Leo Gura

Who's Interested In Conscious Politics?

747 posts in this topic

@Bodigger I’m curious what your cutoff would be for wealth concentration.

For example, I think we would likely agree that if one American possessed and hoarded 100% of the country’s wealth/resources/power and everyone else in American zero wealth, starving, homeless and dying - it would be too concentrated. Only one person would have needs met and everyone else would suffer and die. If the structure of America allowed 100% wealth/resources/power to be possessed and hoarded by one person, I think most people would agree that the structure is problematic and needs to be restructured. However, this would not be possible since one person has accumulated and hoarded 100% of the wealth/resources/power. I doubt either of us could come up with a scenario in which this is good for the American people. It would be horrific for everyone.

Assuming that 100% wealth/resource concentration to one person is too concentrated, what would be our cutoff? At what point should we consider wealth/resource concentration starts to become too much? For example, let’s shift it a bit. Let’s say 100 people have 90% of the country’s wealth/power. Everyone except these 100 people live in shacks without running water and is trying to live on $100/ month while the 100 wealthy people are all trillionaires. Again, they would also have 90% of the power, so we would be essentially powerless to do anything about it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Bodigger I’m curious what your cutoff would be for wealth concentration.

For example, I think we would likely agree that if one American possessed 100% of the country’s wealth and everyone else in American had virtually no resources and were starving, homeless and dying - it would be too concentrated. Only one person would have needs met and everyone else would suffer and die. I don’t think either of us could come up with a scenario in which this is good for America.

Assuming that 100% wealth/resource concentration to one person is too concentrated, what would be your cutoff? At what point would you consider wealth/resource concentration to be too much?

Interesting how you word that.  However, this does not apply to my thinking at this point in my life.  People have (Especially  in America) the opportunity to as much in wealth/resource as they desire.  I know many people who have literally nothing but the clothes on their back and are Grateful to be in this world or in this country.  I am Grateful and in the process of ridding myself of things, for things don't bring me joy.   Helping people is my quest now, but helping people with whom do not want help is not my problem.  I like this site and a little surprised how many do not look within themselves.  This is about Conscious Awareness, no....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bodigger I’m trying to illustrate that concentration of wealth/power has an inherent danger for a society. The more concentrated the wealth/power becomes the more dangerous it can become and more people will be affected. Those that are accumulating and concentrating wealth/power will want to mask this process, so it won’t be obvious to the populace. 

For example, this quote:

21 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

People have (Especially  in America) the opportunity to as much in wealth/resource as they desire.  

This is a fundamental belief by many Americans and it enables further concentration of wealth/resources/power and unequal access to that wealth and resources. This is an example of the masking I referred to above. It is what those concentrating that wealth/power would like the rest of the populace to believe. 

If 1% of the population possessed 90% of the county’s wealth/resources/power, there is not opportunity to access as much of that wealth/resources as one desires.

21 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

 I like this site and a little surprised how many do not look within themselves.  This is about Conscious Awareness, no....

For sure. There is conscious awareness at the personal level which involves introspection. There is also conscious awareness at the collective level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Anderz

A bigger danger to society is people not generating their own wealth/power and then playing the victim about people who have.  This is Stage Green's stale narrative and everlasting trap.

I didn’t say it was the only concern nor did I advocate for any particular form of wealth distribution. You assumed and added those in. By doing so, the context is distorted.

In a certain context, I would agree with your point as partially true. However, you missed the context here and what I am pointing at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

To me a lot of this sounds like poor me excuse-making and mental-masturbation.  What we need to do is teach people how to create wealth in their lives.  People who don't want to work hard are infecting the larger populace.

Of course self empowerment is is a factor. Yet that is not what I am pointing at. The perspective quoted above is an element within a broader context, yet adding that element here obfuscates the point, which would then reduce the point’s relative weight in a broader integrative context. If one does not clearly see and understand the continuums of two limited perspectives, they will not be able to integrate the two into a more holistic perspective.

In particular, consider this part:  “If 1% of the population possessed 90% of the county’s wealth/resources/power, there is not opportunity to access as much of that wealth/resources as one desires.”

I intentionally created a context to highlight a particular point to a particular perspective. Within this context I gave, the comment quoted above is quite silly. One would need to take it out of context for the above comment to be reasonable.

I am not saying that wealth/resource/power distribution 100% determines one’s opportunity toward accumulating wealth/resource/power in every scenario. To re-contextualize the point into such a simple binary view is a distortion. Personal empowerment is also an element, yet not what I’m pointing out. I’m intentionally reducing the impact of personal empowerment to highlight the element of wealth distribution to those who cannot see it. Without seeing each element, one cannot see both elements within a larger context.

