Abolish Vanity
 

I think if vanity was destroyed much good would be done. It is the route of almost all waste.

Imagine if as people got richer they didn't feel the need for status symbols... As opposed to people owning four or five cars and giant homes, they would own practical cars and practical homes; the money that is invested in vain things like Ferraris would instead have been invested in simply superior advancements in cars.

Global warming would be less of an issue because people from the start would've been in competition to make the most fuel efficient vehicles for the practical reduction of cost. Luxury car brands would have been defined by the practicality of vehicle... They would have been racing for efficient alternatives to fuel the second that it became clear the damage was being done.

Furthermore, hundreds and thousands of years ago the mentality of our leaders would have been geared away from personal indulgence and towards collective advancement.

I think if we can personally erase vanity and make it more frequent for a person to be inclined towards practicality and modesty it'll be a better world.

Vanity is not one of those things that is clearly immoral as it does not do a real damage to anyone but indirectly I think it is a fundamentally destructive way to live your life that damages everything.

oh God...

While we're at it let's abolish murder, theft, arson, insurance theft, drugs, criminals, rich people, poor people, people and also i want a billion dollars.

"Global warming would be less of an issue because people from the start would've been in competition to make the most fuel efficient vehicles for the practical reduction of cost."

lol.

KultureKampf, it's me, your friend, let us play Halo 2, we shall discuss our friends later KultureKampf.

I do not wish to be a burden for this topic, but KultureKampf is hard to contact personally; as well his girlfriend asked me to do so since she feels neglected.

*rimshot*

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

abolish abolishing

Not always. Usually, but not always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlach

The Status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The host demonstrates their wealth and prominence through giving away the resources gathered for the event, which in turn prominent participants reciprocate when they hold their own potlatches.

"LOOK AT ME! I GIVE AWAY A LOT OF STUFF! I'M IMPORTANT! I'M IMPORTANT! LOOK AT ME!

Christ spoke out against doing things to look good; that is why humility is a value. that is why abolishing vanity destroys those displays.

That's what I think haha

Vanity runs this country, do you hate America?

Kulturkampf more like Mien Kampf

Kulturkampf your opinions sure are unpopular around here!

A lovely sentiment. Unfortunately, not one that can be implemented in any social sense.

Morality is an inward battle where every man must play his own champion. And even if successful, evil cannot be eradicated, not entirely.

Only overcome.

Christ spoke out against doing things to look good; that is why humility is a value.

Well, suppose you do something simply for the sake that it is good, but you wind up looking good even though that wasn't your intention for doing so.

Would that then be an affront?

It wouldn't; Christ looked good but he only looked good because He became known for His actions; His goal was never to look good but to lead to God. If one is truly a great person and ends up receiving recognition it is not wrong unless the intent was to be like Oprah Winfrey.

My views are unpopular on this site... But... It's OK. :)

Mein Kampf? More like Mein Dicks.Hitler was a Socialist bastard and a racist to boot! I am a Capitalist and an anti-racist to boot!

OK?

"Let's all say German words are racist!"

Socialist, enh? No doubt you base that assumption on the fact that he called his party the "National Socialist" party.

You insinuate in your first quote that one should be known for their actions. Let's review the actions of Hitler's party.

The National Socialist party operated on fascism, and fascism is based on a philosophy that the needs of the individual and social matters were less important than the needs of the state and its leaders.

True socialism, on the other hand, is based entirely on the philosophy that government exists to serve the needs of the populace.

Saying Nazis were socialists because they used the word in their name is like saying Republicans are communists because the U.S.S.R. stood for the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

Judge upon actions, not names.

Hey ninja smurf, I have a big secret for you. No one pays attention to this guy.

Oh, don't listen to that negative nelly, sleazy. She's just part of that minority that thinks it's impossible to completely eliminate concepts from human society. Not true. Just look at the War on Terror, for example.

and it would destroy the society of those Indians by undermining their system of redistribution.

And what are your posts if not vanity? All you ever talk about is how great you and whatever pseudo-intellectual outlook you current ascribe are. The constant bragging about drinking, fighting, and all your other bullshit and how its all part of some strange warrior ethos is nothing but sheer vanity, vanity, vanity.

Adolf Hitler gave a carte blanche to Socialist economist Schacht to run his economy. He also abolished private schools and for the first time the rich and poor went to the same schools. He taxed the living crap out of things he didn't like (alcohol and cigarettes). He created massive bureaucracies for the workers and even had speical workers unions that fell under his party to empower the workers.

RIDDLE ME THIS

How do 'planned economy, giant publicly funded organs for workers and no private schools" not end up being socialism?

It's true, fascism borrows certain practices from socialism, but as I stated before, it is a matter of intent and money-flow. These programs were designed and operated to serve the interest of the state and of the corporations which funded them, to provide them with a steady supply of indoctrinated loyalists.

True socialism is more cyclical in nature. Rather than having programs funded and designed to serve the government's corporate sponsors, they are funded by the citizenry itself for the sake of its own benefit.

I am not lauding either, as they both have their faults. I'm just trying to elucidate the differences between the two.

What the fuck?! I thought we were talking about vanity here. >:

Sleazy was kind enough to give KK an "out", and perhaps realizing the absurdity of what he was proposing, KK jumped at the opportunity to switch gears and discuss Hitler's politcal stance.

