This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why 'Savers' Should Vote Republican And 'Homeowners' Democrat
Forget the nuances of taxes, abortion rights, social warfare welfare, religion, or entitlements. The following chart is all the average US Citizen needs to know in order to unflap that hanging chad in November...
Of course, we are being a little disingenuous, but the last 50 years of election cycles show a very clear rise in interest rates post-election when Republicans win and an even more pronounced drop in interest rates post-election when the Democrats have won.
However, it might be different this time...
Source: Citi
»
- 18187 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Savers should vote Ron Paul. Voting Republican hasn't helped savers since before Reagan.
I will to drink that...but it won't help. There's always the errant toaster in the Jacuzzi, or suicide by gunshot to the back
This story is aimed at working within the system, while 'savers' & 'home owner' should be outside the system to truly be safe.
The home owners label here really means mortgage owner. You definitely DO NOT want a mortgage, you want to own out-right, with the title hidden in an LLC or other corporate entity, and alidodal if possible
The savers label is for people who want pieces of paper, like CD's, 401k's, Tbills, etc. All these systems are very close to default / confiscation. If you truly want to save you want to be in physical assets. Guns/ammo, RE with protected titles outside of tax jurisdictions, and, of course gold, silver, in your physical custody.
Owning property in an LLC or other such entity does nothing for you in terms of protecting you from higher confiscation levels. In fact, it probably works against you since in many jurisdictions, homestead deductions are offered which lower the property tax levels. And, in many states, a personal home can be kept even through bankruptcy. That generally won't be a problem for someone who has planned / is fortunate enough to own their house without debt, but still.
Such arms-length ownership, if properly constructed, may shield you from certain types of liabilities. But the general rule of thumb is that the easier the shell is to created, the easier it is to break. Meaning if the sole purpose of the entity is a liability dodge, it probably won't withstand a serious challenge. At the very least, you'll spend a lot to fight it. It's also a good rule of thumb to simply think about the level of control you still posses. If you still have the ability to sell or dispose of an asset and receive the benefit of any gain, then there isn't much in the way of protection. If that kind of control is outside your reach, then the protection level is higher.
Thanks!
That is the kind of thing I struggled with when I was setting this stuff up. If I may ask, let me know what you think of my work.
I have 3 properties and 3 sons. I put each property into sepearate LLC's with me, my wife and all three boys as 'owners'. Each boy is primary owner of his own property. All that remains is to take off my wife and my names from the LLC when we are issued death certs. I've told the boys to add their wives & kids and remove their brothers later, but I'll be dead, so there isn't much control on that...
Will that work, or will they get hammered by the death tax?
I am not a lawyer or accountant, and don't even play one on TV, but let me take a crack at it.
My understanding is that death tax is actually assessed on your estate. Assuming your primary assets are tied up in these properties, your estate would amount primarily to your personal ownership portion of that/those LLC(s). (it's not clear to me whether you've got 3 separate LLCs, or one big 'un - the net analysis is the same). So on your death, each LLC would be valued, and your stake in the LLC would be the valuation of your estate. If that valuation exceeds the threshold (when I was involved in my grandad's estate, it was somewhere in the $1.1M range), then your estate would be assessed the federal Estate Tax (51% I think..). The total of that Estate Tax assessment would be applied to the estate as a liability. Assuming there aren't enough other assets in the estate to cover the tax liability, the estate would then be compelled to liquidate its interests in the LLCs. Assuming further that the LLCs don't have alternative liquid assets to buy out the estate's equity, then the outcome probably depends on the details of the configuration of the LLC. I'd foresee two likely outcomes, either: 1) forced liquidation of the fixed LLC assets to satisfy the call for cashing out the estate's interests, or 2) the taxman would take a lien against all assets of the LLCs - deferring their bite until eventual sale of the assets, but taking first bite on sale, and insanely complicating any other change in status in the meanwhile.
I think the only real chance of this functioning is if you and your wife can establish the appropriate demonstration of transfer of assets to the LLC over time, reducing your net stake to zero. No matter how you slice it, that's going to be accounted in a manner similar to transfer of stock - and if you haven't accounted for the transfer through gift tax accounting or some other material consideration (which would just shift the estate's assets...), then the IRS will come around and audit back filings and rip the estate a new hole.
