Why is the entire world seemingly ''stupid''?

Life has the exact same value for all, exactly, my life is equal to your life, so if you employed me and wanted me to use my life up working for you, and already admitting my life is worth equal, then my life is worth equal value in salary because it is my time being wasted working.

 

I understand your perspective on the intelligence of politicians. Consider they are selected for promotion by powerful groups because of their corruptibility and not their intelligence.

It must be kept in mind that our current society is a result of a covert abandonment of the constitution at the end of the civil war.

Your comments on "famous" people indicates you object to the abridging of the purpose of free speech, but do not know it has a ultimate constitutional purpose.

Your basic position is one that should stand with our lawful and peaceful revolution because it is not politics. It purifies politics.

The very first part is "PREPARATORY AMENDMENT" wish is needed to assure amendments at Article V have constitutional intent. Government is so far astray that Article V needs to be carefully controlled by democratic voting upon proposed amendments and ratifications. Article V requires all amendments have constitutional intent, but provides no way to assure that is what happens. These are the PREPARATIONS needed.

1)End the abridging of the purpose of free speech
2)Secure elections
3)Campaign finance reform

What you describe is not a governmental issue, it is a sociological issue of unethical capitalism, a corrupted society. The lack of ethics and corruption is due to the abridging of the purpose of free speech.

 

You think a diamond is more valuable than coal? I can use coal to produce energy to keep me warm , a diamond is just needless junk with no value, the same can be said of gold, the world is really confused and their priorities are dis-functional.

 

And because of that I pay my employees a living wage. No one that works for me makes less that $15/hr.

Should I pay them as much as I would a brain surgeon?

 

It isn't a matter of what you or I THINK. A diamond costs FAR more than an equal amount of coal. There is nothing there that is even remotely debatable. Scarcity impacts demand and demand determines value. The qualified geneticist is FAR more scarce than a qualified gift basket stuffer, and as such the geneticists work is far more valuable than the gift basket maker.

 

That's totally false.

You need a source of accurate information.

 

Well personally we are now in 2016 and by now money should of been abolished and so should the worthless valuation of gold and diamonds. Often my ideas are of the instant, I consider a general solution before I look at the fine details of the solution. I understand this is an issue concerning peoples lives, and would not want to make any error when and if implicating any well laid out plans.

My first plan would be to rally support and implement a plan that didn't involve turning everything into a communist state, but rather a plan and extreme strategy that quickly advances the poorer sector the perhaps a middle class status.

Why would the plan work? People would eat out more and take their families days out more spending money back into society. I think every waitress would be smiling and every firefighter and likes would feel appreciated.

People would support this because most people can't afford things even though they work hard.

I would counter the arguments one answer at a time,

 

The OPer wants the government to steal other people's money for him. Rather than working more to have more money, is is much easier to spend the time ranting the government isn't stealing enough for him yet.

 

On the premise that everybody should be paid what they thing they need instead of what they are worth? That's Bernie Sanders territory.

Making a living depends very much on learning to be worth something and selling what you can bring to the table. Anything else is to take the products of someone who will produce to subsidize someone who won't. Personally, I find that not only offensive and dishonest, but thinking that will destroy the kind of spirit that made the nation great in the first place.

Opportunity is everywhere. Literally, if I wasn't doing what I am now, I could have a job by the end of the day- or start a new business within a week. While it's true that I have the know-how to do this, it's also true that the information that explains how to do that is readily available to anyone. The catch is that it is not the knowing how that makes it work- it is the doing, the living the plan and doing it well. That is the rare commodity that separates those who can from those who can't. As one old saying goes, "I would if I could but I can't because i won't".



The last time I looked in the mirror and looked at my ageing wrinkles, I am quite sure I was all grown up.[/QUOTE]

 

A product's value is determined by what people will pay for it.
I love Game of Thrones. Cearsi Lannister was in a walled city about to be attacked by a foreboding enemy. She is a rich woman explaining war to someone who has never seen it. She describes how the army will surround the city and starve them out. She says her jewels will be traded for a potato.

 

The OP wants the government to determine wages. No incentive, no reward, no more working your way up the ladder.

Most people want freedom, not cradle to grave security.

 

Yet the government steals enough money to give them a lucrative salary I am sure they wont mind becoming none selfish ...

 

Wrong I think most people would love a ladder that only has one rung, security is happiness.

 

While there is perhaps more stratification, remember that the rules of the game, meaning laws and regulations set by governments, have steadily increased. Technology too is building a wall between those who know how to use it and those who don't or won't learn. I was once in a meeting with county and building code officials over a new commercial venture in Florida, and made the statement that "If you make enough of these ridiculous rules, absolutely nothing will happen here". The head of their code inspection muttered, "You got that right". It was also true that I passed on the deal because the rules and conditions were unreasonable- sold the land and left town. Literally, when you complicate the game, fewer people are willing to play at the disadvantage the rules create. When that happens, the stratification you speak of is a direct result- you have made it more difficult to achieve, thus achievements decline.

As far as luck, I agree it;s a factor, but much less than people would like to think. Done right, you don't rely on accidental luck; you make your own.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If given a choice between saving the janitor and the guy who cured cancer, you're telling me you can't make a value judgment based on practical considerations? You're lying to yourself.

