vote for him/his party, right? A - how can you as a non-socialist, non-statist stand behind such a proposal? B - what stops companies now from sharing their company with their employees? C - why should that be forced upon a company (and the workers, who may not even be interested in owning the company they work for)? D - how is this going to "solve" the 1% problem you see in society? E - "let the workers have the full fruit of their labor" = again quite lefty statist speech (and I cannot call you a socialist, but if you read some socialist literature you may find these exact words) F - in my humble opinion a libertarian is about "not taking rights away", while you speak about "giving rights". What is this left libertarianism you advocate, I still wonder? Quote from the BBC article: We'd look to break up these monopolies, introducing real competition and choice. Read carefully: - we would look... - so it's some hypothetical thing... - break these monopolies - that were first created by your own statist, "social"-"democrats"? - introduce real competition - what is "introducing" competition? And what is "real competition"? - introducing choice - again; it's the opposite of libertarian thinking; "not taking choice away" Another quote: He said the policy would be developed "over the next few years", adding: "In an uncertain world where a laissez faire market approach continues to fail, co-operation is an idea whose time has come again. - if I recall well; you were the one stating the "whole system" would "collapse" in the next 2 (!) years, right? So we do not have those "next few years" (after election that is) for that, according to your own alarmism... - "a laissez faire market approach" (which isn't there in the first place) "continues to fail" - really? You are quoting this socialist sociopath as "something that would be a solution"?? Sorry man, I may not be allowed to call you a socialist, but why do you bring up socialists as partners in crime for your "solutions" or as you called it "a pretty good first step in the right direction"?

Ok, Thomasio, I've watched the video. Nicely illustrated, but my question remains: what do you want to do about it? That 1% (owning 40% of the total 54 trillion dollar 'wealth' of the US) is -like you said- unreachable. They strive because of the crapitalist system we live in; they are able to close deals with the State in their favour. What is it you want to do concretely?

No matter what anyone thinks of Russians, their culture or their decades long indoctrination by the most vicious of violent filth (communism), but at least those guys stand up for their peers and do not accept the attacks by outsiders on their women and children. The stereotypical northern European sissy would not react this way; the Captain Swedens of the continent will offer them their own asses to not be called "racist", "xenophobic" or other senseless labels given by those who do not know more of the world than their comfortable ivory tower armchairs. Is violence bad? It is, but in the system where the police looks the other way, is busy with "speeding criminals" or simply refuses to take up a useless "complaint" it is unfortunately the only way to say: "Your behaviour is unacceptable".

Thank you Mike, it's online now! After Flat Earth also Young Earth will be scrutinized on the most basic observations. You're contradicting yourself: - on one hand you hold it against "science" that there is no "firm conclusion" about the age of the Earth - demanding certainty - on the other you call it "god" and claim the many researchers are "guessing" - blaming the lack of certainty The beauty about (natural) science is that it's never finished. It's not like religion (or media for that matter) that demands a 100% fixed carved in granite story. It's an eternal search for answers, with at each step encountering more questions and challenges. The basis of science is philosophy, logic and empiricism.