I think the trick in this is that the LLC shields personal assets from collapse of the LLC - but it doesn't shield the LLC from a liquidation call from one of the participants. Even if that participant is now the zombie estate of one of the founders being driven muppet-like by the State.
Again, let me reiterate that I am not a lawyer or accountant. Your lawyer and/or accountant may be infinitely more clever than i am at these things. It's possible that striking names from deeds may fly at the local titles office. The State may not challenge fast-and-loose estate and LLC accounting. They may not follow up on prior asset transfers & gift tax assessments. But the above is my best understanding of how the most pedestrian application of the rules of accounting - but let's not forget that Enron's CFO was lauded as 'most creative CFO of the year' just before the cards all fell over :)
modest - that's a good first crack. It will also depend on whether the LLCs file taxes as partnerships or corporations. And of course it is all somewhat unknowable because of shifting tax laws regarding estates. I'd bet that in the next several years, there will be significant changes.
and so should homeowners.
and everyone else.
I own two homes, rentals, and I am stacking. Torn, not. But still will not vote.
And if Obummer gets reelected your tennants will own those homes and you will be out in the cold!
Enjoy your steak.
So in theory when Change Yes We Can wins again, they will drop rates to -5%? Pay us to take out mortgages? #BOOMTHATFUCKERS
No, but you will get to pay the mortagages of all the new houses soon to be given to/ owned by Obamaphoners....
ZH missed the boat if they titled this. Point one, Reagan gave us inflation over 10%. Bush gave us Gold 5 times over the price when he was elected.
Faber basically said in the ZH blog that Romney would do the same. Bambi gave us Gold 2 times so far under his administration.
The reality is the FED will do what they have to under either administration. Print Money and Monetize the Debt of the 2 Wars, (never paid for) and the shitty economic needs of the many who have not found work yet. Either way, they will Print.
Buy Gold and Physical PMs. The majority still do not own the metals at all.
Rocker in the header, I think. Reagan did not give us inflation over 10%. Inflation was over 10% when he took office in 1981. Thanks mainly to Paul Volcker the inflation rate gradually sank during Reagan's terms in office.
Regarding the increases in the price of gold under Bush and Obama: Bush had eight years during which the price of gold - according to you - went up 5x. Obama has only had 3.5 years so far. Given a full eight years, the price of gold would - at the same rate of increase - go up between 4x and 5x under Obama. No discernable difference. Of course, if Obama gets reelected the POG may be irrelevant to stackers, since he could simply pull an FDR and confiscate all held by US citizens. Either way, Bush and Obama were both disasters for the US.
Still, no "Morning in America" again.
Duh. Its all the Democrats fault. Duh. Don't you READ Zero Hedge, man?
1. Ben Bernanke was appointed by the Republicans (under Bush)
2. Bush really didn't do much to reign in the housing bubble nor did he pressure greenspan to not dip interests into new lows.
3. Only Bush Sr really did anything, when interests were high despite the the 1989-1990 recession, and also wound down the S&L Banking crisis, which the crisis began before he took Office.
The only savings the republicans have really contributed over the long term is to cut taxes which allows savers to keep more of their paycheck. With the exception of Paul Volker how reigned in inflation during 1979-1983, the DNC hasn't done anything to help savers. I don't they would do much for homeowners since they want to increase federal taxes by 1 Trillion. That will crush the real estate market, at least for american buyers. Foriegner buyers would be at an advantage of purchasing cheaper RE because Amercians will be forced to dump their RE to pay their taxes.
At this point does it really matter? The US Federal Debt is at 16.1 Trillion and climbing fast. There is no way we can pay off that debt, plus the crushing wave of entitlement outlays to pay for Boomer retirement. All aboad for the Zimbabwe Express!
Bush really didn't do much to reign in the housing bubble nor did he pressure greenspan to not dip interests into new lows.
Well, at least he and Ron Paul WARNED then Dems that they were letting it get out of hand, not once but SEVERAL times.