 

I should probably mention that these ideas are not something that's particularly new. In fact, much of them has already been tried in our history (By now, you're probably seeing a common theme with your ideas and how similar they are with Communist Ideology...) They believed that the Will of the People was the only necessary thing to the success of a society, and that to achieve their utopia, all that would be required would be for everyone to commit that Will wholly to the Society without fail, putting aside their own self-interests to do so. Money was seen as nothing more but a means of enslavement by the upper class "Bourgeois" and thus many of their policies didn't involve economics, but rather force of will. Of course, there is only so much you can do when people don't want to do the things you tell them to do, which often leads Communist states to become authoritarian in nature. Rarely do you see a case where Communism is democratic, as was its original design (But Lenin believed you had to have a strong hand to discipline the undisciplined...).

Money is there so that governments do not have to micromanage people into doing things. Money serves as a common interest for all people, something that anything else, even righteous ideals, could not hope to achieve. Money was around thousands of years ago, and it still is today, because it has proven to be much much better than the old bartering systems of ancient times and a much better motivator than ideology in recent times. Money is neither a good nor bad thing, either wielding the power to bring one's fortune, or cast them in misfortune. But it is something that is inherently necessary to convince people to advance society far greater than what it currently can achieve.

You seek to advance people into the middle class, but apart from that, you don't seem to have any way on how to accomplish that... more specifics would be preferred.

That is an aftereffect, not evidence of why the plan would work. How would the plan work, what problems might arise, and how would you address those problems, is more what I was asking.

Some people would agree on that, however as I mentioned before, your ideas are nothing new. What makes it stand out from everything that's already tried? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What arguments would you present to convince those that disagree with you to join you? What challenges might you face, and what would you do to resolve them?

On a more curious note, what kind of political leaning do you have? Are you more liberal or conservative? Democratic or authoritarian? Personally, I don't see myself as leaning anywhere within the political spectrum. I merely go where it is practical.

 

But most any person can do that. It is not a rare or particularly difficult skill to acquire. It requires little to nothing in the way of training. Not so with being a sawbones.
Plumbing requires significantly more training and skill than janitoring. A plumber would be more valuable than the janitor and so on. Valuable as in a function of what people are willing to pay for his time and skill, not as in a moral judgment.

 

Ironically, he eschews the very process by which he could effect that change he is lobbying for; the vote. So, I have written him off as yet another troll.

 

Maybe you would.

 

We need work on that playing field many claim should be level.

 

I only hope this is sarcasm.

Basically what you're saying is that someone flipping burgers at McDonald's should make the same as a brain surgeon. Brilliant. There would be no incentive whatsoever to work hard or pursue higher education if we adopted that system.

 

Completely wrong, there is no prestige working at mcdonalds, a fast food place is a boring place to work, people would still want to be doctors etc because of the very fact of job boredom working in such a place as a fast food service.

Besides people become doctors because they care, well I would like to think so.

 

Supposing it was the Janitor who discovered the cure for cancer? Nothing says that discovery has to come from a higher paid professional . Einstein was a patent clerk for example before his ''fame'' and spotlight.

I never lie especially to myself.

 

I admit my ''plans'' are sketchy, I would probably need an awful amount of statistics to even contemplate my idea in full, my brief is just the primary edition.

What do I know about politics and do I have interest in any parties? I know very little and do not really follow politics, I am open minded and consider being a politician is people who can win a debate, or the person who can get the most bs believed. Being a politician requires no skills other than the gift of the gab and a few toff connections.


p.s I wouldn't need help writing my own speeches , does that mean I have a better skill set than the president?

 

Politics isn't just big speeches and swaying the masses... it only seems like that because we put a high emphasis on democracy these days, and that requires convincing a large mass to follow you. Politics actually means policy-making for the people. Everything else outside of policy-making that you consider politics is simply an extension of that, but the core aspect is making decisions that everyone is expected to adhere to. You believe everyone should follow your plans, that is politics. You don't even need government as part of the definition for politics... that's why anarchy is a legitimate form of political ideology.

A Revolutionary is as much a politician as a King or a Dictator, or anyone else who plans for society. It's in the name. You're correct to believe anyone could be a politician: we make policies everyday in our daily lives. Should we save our money for the future, or spend it now for self-enjoyment? Should we eat out or eat at home? These are simple policy-making... politics is merely taking that idea to the entirety of society.

As for the speeches, not necessarily. There's a reason heads of states have speechwriters, even though many of them are fully capable of writing those speeches themselves. That's simply because doing it themselves takes precious time out of their agendas. Every hour of the day, there's always work to be done: meetings, visits, travels, planning, discussions, and considering the extremely large scale of the government, it's a miracle a single person is capable of managing everything without tripping and causing an utterly chaotic disaster. These are the people who have to answer phone calls in the dead of night at 3:00 am. No exceptions. Keep in mind, presidents usually whip out a quick 10-minute speech the day after a disaster, and it is not something you can simply write by yourself and expect thorough details. On top of that, they have to worry about the next elections and whether they did a good enough job to last the next term. People glorify those positions too much and never come to realize how insane and complex the job actually is. That's why former presidents often come out looking decades older than they actually are...