Haumea2018

Member
  • Content count

    370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Haumea2018

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Gender
    Male
  1. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm "hating on your ideas"? So much drama. Here's an idea: people of those states should stop voting for lunatics who raise their taxes and piss them away. If you think this would be a better world if China overtook the United States, I can't really help you. There's too much programming to be undone.
  2. Military is so big because we don't want China to rule the world. Do you think it might be a different world if in addition to its economic influence it was the preeminent military power as well? Ask the Uyghurs. Americans seem to need a reminder every half a century or so that slashing the military is a temporary boon that soon has to be reversed. Anyway, the states that have high taxes have governments that have South America envy. They want no middle class, just ruling elites and peons.
  3. Anyway, it's not a divergence between personal agenda and society. It's a divergence between personal agenda and political views or beliefs, which is different. That's easier to reconcile than the first. Sufficient cognitive dissonance usually does the trick.
  4. That was my point though -- it's easy to support something that will never happen. Did you realistically think Bernie could ever happen? Whatever gave you that idea, if that's the case? The US doesn't elect socialists, at best it elects right-leaning populists, like Teddy Roosevelt.
  5. I think he pretty much said it's the showgirls.
  6. I'm not Leo either, and as much as I enjoy busting his balls on his politics, ultimately, it's his fucking money, and pissing it away on taxes that will be spent on programs that will do nothing to fix the structural problems in the US economy doesn't seem like a good idea. The whole premise that tax money will be spent wisely is anything but an automatic.
  7. Go live in Miami or Los Angeles if you want super models. Yeah, "open-minded" and "conscious."
  8. True...but you supported Bernie, so in his vision of America, for sure. Of course, but most people aren't making that much, and as far as those who are, it might be worth it and wouldn't be so cumbersome. Do you? If that's so, why are you so particular about state taxes if you expect it will be taken from you at some point. Unless you know it'll highly unlikely to happen. I mean, wealth confiscation is as Unamerican as it gets. You may as well tell Americans you will shoot their puppies next.
  9. But comrade, it is the glorious collective that determines when you've made enough money. Can be escaped through expatriation. And besides, the point of advocating a progressive tax is that when you've made YOUR money, you're not taxed on the wealth you've accumulated, which puts you at an advantage over upstarts.
  10. Isn't a high state income tax a "progressive" policy?
  11. The US isn't that corrupt given its size, demographics, history, etc. 23rd least corrupt out of 198 on CPI. Find me a country comparable in population or even close in total GDP (the amount of money flowing around) that is less corrupt. It's not even a contest. Look at China, Brazil, India. I mean could it improve? Certainly, but the fact that it's 23 is nothing short of a miracle. Better than some large European countries (Italy, Spain, tied with France.) I mean would you want to live in the 23rd least corrupt country or the #1 least corrupt, given all the other advantages? It's not like China (80th) or Russia (137th) bad.
  12. "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass is a classic, but it's quite different in format. Very 60s-70s psychedelic.
  13. That probably is the closest, although I don't think it's likely he was what one would consider fully enlightened if at all. Maybe partially, since his theories are pretty rooted in thinkers who were at least partly enlightened. But then lots of partially enlightened people are far away from having a major integrative shift psychologically.
  14. One could argue that cognitive development isn't really even "development", but socially and materially conditioned evolution of attitudes: social conditioning/technology. In other words, it's superficial. In fact, I would argue there isn't a single "Turquoise" person alive on earth at the moment if we are to take the implications of it seriously. We simply don't have the technology to include the circle of "care" to "all of life." If one follows that to its logical conclusion, that means we need Star Trek replicators for genuine Turquoise: both animal and vegetable life are "off-limits" for consumption. So at best we have very few genuinely Yellow types and no Turquoise.
  15. If you lived in ancient times, or even 100 years ago, you couldn't have backwards beliefs unless they were backward relative to that time and place. We can't measure all of history using the yardstick of the values of educated, mostly white, mostly middle- and upper-middle class Westerners living in 2020. That's the entire point of my whole spiel: we're talking about basic "fitting-in" shit of the modern milieu, so there isn't much there to impress anyone as far as really going out on a limb and being advanced. We take material advantages for granted that they couldn't even imagine, and one can't suggest that those material advantages haven't shaped our attitudes. So there couldn't be a more unfair comparison imo. But that stems from my criticism of his approach - I simply don't buy the "two separate tracks" theory of stages vs. structures. So if I reject the theory, I reject the possibilities of that theory. Here's why I don't buy it: one is ivory tower, the other is the baseline of one's entire being, one's consciousness independent of theories and concepts. One is mental, the other is embodied. The mental one has feet of clay. It's an issue that Wilber never bothers to get out of the ivory tower and check whether his theories have validity.