Clinton is the one that started the HOMES for anyone breathing, and the Dems in Congress made sure it stayed that way.
Banks were nailed to a cross if they did not LOAN to every appicant, esp minorities.
Don't even put Ron Paul and George Bush in the same sentence. And, sorry, you've got everything all wrong. You must be a devoted Human Events reader. :(
let's be real -- savers don't get a vote until the fed is ended, which is never.
Exactly. But we can still dream. End the fucking Fed.
I vote for gold.
Yeah right, Like anyone with a neuron to rub together would vote at all. Those clowns were bought and paid for years ago. You gotta be a real idiot to think you're deciding anything.
The result of not voting is to be at the mercy of those elected by the votes of the dependent clueless. I keep reading statistics that say something like 50% of eligible US voters don't bother voting. Imagine what would happen if all those who were really fed up with the existing parties got actively involved in the process. Criticize the Tea Party if you will, but they certainly had a significant effect in 2010 even though they did not take over the Republican party apparatus.
As the saying goes, you can try to be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - at least Rotagen is not insane.... which is more than I can say for some of the rest of you who responded. To vote in the current system is a slap in the face to our founding fathers and the constitution. Here's a novel idea EVERYONE turn off the TV, stop voting for the lesser of two evils and when the polls are empty (cept for crickets) perhaps those "running the show" will realize they're in BIG trouble. To those of you who insist on voting... go ahead and when nothing changes (and it won't change) you have NO right to complain. Voting is akin to having a relationship with a group of psychopaths who perpetually promise you everything while stealing you blind election after election after election. Get a clue some of you.
The polls will never be totally empty. If you live in a part of the US that holds town meetings, attend one and you'll see what I mean. The majority of people who show up are teachers, cops, firefighters, road workers and every other municipal employee.
They are there because their attendance and votes directly translate into more resources for their departments or the contracts they want being approved. If the same occurred with wider elections, why would you expect any different? Not showing up is doing the same over and over.
It's just the other side of your definition of insanity coin. The public workers and those who directly benefit will always show up. The better plan, which hasn't be done before, is to swamp them at the polls. Not stay away.
The people who don't vote or write in a vote (which is the same as not voting since Ron Paul is not on any ballot and can't be elected) forfeit their right to complain. When you are an adult you have to make tough choices.
What if the only choices are a shotgun to the face, or a 45 in the mouth?
Would that be YOUR face? I vote shotgun.
No, you forfeit your right to complain if you vote for either idiot. I, on the other hand, have a right to complain since I did not vote for either of them. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
Yes, because feeding the two party monster with our votes will change things! Voting for the least smelly piece of shizz will definitely return us to a constitutional republic in no time. This is a brilliant plan! I think I'll apply your logic in my parenting by telling my kids that they should smoke crack because the only other viable option is shooting heroin.
Maybe sometimes "tough choices" include ones that are not popular with other people, like those who want to go with the crowd and vote for the lesser of two evils. But Good luck with your plan.
We need a constitutional rewrite and a vote on it every 4 years. Nothing else, just the constitution; the new president voted in to protect it. Should keep everyone honest, educated and no chance for judicial interpretation.
I agree in principle, but I think every 4 years is too often. Something more like every 20 years makes sense - once a generation - in order to work through the issues that come up which are unable to be resolved through the normal legislative process.
The people who do the rewrite should be selected at random from all 50 states and should then have to pass a basic competence test. Similar to jury duty. They should be well compensated but then prohibited from running from or holding an elected office for ten years. The document that results from their work - getting a simple majority of those who write it - should be then sent to the state legislatures for normal ratification under an expedited system, where they must give an up or down vote within one year. If the 3/4th votes from the states are not there, then the same people are called back to reconsider their work and can make changes to try to satisfy any objections which are known. This time, a 2/3rd vote should be needed to resubmit the document to the states, and if that occurs, then only 2/3rds of the states need to pass it for it to go into effect.
We've been too timid in making changes, which is absurd because the system to do so is a much a part of the current document as the Executive and other 2 branches are. It's even more core than the any of the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Why the objection to using it?
No, MORONS should vote for Ron Paul if they want Obama reelected.
