Leo Gura

Who's Interested In Conscious Politics?

763 posts in this topic

@Leo Gura few others objections (not many since 99% of video I agree with :)

1.) "Free everything" isn't really free, as you know it would raise taxes to insane amounts, especially if you want to throw in free gyms (I love the gym) but perhaps the only free things should be those that are necessary for human life (water, shelter, medical care etc). To make free gyms, we would remove all small businesses that are gyms. We don't' need the govt to make gyms for us, although that should be a BIGGER part of our children's school curriculum. I do believe that the government could provide "free stuff' but a private sector should also exist to provide better of the same services if they can. I feel both free and private health care should exist, for example.

2.) Inheritance tax (and the likes): the issue I have with this is that if a family spends more time working hard to ensure their children have a better future, their hard work and whatever they accumulated should not be "stolen" and handed out to others who have done less work and clearly didn't do more for theirs. This is my main problem with excessive taxing. Our labor should be ours. It is our life energy that we put into work that should be immune to tax. I am against income taxes for example. Tax whatever else you want, but hands off our labor and what we have accumulated for our prosperity. I don't think its fair, nor would you, that if Actualized.org became a 1 billion dollar industry, and you had kids, that your accumulation of wealth to ensure their future would be so heavily taxed that what you have worked for would be essentially stolen to create "equality" when those people who failed to do what you have done, were not working equally as hard or achieved the things you have. 

3.) Rental properties: As much as landlords seem to be parasites, they do provide service: housing for people who cannot afford to buy homes at all. Landlords invest their money (risk) into properties which cost a lot to maintain. Mao was against landlords and had them executed in mass lol. Many of these larger housing communities were put together by these billionaire scum who have the funds to create them. The US govt wouldn't do so great at all to be frank. I lived in the Marine barracks for four years. We had BETTER food in Iraq when civilian contractors were feeding us.

4.) Frivolous luxuries (Ferraris). Although I am no materialist, I believe such luxuries, like Ferraris and crazy watches are part of human ingenuity. I don't think that someone should be taxed MORE because they buy something we deem to be pointless or whatever. That is not equality. Equality would be a flat tax on all purchases. Here in NJ, the sales tax is 6.29%. Now, take that number and throw it at a 500k car. That's a shit ton of money. I don't think it would be fair at all to tax 50% for an item. Doing so would also eliminate entire unessential so-called luxury businesses. And besides, luxury is essentially subjective. I could argue some children's toys are overprice luxurious items. I think its stupid for some arts to cost 10 million dollars. Human beings determine value. Diamonds are another stupid luxury, which by the way, is a manipulated, bs market on fake scarcity, but people are dumb enough (as I was) to pay a few grand for a rock to get married (lucky my father's friend was a jeweler got a great deal.) But ultimately, the reason why luxurious things cost so much, like a Ferrari, is, for example, it is HAND BUILT and extremely difficult to assemble with top of the line parts. Compare that to a Prius. So although I myself wouldn't be so stupid to spend 500k on a car, it would be unfair to discriminate against those who would for buy a higher quality car.

5.) Tracking income: On hand you said you want to pass legislation to protect people's personal data, on another, you want people's entire personal salaries exposed to the public. This one really struck me as wrong. I am all for transparency, but having a data base of people's salaries would make them easy targets for criminals. "oh look, bob makes 100k and he lives down the street." I just feel its an invasion of privacy. The govt needs to be transparent, not we as individuals. We have a right to privacy to protect ourselves from others who would be jealous and wish us harm. We are private citizens, we are not drones of a hive. 

6.) Global military: Such a military would ensure tyranny 100%. Look at our country, we act like a global military and go around destroying countries because we disagree. Such a global military would be the same. Any sovereign nation not playing by the global government would be eliminated. This violates sovereignty. Also, who exactly would a global military be going to war with if not such people? Suppose a country disagrees with a global policy and wants out? Brexit would be suppressed by military force, even when the very people voted to get out? Such a force would be the oppressor of any progress or divergence from the plan. Too dangerous. Besides, I don't' think its even possible to create a world army; as it would be too large and impossible to command. 

That's really it. I look forward to your responses. But ultimately, the was a great video and I will do what I can to spread those ideas I certainly agree with.

Edited by Angelo John Gage

Share this post


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

Frivolous luxuries (Ferraris). Although I am no materialist, I believe such luxuries, like Ferraris and crazy watches are part of human ingenuity.