I think you are right in your analysis that "the 1% wants naive voters to believe" things. But it's the other way around, like I explained in my post. And I don't understand that you of all people did not see that?! You very rightly call the super-duper-amazingly-wealthy-rich "unreachable". That's the whole point; they are not affected by higher (or lower) taxes! They have their bank accounts on the Cayman Islands, their companies registered on Aruba or Singapore and their investments well covered. Even the lower part of that 1% (who may not have direct political influence to exempt them from taxation) has enough financial advisors and tax cutters in service to be sure not to be harmed by those political games. Those are for the masses; you and me. So the trick is: frame that you "tax the super-duper unreachable rich", so the left-hearted voters think "yes!" and what happens is that the higher middle class gets taxed even more. The class that works hard (engineers, doctors, businessmen and -women) but is not so fortunate to evade the taxes. That's the class that gets hit by this Bernie Santa trick. I saw you left Germany and moved to Italy and I don't know the taxes there, but in Germany they are very high already (and with Merkels declaration of war on her own people that will only increase) and in Holland a well-paid but not "rich" person pays 59% taxes. Fifty-nine percent, can you imagine? It's absolutely ridiculous, even if someone is a statist and doesn't understand that taxation is not less theft than robbery. Thomasio, you are 1 generation older than me, so your utopian naivity surprises me even more! "We would abolish taxes"? We cannot do anything; we are the sheep, the livestock. The only thing we can do is think about our own futures and that of our children. Hence the FDR approach which I embrace as the only viable way for a future better world. Not as a "movement" as Stefan explained rationally in the podcast I linked in the "non-aggression principle" topic, but as a peaceful philosophy. A way forward. Wisdom. What has happened is an increase of crony-capitalism; the corporations and unreachable riches got more power to create exceptions for themselves. The lobbyist business boomed, not in the least place because of that horrendous European Union you are living in... The higher middle class (the class with the higher IQs and also EQs) got screwed. In NW Europe (I couldn't speak for the US) they are the ones falling between the ship and the dock (as the Dutch saying goes); they do not "profit" from state subsidies like the lower middle class and the "poor" (poor in Germany and Holland is not poor at all; it is chained in the statist carrousel of poverty traps, but it has nothing to do with what "the poor" in this 7+ billion people world have to live with...), yet have to pay everyday more to the state. The returns are minor; the countries are already well-arranged with roads, public works, affordable health care etc. etc. There is simply no reason to tax so much, even if you believe that without taxation all the roads would have holes, the garbage is not retrieved and the children not well fed. And that's the whole thing; even if you can take 10% extra of those "62 unreachably rich", that is far less money than if you can tax 620,000 Germans or Dutch with 2% extra. And those darn politicians know their game very well; they disguise those percentages and make it look like "it's not so bad after all".... Again, you speak like the guy in charge. The one with the Aladdin lamp. "Creating jobs" is typical statist speech. I've read enough of you to conclude you are not a statist. The more surprised I am how you can use such language. The point is not "creating jobs", the point is "stealing less" and thus giving more freedom of spending to the people with usually the highest IQs in society. Bluntly but honestly put: "rather spend 1000 dollars on FDR than giving it away to a ferocious government that plays wargames with that money". Wouldn't you agree? When my data package is filled again I will watch it, promised.

Really, guys, it's like a Japanese and a Chinese on unicycles throwing dictionaries at each other and the words are glued onto this forum. To me it's pretty simple: Universal(ly) - based on logic - consistent - the basis for good philosophy - see link below Preferable - based on moral - "good" and "evil"/"right" and "wrong" - P1 & P2 Behavior - based on freedom of choice - individual action - P3 Thus there are 3 pillars to UPB: P1 - Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - never initiate the use of force P2 - Property Rights (PR) - always respect property rights P3 - Freedom of Choice (FoC) - everyone has freedom of choice Morality: P1 => evil/unpreferable = violating NAP - e.g. rape, violence, murder P2 => evil/unpreferable = violating PR - e.g. theft (the others too as your body can be considered your property) Behavior: P3 => violating FoC - e.g. unwanted captivity, indoctrination So: rape = evil => always violates P1, P2 and P3 murder = evil => always violates P1, P2 and P3 theft = evil => always violates P1, P2 and P3 rough sex = not evil => doesn't violate P2 or P3 self-defensive manslaughter = not evil => doesn't violate P1 taking something that doesn't belong to anyone = not evil => doesn't violate P2 Juggling terms as "valid", "justified", "sound" and other vague descriptions only can serve as deliberate obfuscations of the truth. In this podcast Stefan explains it all much better than me as an amateur could do it (@ 2:25:50; Stefan: "If it's not universal, it's not philosophy"): http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2905/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-saturday-call-in-show-february-7th-2015 The last caller about Nietzsche and Schopenhauer contains the explanation I refer to; from 2:17:00 onwards. Although the caller before on Rand and Branden is along the same lines and a very good listen-to as well.