Not that Ron Paul is wrong, just the morons like you who keep posting this pro Obama drivel on this site.
the chairsatan is a republican.
so is Mike Bloomberg.
PartY affiliation doesnt matter anynmore.
Its all one BIG LIE.
Mickey Blue Eyes is no fucking Republican.
Anyone in the NYC GOP knows the bullshit this fucking fuck has pulled.
Bloomberg is NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN.
Sadly, 95% of Americans are not republicans.
Abraham Lincoln's War Against the States ended with the enslavement of us all and left the Federal Government the final power in this country. If you doubt this you should read any of historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln, as well as "Lincoln Uber Alles" by Emison. "The Party of Lincoln" is no better than the Marxist Democrats, and until people see through their deception, it's not going to get any better.
A professor 'Republican' ... Give me a break
bernanke. may he RIH. He has destroyed my life.
, your freedom and enslaved us all. Revolt.
The majority of American's will not revolt they are too comfortable. For the poor and unemployed: The government is providing housing, food, medical care, cell phones, etc., life is pretty good. What is there to revolt against? For the very rich: Law makers writing and passing laws that protect their wealth. Again, life is pretty good what is there to revolt against?
By registration or by action? Idiots cant see the difference.
I'll grant he likes red ink, but...
ZIRP till the hammer drops. Bitchez.
NIRP!
There won't be any rise in "interest rates" no matter who wins. Besides, interest rates on what? Treasury yields? No way, unless there is some suicide pact I'm not privy to.
Rising rates might seem like it would be a suicide pact - it would actually be the beginning of the global banking cartel calling in all real (debt secured) assets, of course accompanied by a fair measure of starvation, death, and violence -to name a few.
Latent death is better than "certain death"!
less sanguine view
http://youtu.be/oIry7n57oLY
Only fools vote republican or democrat.
There will be alot turning out to cast their vote....just like all elections, they will get suckered into believing this time is different and their vote will "count"
Americana needs a boycott of the presidential selection scam....decorated properly with flags flown upside down
Sure. A boycott. That means the few people who don't have any conviction, or keep up with issues, or are purely partisan will decide the next election. Now there's an improvement -- NOT.
The "few people who don't have any conviction, or keep up with issues, or are purely partison." LOL!
Someone clear this up for me. I thought the purely partisan ARE the people who have no conviction and don't keep up with the issues
You clearly have not been paying any attention these past few decades....and have been sucked into the Left/Right paradigm voting vortex.
There will be no improvements...like there have always been no improvements....until these parasites are put to bed properly
Fuck off Rocky! You have been a pussy from day1. You couldn't wipe your ass without a " corn cob"! I don't get pissed off very often.
I would love to banter about your " liberal juxtapost"! You do nothing more than "stir the pot", you pussy!
You get angry a lot. Anyone who says, "I don't XYZ...." does XYZ a lot.
Iridium, This is 2 years old. You are irrelevent!
Stand Clear! Your precept of anger is (inacurate). You stand down now!
Boycott?
Boycott!
Americans already have the lowest turnout of any modern fully, partially or even minutely industrialized, or even primitive fucking dung-hole for that matter.
Boycott?
Hows about some more people start taking this shit seriously and maybe write in somebody else?
Jesus, boycott is what the fucking powers that be feast upon.
Most people's "non-partisanship" is utter BULLSHIT.
The Federalist Faux Choice is hardly the only election on any polling precincts ballot.
Almost all voters can name who they cast their ballot for President for. Most can probably name the last Senator or Governor they cast a ballot for. Some can probably name their HoR choices.
But when it comes to State Legistators, AGs, Secretaries, or City/Town Mayors, City Councilors, Sherrifs, Judges, et al. How many can even recall the name, much less the actual platorm of the candidate they cast a ballot for?
THEY CAN'T, because the looked at the stupid (D) or (R) after the names, and like a well trained Nigger, they did just what Massa wanted them to. Pavlov has nothing on the American political machines. Or even more hillariously, they might have accepted one of those "sample ballot/slave instructions" from the army of Satan's minions lining the path into the polling place.