Exactly. That was my thought too. We shouldn't flatten out society like in a Zeitgeist movement centrally controlled system with circular plastic cities, although the Zeitgeist movement is about removing the need for money which is the correct approach long-term in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I few idea I've had myself. @Leo Gura

1. What if all companies were non-profit, only being allowed to pay their employees and keep the services running? Those companies who want to be competitive would perhaps have to pay their employees less but would make up in volume? Idk if this would work but an idea nonetheless. But maybe there should a profit cap on all businesses? And those who wish to compete, have to lower their profit margins within that cap? But then again, the argument would be that labor value should be determined by the worker.

2. Why don't insurance companies pay back remaining non-claimed funds to those who did not use their services, (minus the salaries of their employees who work in the company of course). So supposed there was a insurance pool of $500 million, and of that, only $100 million of car accident claims were made, the amount of (X) which was for the labor of insurance employees would be subtracted from the remaining 400 million, lets say 100 million, leaving 300 million left to be sent BACK to the people who did not make insurance claims. That would be a really fair system.  

3. Tax Selection: I am all for complete and total tax selection. We need to reduce govt agencies to only a few categories and decide where ALL our funds go to. Anything the people do not want, like war for example, would drastically shrink by natural selection, while other areas would increase. Representative should have ZERO say where our taxes go. I don't think 10-20% is enough, I think 100% decision to where your hard-earned money goes, or at minimum, 50% 

4. Prison labor camps: I think all prisons should not be for profit, but should all factories that utilize criminal's labor to create products for people. At least with this, we get back something for our investment in prisons. Along side with what you mentioned, compassion and education. Anyone who cannot be rehabilitated, that has committed murder, rape, pedophilia, govt corruption, and treason, should face the death penalty.

5. Death Penalty: Yes, why am I in favor of it, because as Leo even admitted, there are some elements of our society that cannot be rehabilitated. Since we will all die anyway in time, it makes no sense for the tax payers to keep such people, who committed the above crimes, alive and pay for the remainder of their existence. The death penalty should be painless and remove person from this earth (security/defense measure) while simultaneously removing the burden of their kind from our society. I know many people here would be against the death penalty, but I am not at all. The way I see it, such people are a cancer. You would not take out the cancer that killed your mother and put it in a petri dish and force fellow tax payers to pay for its food and housing for 30+ years, until it eventually died. We should remove the cancer and dispose of it. I also argue it is humane to eliminate such people instead of keeping them in a box for 30 years. 

Another point is that death is a HUGE deterrent to crime. Imagine if the penalty for corruption in govt was death? NONE of these scum would run for office because they would not put their lives on the line. Only people literally willing to die for the country would put themselves up and serve the people. They would do so because they wouldn't screw the people over. Remember, most people are afraid to die (unlike us) and the death penalty would be the most powerful deterrent. Sure there will be some psychos willing to die but many people would probably not take the risk. A rapist for example, would probably not rape if he knew he would be killed for it. But hey, going to a prison for 10 years where he can rape men, why not?

And lastly, the death penalty would ONLY be used when evidence is 100% irrefutable. Should their be a case where someone MAY have committed the crime but the evidence is not certain, they will be sent to life in a labor camp. If evidence comes up that they were innocent during their stay, then they will released and be compensated for their time in labor camp. So to clarify, a person who commits a murder on camera is 100% guilty and should be executed within 72 hours, a person who may have committed murder, if put in camp. So in the larger view, the death penalty would be used way less than we imagine since it is very hard to always prove something with 100% certainty.

Edited by Angelo John Gage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Angelo John Gage Money is useful and necessary. But looking at money from a larger perspective we can see that it is a "middle man" function that is only needed until we have smarter ways of interacting. Exponential progress in technology and price/performance will soon, historically speaking, make money obsolete. Marianne Williamson talked about a "tsunami of automation" coming to America. And that's a short-term observation! She has listened to Andrew Yang about the need for a universal basic income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Angelo John Gage Do you need to use a credit card to post on Facebook? Do you demand to be paid for what you post on Facebook? How much did you pay or earn by posting on this forum? Sure, that's the digital domain, but as Ray Kurzweil has explained, even physical things will become digital. And it's an exponential progress, meaning accelerating, so we cannot use linear extrapolation into the future from today.

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence" - https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Be mindful of mistaking high level orange for yellow. A high intellect does not necessary mean yellow. There are many brilliant philosophers, scientists and economists that are at a very high intellectual level within Orange. Orange intellect can go quite high and be mistaken as yellow. 

Here's a good meme for you on these epic modern day intellectuals on the right hand side.