A pack of condoms is some orders of magnitude cheaper than a child, right? and you were a "left libertarian"?? Ferssitar, are you reading along? I would call this pretty manipulative language... You keep talking like a utopian statist: "solutions for all", "the whole world needs to...", "investments only by third parties", etc. I think RoseCodex' point is very valid; it will phase itself out. Laissez faire.

If you google "abducted by aliens", "Flat Earth" or "God exists" I guess the amount of hits is the same or even higher. What does that mean? It's true? Is it based on James Ussher's "calculation" based on the Bible (not the most reliable source due to numerous contradictions and written hundreds of years after things happened or "happened"), who claimed "4004" or is it based on this Richard Milton you mentioned who says: "...claimed in his book that the earth may be as young as 175,000 years old, based on the amount of helium in the atmosphere." (wiki)? "thousands of years" = how many? YES is often dismissed, but consider these words from R. F. Diffendal, from his article “Earth in Four Dimensions: Development of the Ideas of Geologic Time and History”: To some extent the arguments about a short Earth history of a few thousand years versus a long history of billions of years are still going on today. Not an argument. People still fight over which god is actually "real", long after Zeus, Wodan and Ra disappeared from the stage. Most natural scientists support the long history. However, some people including Richard Milton [Mensan, agnostic, science journalist] … support the idea of a short one. "Supporting ideas" is not science. A "science journalist" is not a geologist. I am quite a rational person. This claim is unfounded.

What a free society in my humble opinion does as opposed to a craptilistic (crony-capitalist) society is that success and failure are both part of the game. So some people who are "poor" but inventive are prospering and people who are "rich" but only reached that position based on violence (essentially the lack of self-knowledge) are "punished" by that. It is not about "the rich" versus "the poor". It's more about "the honest" versus "the abusive".

Come on, then the causal relation you set would need to be 100%. It may even be that people who have never heard of Stefan or the great wealth of FDR wisdom, they don't know the abbreviation UPB and still adhere to it, without even knowing they do. They might never donate or find FDR either.

I don't see why egoism is immoral or irrational ("rational egoism is a contradiction")? Wasn't it Ayn Rand herself who said "To know one's own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: Rationality."? egoism = a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance Egocentrism is something completely different, abusive and the word you may be looking for. It's often forgotten and collectivists use "egoism" instead of "egocentrism" to slander individualism and the (call for) pursuit of self-interest. egocentrism/egocentric = 1.having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things: an egocentric philosophy that ignores social causes. 2.having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered: an egocentric person; egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others. --------------------------------------------- Egoism is not parasitical on others; pursuing self-interest is the basis of win-win negotiations. Egocentrism is parasitical on others; as it's not only the self-interest, but also the lack of eye for others' self-interest; the basis of win-lose "negotation".

I'd say the narrative about "wanting to curtail the 1%" is just a -quite obvious- mask to raise taxes for the more hard working higher middle class. The lefties who are shouting "Yes, we want!" are essentially agreeing to the increase of the use of force against the ones they really envy; their bosses, successful friends and people who saved and could afford to give their offspring a nice heritance. I see it analogous as painting the "horrible drug baron" picture, saying "we need more War on Drugs", where the guy on the block making a nice buck, without shooting or robbing people yet doing business, is the actual victim of the policies in place. Looking at the Bernie Sponsors, they are almost all "unions"; organizations that only exist with the back-up of the State. And if the State with their multi-trillion dollar budget {evil takers}, weaponry {violence monopolists}, "law"makers {ruling class creating exceptions for themselves} and propaganda {we tell you what we want you to believe} is not "the 1%", then I don't know...