The New Pyramid

[jpahmad]

Happy New Year guys and gals,

 

                   

                      Enjoy this New Year's gift I made for everyone.  I'm pretty sure this one is my best video so far.  It is an easy to understand, comprehensive analysis of the modern social-political dynamic in 1st world countries.  It's a great tool to share with people who have no clue what's going on, like teenagers for example.

 

I've actually used this video series on my own family (all of whom are for government in some capacity) and I have gotten really good results.  They haven't seen this video yet, and I'm really curious to see how it will effect their outlook on the current election.  I hope to change their behavior in terms of voting.  If I actually effect their "political" behavior, then I will consider this a great accomplishment.  Wish me luck.

 

 

[A4E]

Very interesting and arranged nicely! Really great!

 

The "solar system" intro was only referenced once, and I had trouble understanding the relevance when put up against the main parts of the video, though I sorta get it. I am patient but felt an urge to skip the intro, (but did not), however I imagine a lot of people would feel an urge to skip from the intro.

[jpahmad]

It was my attempt to sort of prompt people to test my model.  Apply the theory to everyday political happenings and see if it matches.  A lot of my relatives and family members are very new to this way of thinking, so it was mostly for their benefit.  Not sure how effective it will be.

[wdiaz03]

This was excellent, Thank you for your effort,

I'm perfectly fine with your intro. Since you are explaining how models are created and some people might not be familiar with the concept.

 

As far as effective? I think it depends on each individual, If they have no principles, telling them that they should, will mean little to them. Like telling a thief that stealing is wrong, but all his life this is what he has done. These are the sociopaths among us. But I'm sure this will reach people whose eyes will be open by it.

 

I like to think of it like planting a seed. You can't plant a seed and have it thrive in barren soil, So is the mind of the sociopaths, a wasteland. Maybe peaceful parenting is the way to produce fertile minds where these ideas, like seeds, can grow. You are producing seeds, we just need a way to greatly increase the number of fertile minds where they can grow.   

 

Again, keep up the good work. Its appreciated. 

[Laforge]

Good observations and historical consistency!

[jpahmad]

Thanks guys for your feedback.  I really appreciate it.  It's encouraging.

[Thomasio]

Very good presentation, I like it.

There's just one point in the story that makes me believe your ultimate conclusion doesn't work.

 

If I understood it right, you do not plan on confiscating the property of those who currently own almost all the wealth (after they stole it from the producers), the top 1% or so.

What makes you believe a switch to no state and free market would achieve anything but the complete overtaking of society by the super rich?

However much corrupt the state may be, it's still the only thing we have that prevents the super rich from exceeding all moral boundaries.

If you dismantle the state, there's nothing that would prevent an even greater theft, where the rich rob the poor and where the rich take over the tiny little rest of independent media we still have to make the propaganda complete.

How would you prevent the super rich from buying all internet providers and censor all forums and blogs they don't like?

 

The wealthiest people in the country, like the Koch brothers are in favor of dismanteling the state, so how on earth could that be good for the people they are currently stealing from?

Isn't it as logic as can be, if the rich themselves run heavy propaganda towards their goal of less government that the precise opposite of that might be better for the "normal" population?

 

Since so many people in this forum seem to believe in the idea of a stateless society, I'm quite sure I must have overlooked a major point and I would love to know that one.

So what I'm I missing? Whats the powerful thing coming together with the abolishion of the state, that at the same time takes away money power from the thieves? Or what else would prevent money power from taking over society?

[jpahmad]

Very good presentation, I like it.

There's just one point in the story that makes me believe your ultimate conclusion doesn't work.

 

If I understood it right, you do not plan on confiscating the property of those who currently own almost all the wealth (after they stole it from the producers), the top 1% or so.

What makes you believe a switch to no state and free market would achieve anything but the complete overtaking of society by the super rich?

However much corrupt the state may be, it's still the only thing we have that prevents the super rich from exceeding all moral boundaries.

If you dismantle the state, there's nothing that would prevent an even greater theft, where the rich rob the poor and where the rich take over the tiny little rest of independent media we still have to make the propaganda complete.

How would you prevent the super rich from buying all internet providers and censor all forums and blogs they don't like?

 

The wealthiest people in the country, like the Koch brothers are in favor of dismanteling the state, so how on earth could that be good for the people they are currently stealing from?

Isn't it as logic as can be, if the rich themselves run heavy propaganda towards their goal of less government that the precise opposite of that might be better for the "normal" population?

 

Since so many people in this forum seem to believe in the idea of a stateless society, I'm quite sure I must have overlooked a major point and I would love to know that one.

So what I'm I missing? Whats the powerful thing coming together with the abolishion of the state, that at the same time takes away money power from the thieves? Or what else would prevent money power from taking over society?

 

I addressed this.  Did you watch the end of the video?  The country was already taken over by the super rich in 1776.

[Thomasio]

I addressed this.  Did you watch the end of the video?  The country was already taken over by the super rich in 1776.

 

The question is not what happened in the past, or what the status is today, I fully agree things are pretty bad right now and society keeps going down the drain.

The question is, how do you prevent this from getting even worse?

Even if you argue the state mostly or completely doesn't prosecute the wrong doing of the rich, that doesn't answer how a stateless society would prevent this wrong doing.

After all it's not the state that keeps the wealth to itself, the state only makes the laws that allow the rich to steal from the poor.

So if you dismantle the state, that says nothing at all about how you prevent the rich from making new laws that allow them to steal even more.

As long as you do not confiscate the stolen wealth from the rich, how would you get this wealth into the hand of its rightful owners?