RealScientists.jpg

Edited by lmfao

"Piercing through the whitewash will turn into the truth someday
I want to keep believing in it stubbornly; It’s just my faith. The absolute truth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One main objection I have about Leo's ideas is that using centralized planning too much will cement the current state of development into the future. As I see it, society needs to grow organically and adapt to the emergence of things we cannot predict today. Sure in many areas long-term planning will work, but Leo takes the idea of centralized planning too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lmfao  all of these people are using philosophical arguments while claiming philosophy is useless lol

Edited by Angelo John Gage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angelo John Gage said:

Imagine if the penalty for corruption in govt was death? NONE of these scum would run for office because they would not put their lives on the line. Only people literally willing to die for the country would put themselves up and serve the people. They would do so because they wouldn't screw the people over. Remember, most people are afraid to die (unlike us) and the death penalty would be the most powerful deterrent. Sure there will be some psychos willing to die but many people would probably not take the risk. A rapist for example, would probably not rape if he knew he would be killed for it. But hey, going to a prison for 10 years where he can rape men, why not?

And lastly, the death penalty would ONLY be used when evidence is 100% irrefutable. Should their be a case where someone MAY have committed the crime but the evidence is not certain, they will be sent to life in a labor camp. If evidence comes up that they were innocent during their stay, then they will released and be compensated for their time in labor camp. So to clarify, a person who commits a murder on camera is 100% guilty and should be executed within 72 hours, a person who may have committed murder, if put in camp. So in the larger view, the death penalty would be used way less than we imagine since it is very hard to always prove something with 100% certainty.

The problems I see here are using a binary construct as well as assuming universally objective evidence/proof.

I think it is much more nuanced than a binary view of corruption vs. non-corruption. As well, the standard of 100% certainty is a claim of absolute objective truth. For example, I would disagree of 100% certainty of evidence/profile, since truth comes prior to evidence/proof. Evidence/proof cannot be elated to equal truth. . . .That we disagree on this point itself shows the underlying relative nature of objectivism from one perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv  if a man is recorded on a security camera killing your mother with a machete, with his face clear as day, his DNA on the weapon, his intentions to kill your mother on Facebook, his admission to the court he did it… That is 100% certainly and there is no question to his guilt. You could not refute the evidence if you tried. In this case, death penalty. 

He either did or didn't do it. There can be no he did it and didn't do it at the same time. I cannot write this sentence and not write it at the same time. 

Edited by Angelo John Gage

Share this post


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

@Serotoninluv  if a man is recorded on a security camera killing your mother with a machete, with his face clear as day, his DNA on the weapon, his intentions to kill you mother on Facebook, his admission to the court he did it… That is 100% certainly and there is no question to his guilt. You could not refute the evidence if you tried. In this case, death penalty. 

Refutation of evidence is not necessary. The truth is prior to evidence. Claiming 100% certainty of evidence is to claim that evidence = truth. Truth comes prior to evidence, so the two are not equal.

If a murder occurred, the truth of that murder is prior to, and not dependent upon, evidence/proof.

Assuming that the above evidence you state was properly handled, I would agree that the evidence is extremely strong and sufficient to judge as guilty. I would say more than sufficient. As well, I would agree that society’s response should be proportional to strength of evidence and degree of harm caused. Although, I would say that the whether the death penalty is the “best” response would be a different question with many nuances. . . 

The problem I have is calling evidence 100% proof. This assumes that evidence/proof = truth. This creates all sorts of problems because it is an absolute objectivist framework. As such, constructs will be built upon this framework with underlying assumptions of absolute objectivism. For example, an underlying objective assumption within a binary model of “corrupt” vs “non-corrupt”. Such an absolute objectivist assumption will be the lens through which the world is perceived and interpreted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also fo those who don't wish to read Gaddafi's green book, he's the truth about the govt he had which was literally a direct democracy of the people. 8 mins long 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If California was properly represented under the principle of 1 person, 1 vote, America would be able to pass significantly more progressive legislation. Right now we have the least developed parts of the country cockblocking humane legislation.

California, NY, and Washington lead the way on progressive legislation: clean air, clean energy, living wage, etc, etc. Alabama ain't putting forth the most conscious & loving policies.

Please Leo, tell me which progressive legislation is best for the people.  Maybe it's the one where we pick up a baby turtle and help it across the street on the way to have an abortion.

Drop down onto a street in gooooooglearth in a major city in one of these states and see all the amount of homeless, rats, human waste.  These major cities and states are run by progressive legislation.

Next year the Democrat Convention will be in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and if it rains more the 3/4" at night the city will release millions of gallons of human waste into Lake Michigan.  The media will say.............crickets.  Oh yeah, the city is, and has been run by progressives for 70 years.

Maybe this should be another topic...."Which government policy do you like best.....that works"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton said that it depends of what the definition of is is. To that I say: Bill, what is your definition of definition? :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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

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