And I don’t think referring to certain humans as an “infestation” is helpful. It has a de-humanizing impact. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 5:15 AM, Leo Gura said:

@Zizzero I don't find libertarianism even worth discussing. It is not a serious position.

Hi Leo, here's a video by actualized.org about open mindedness, I recommend you watch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Village I've listened to the arguments of more libertarian fools than you would care to know. It's like having a discussion with a man-child. There's no historical understanding there of how government works. Just ravings about how evil government is.

These positions are often held by young juvenile white males. It's a rebellious phase they grow through. Unfortunately some get stuck on it for life.

Libertarianism is a cancer of the mind.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Village I've listened to the arguments of more libertarian fools than you would care to know. It's like having a discussion with a man-child. There's no historical understanding there of how government works. Just ravings about how evil government is.

These positions are often held by young juvenile white males. It's a rebellious phase they grow through. Unfortunately some get stuck on it for life.

Libertarianism is a cancer of the mind.

And its myopic.  They are not conscious of the whole picture.  They ain't conscious of Oneness.


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joseph Maynor Agreed. If I were his strategist I'd probably do well. The problem with Yang is he's not willing to be confrontational but, I am and not confrontational in a way that you want to belittle and bully people but, in a way that you fight for what's right and makes sense, you call out fallacies etc. 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the entire series! 

The main objection I have is this: If a country would just start implementing all the part 4 policies today (let's just take them as an example), would all the corruption not just emigrate to other, not-yet-conscious countries? That would basically ruin both the conscious country and hurt the slightly less conscious remaining ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Enizeo said:

would all the corruption not just emigrate to other, not-yet-conscious countries?

No it would not because people like to live in uncorrupted countries with great infrastructure.

People in the US like to move to the most progressive states like California, Washington, New York. Why is it that no one dreams of moving to Alabama?

Banning slavery did not move slaveowners overseas.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Banning slavery did not move slaveowners overseas.

Good point. But favourable tax laws (which basically are pro-slavery constructs) move lot's of cooperations and bank accounts to different countries and super low wages pull a lot of production.

I guess it is how you mentioned in some earlier part: We have to be scientific about it. If the alternative is to live in a society driven by money and selfishness, then there is really no alternative.

Implement and watch carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enizeo said:

I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the entire series! 

The main objection I have is this: If a country would just start implementing all the part 4 policies today (let's just take them as an example), would all the corruption not just emigrate to other, not-yet-conscious countries? That would basically ruin both the conscious country and hurt the slightly less conscious remaining ones. 

@Leo Gura I have a similar concern, specifically about taxation of the rich. You have it today in the word: owners will outsource the headquarters of their companies into tax havens. Or move there. So it's hard to tax someone who is already very healthy and powerful, and a single country can't do it. So... how would you go about this? (Does that mean a world government first?)

Maybe this is not so visible in the huge USA, but Czechia has no means at all to tax Google... well... tax the car companies producing here proportionally. (And that's exactly why we need EU - but I'm afraid even EU is small for that.)

Edited by Elisabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Elisabeth Good point about tax havens. The big corporations are multinational, and can escape tax that way. Not even U.S. politics can control this situation. It requires a global solution.

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it’s partially thanks to Trump - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal-taxes-this-year.html

Google shifted $23 billion to tax haven Bermuda in 2017: filing - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-taxes-netherlands/google-shifted-23-billion-to-tax-haven-bermuda-in-2017-filing-idUSKCN1OX1G9

60 of America's biggest companies paid no federal income tax in 2018 - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Elisabeth  I think the laws should be this:

No American company can outsource any labor for any reason whatsoever.

No company can hold any funds outside of the US for any reason whatsoever.

None of them will not pay taxes. 

However, personal wealth, sure. IF a CEO wants to put his money in a tax haven, fine, but his company cannot. Unless we want to go far as not allowing any citizen to hold money elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

No American company can outsource any labor for any reason whatsoever.

But can't the big multinational corporations such as Amazon and Google just move their operation to another country? Ireland for example.

I don't think that the U.S. government can force corporations to stay in America. And by removing loop holes and increasing the tax, many of the big corporations will move out of the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anderz

and then their products could be heavily tariffed. so they would lose so much business when their products would become virtually unaffordable or unprofitable. kind of like a boycott for cucking America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now