If you honor property rights and leave ALL the oil fields, all the refineries, all the other energy sources in the country to a handful of super rich corporations, despite the fact that you yourself say, they have stolen it from the producers, meaning they do NOT own it morally, how do you prevent them from dictating the price of energy to the poor?

 

If I got that right, you actually want to get away from democracy, not really sure if I got that absolutely right, but I have the impression you want money power to actually rule, which is literally what I'm afraid of, because precisely this money power has bought the political class in order to make laws in their favor.

If I got that right, then you liberate the rich from even having to bribe politics, rather than spending part of their money on politics, they could use all of it for their propaganda in the media and things would get far worse.

[wdiaz03]

The question is not what happened in the past, or what the status is today, I fully agree things are pretty bad right now and society keeps going down the drain.

The question is, how do you prevent this from getting even worse?

Even if you argue the state mostly or completely doesn't prosecute the wrong doing of the rich, that doesn't answer how a stateless society would prevent this wrong doing.

After all it's not the state that keeps the wealth to itself, the state only makes the laws that allow the rich to steal from the poor.

So if you dismantle the state, that says nothing at all about how you prevent the rich from making new laws that allow them to steal even more.

As long as you do not confiscate the stolen wealth from the rich, how would you get this wealth into the hand of its rightful owners?

If you honor property rights and leave ALL the oil fields, all the refineries, all the other energy sources in the country to a handful of super rich corporations, despite the fact that you yourself say, they have stolen it from the producers, meaning they do NOT own it morally, how do you prevent them from dictating the price of energy to the poor?

 

If I got that right, you actually want to get away from democracy, not really sure if I got that absolutely right, but I have the impression you want money power to actually rule, which is literally what I'm afraid of, because precisely this money power has bought the political class in order to make laws in their favor.

If I got that right, then you liberate the rich from even having to bribe politics, rather than spending part of their money on politics, they could use all of it for their propaganda in the media and things would get far worse.

 

Howdy Tomasio,

 

You ask OP how "he" is to do this or that, but the market will decide what the best course of action will be, the truth is that no one can say for sure how things will sort out, That would be like speculating how will cell phones will work 500 years from now. Imagine you were back in the 1700s an someone argued that slaves should not pick the cotton. You might wonder how the cotton will be picked and ask him. since if you had to pay the slaves living wages then cotton prices would skyrocket etc. If the same guy told you not to worry, that there would be these giant machines running on the fossilized tree juice and matter from ancient dinosaurs and driven by a single guy that could pick the cotton in one day. You would call this person crazy.

 

People can speculate how things might turn out, and Stef has done just that, I'm sure you will find answers to your questions on his free book "Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future"

 

I recommend you read it and if you still have questions feel free to post them. 

[jpahmad]

 

 

If I got that right, you actually want to get away from democracy, not really sure if I got that absolutely right, but I have the impression you want money power to actually rule, which is literally what I'm afraid of, because precisely this money power has bought the political class in order to make laws in their favor.

If I got that right, then you liberate the rich from even having to bribe politics, rather than spending part of their money on politics, they could use all of it for their propaganda in the media and things would get far worse.

 

 

The question is, how do you prevent this from getting even worse?

 

 

You prevent things from getting worse by changing people's ideology.  If they no longer believe in government as necessary, then the government will eventually shrink to insignificance.  At the same time the governments shrinks, natural selection will take over the gene pool and we'll be left with smart, well-adjusted, free-marketeers.

 

 

The question is not what happened in the past, or what the status is today, I fully agree things are pretty bad right now and society keeps going down the drain.

The question is, how do you prevent this from getting even worse?

Even if you argue the state mostly or completely doesn't prosecute the wrong doing of the rich, that doesn't answer how a stateless society would prevent this wrong doing.

 

So if you dismantle the state, that says nothing at all about how you prevent the rich from making new laws that allow them to steal even more.

 

 

If there is no state, there are no laws, furthermore, the rich can't steal without a monopoly on force

 

 how do you prevent them from dictating the price of energy to the poor?

 

This was just covered in Stefan's video:  An honest conversation with a Bernie Sanders supporter

 

 

 

 

If I got that right, you actually want to get away from democracy, not really sure if I got that absolutely right, but I have the impression you want money power to actually rule, which is literally what I'm afraid of, because precisely this money power has bought the political class in order to make laws in their favor.

 

 

No, there would be no "rulers."  Why would I want someone to "rule"?  If I wanted that, then I would want to leave things just the way they are. No one would have a monopoly on force.  That is the only difference as far as structure goes.  Also, no one would believe in government because they would no longer get forced indoctrination.  

 

The only reason why someone commands a monopoly on force, is because the general public grants it to them.  That is all.  If you watch my preceding video on the constitution, you'll see how the "producers" voluntarily gave a monopoly on force to the takers.  It was a trade-off.

[Thomasio]

If there are no official rules, doesn't then money power automatically rule, simply because the ones who have the money have no reason to adjust to anything?

Wouldn't money buy them whatever they want to have, regardless how immoral that would be and regardless how many free thinkers would not like it?

Wouldn't money simply hire enough "soldiers" to enforce the will of the rich on the rest of people, whether the free thinkers like it or not?

[jpahmad]

If there are no official rules, doesn't then money power automatically rule, simply because the ones who have the money have no reason to adjust to anything?

Wouldn't money buy them whatever they want to have, regardless how immoral that would be and regardless how many free thinkers would not like it?

Wouldn't money simply hire enough "soldiers" to enforce the will of the rich on the rest of people, whether the free thinkers like it or not?

 

People can speculate how things might turn out, and Stef has done just that, I'm sure you will find answers to your questions on his free book "Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future"

 

I recommend you read it and if you still have questions feel free to post them.