Dr. Boogie's commentary is similar to hearing Korean broadcasters commentate on Koreans in K1. Even moments where the Korean is being clearly subdued there is some hint that it is all a giant ploy and the comeback is right there.

Sleazy, what is the difference between running an economy for the state and running an economy for the people? Particularly when the state's only goal is fulfilling the interests of the people.

In the 12 years of Nazi Germany 6 were in all out war, others were preparing for a conflict viewed as inevitable. Naturally, the State was interested in a robust economy and their Wehrmacht. To pretend that Nazi Germany and the fascists were doing it out of some selfish way is a gross error.

Fascism is basically militant socialism with authoritarianism. To say it is not socialist would be factually wrong.

Honestly, what are you saying here? Both people in your analogy, broadcaster and the other one, are Korean, and yet you say that "the Korean is being clearly subdued". Is the commentator somehow weakening the commentate-ee with his commentating? If so, am I the broadcaster, subduing but about to be on the receiving end of a comback? Or am I the commentate-ee, pretending to be hurt by mere words, but only to build dramatic tension as though this were some sort of dramatic radio serial?

Of course, that's just one way to take your analogy. Another way to take it, and the one that seems more likely, is that you're saying you have no idea what I'm talking about, just as you don't understand the two Koreans in your analogy because you don't speak Korean. I know you haven't said either way, but you strike me as someone who could live in a place for years and not learn any of the local language beyond "one more for the road."


I guess the main bullet point in this post is that you suck at analogies. And writing.

You just answered your own question. If we're using Nazi Germany as an example, they were not motivated to fulfill the interests of the public at large, but the corporate sponsors who helped place them in power, particularly those that specialized in wartime industry.

Again, you've contradicted yourself. The process of focusing the economy to further the Wermacht was designed to benefit the war-profiteering corporations that helped place the Nazi elite in power, not the general public.

I already said that fascism borrows elements of socialism, it just isn't true socialism.

The Nazis were elected in 1933 and assumed absolute power through a referendum I believe in 1934 or 1935 (they already had full power but this merely gave them a blank check to do whatever they wanted). Where's the Corporations?

The State controlled the economy and placed it in the care of Dr. Schacht.

Hitler's goal was always clear. In 1922 it was already clear in his mind:

(1) Unite all Germans in one German homeland. That is why Sudetenland and Austria were attacked and plans for subjugation of the Nordic peoples were in place. It was believed that Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Dutch and North French were fundamentally Aryan / Germanic peoples.

(2) Provide Lebensraum for the German people. This is why Poland and subsequently the Soviets were attacked.

(3) Get rid of Jews and gypsies and cut out the influence of non-German peoples. The Jews were richer than average Germans and there were large Jewish figures that could be looked at. Due to the old Christian policies on 'usury' there was for the longest time no such thing as Christians running banks, which enabled Jews to establish great banking systems.

(4) Get rid of the Marxists who at the bequest of French and Russian propaganda and interests created a large ammunition strike. The strike occurred because average Germans suffered greatly and only 2% of government expenditures during WWI went to the private sector (source). There was a lot of striking but the final blow was a large ammunition workers strike which left the Germans without bullets.

By all accounts, Germany would have done better if it were not for the over the top government spending and the strike in 1918/1919 that crippled the machine. When the war had stopped in the East in 1917 it was clear that the Germans should have been able to win as they had doubled the number of soldiers on their front, but it meant nothing as the industry was collapsing.

But in Hitler's mind the whole thign was to be blamed on Marxism which he regarded as both a Jewish fabrication and due to internationalist tendencies a downfall for Germany.

Hitler was stauncly anti-Communist because it was not nationalist.

All of his goals were ideological. If you read his book there is absolutely no mention of corporations and he ven says in Mein Kampf that the ideal government is merely one which puts the best people in charge, elevates the smartest people to the highest offices, and criticized Capitalism for its nepotism and Communism for its... Jewishness, internationalist perspectives. Perhaps it was too early for the common sense argument it doesn't work.

(Mussolini criticized Communism as undermining the human spirit by equating happiness to property, and that none of the fundamental problems of the human spirit would be solved by property; the real issues of the human spirit would be solved with more fulfilling things like patriotism, glorious service to one's country and taking over Yugoslavia and Ethiopia).

It was always about the German people for Hitler, which meant lebensraum for Germans and the destruction of their enemies (Jews, Marxists, homosexuals, antisocial types, gypsies, etc.)

Ahh, so there we go!

Fascism takes socialist practices and gives them a nationalistic focus. The citizen may reap some benfit, but only for the sake of service to the state.

The mandate of true socialism is that the state's sole existence is to serve the populace.

Also, as for how corporations fit into the scheme of things, look at a couple things you mentioned. In Hitler's view, the final blow against Germany in WWI was when ammunition workers went on a large-scale strike, an action taken by a worker's union, which he viewed as a result of communist thinking brought on by Marxism. He tried to eliminate everything having to do with Marxism, including the formation of unions and many other things now considered to be "workers rights".

Who do you think that benefits?

Sorry if my thoughts seem a little scattered, but what do you want when you can't sleep at 3:30 in the morning?

By the way, I'm not picking apart and criticizing your arguments to be mean or spiteful, I'm just trying to keep you humble. After all... You wouldn't want to succumb to vanity, now would you?