Americans are a disengaged and uninformed electorate.
And to the LAZY SELFISH FUCKTARDS who want the priviledge to vote, but not the obligation to vote- the best you deserve is the worst outcome from the presented choices.
Because they have been propagandized, miss-educated, numbingly mind controlled and TeeVeed into stupidity that way by their owners and rulers...
The Fascist Oligarchs of Finance Capital...
The real boycott should be at the TAXATION LEVEL as opposed to the voting booth. Figuring out the best ways to STARVE THE BEAST is our best--and perhaps only--hope.
The corruption and disonance of the voting system is evidenced by divided party politics. It is a mischord of philosophies that demand balance, resulting in self-actualization as individuals and harmony as a nation. Harmony or balance is attained, I believe, when every man, everywhere, acknowledgeS the privelege of their independence, as naturally gifted at birth. The Libertarinan philosophy as spelled out by the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the benchmark for Liberty. Read it and ask if government delivers it today.
Party politics is divisive as it bestows a heirarchical value of an individual's vote over his that of his fellow man's.
A vote for independence from government is all that I will support. A vote for anyone else places me and my right to independence below them. Ain't gonna happen no more.
Only fools, are stupid enough, to see, the possibility of a new " CONSTITUENCY"!
Crap in one hand vote in the other... Same smell.
"These are not the candidates your are looking for."
I cannot drink to that. I am still detoxing from the Presidential Reality Show Debate.
Vote them all out of office. Force them to get a job.
Apparently there's a heckuva lot of part time jobs just created last month too!
Sooooooooo, what you are saying is Repubs hate America?
Library of Congress.com! vote_libertaria...
Ron Paul forever.
I'm still voting for Paul.
A vote for Romney might as well be one for Netanyahu and another 10,000 dead American kids.
Minor quibble. The title should be 'Savers' should vote Republican and 'Debtors' Democrat. Most Borrowers don't actually own anything, homes or otherwise.
None of this is new. The Democrats have favored Debtors over Savers since the 19th century, which is the only consistent truth about the political parties for 200 years.
Both parties have favored FEDERALISM for over 200 years.
Tyler, the Bloomberg Donations, need to end? "Blasphemy?/" think about it/
The only way that I would bother voting at all is if Ron Paul was on the ballot.
Not that he could win, but to vote against the status quo. I believe that once we
realize that a substantial minority of the American voters were fed up with the
present political system, we could change the world, rearrange the world, then
the process of positive change could begin. It doesn't take a majority to change
the world, only a very vocal minority.
"The only way that I would bother voting at all is if Ron Paul was on the ballot."
He will be once you write in his name.
My son suggests that America turn the Presidential selection process into something akin to 'American Idol' meets 'Survivor', where the voters at home judge them on the character traits and leadership skills that they get to see played out on the show.
Not a bad idea for a kid.
Needs more fighting to the death.
http://goo.gl/gXK1E
It's Barry Soetoro vs. Willard Romney...
No more aliases....
So let me get this right. If a Democcrat wins and interest rates go down because the ecomomy tanks and I lose my job, I should vote Democrat.
Vote for Gary Johnson the Libertarian or write in Ron Paul. Two men of character that will say "No!" to Congress and Big Money and the Fed.
People say it is a wasted vote. Maybe. But if enough people take a stand on fiscal responsibility and outing corporate corruption by voting for a third party, then the MSM will pick up the story.
If you vote for the lessor of two evils, you will get more of the same until the totalitarian state arrives.
Let your voice be heard above the den of lies.
And bring a sharpie since those plastic computer screens are really hard to write on.
Maybe you didn't get the word - Ron Paul did not register as a write in candidate in any state for a reason. He did not want to be responsible for having people write him in, thereby guaranteeing Obama's re-election.
"then the MSM will pick up the story." - Ross Perot yes. Ron Paul no....sad, isn't it? The press aint worth a hoot anymore. They too are just worried about their jobs. Great predicament we're all in, isn't it?
News media that rely on ads have always had a problem covering their own advertisers. BP for example has bought all the mainstream TV media. The narrator even laughs as he lies about how trust worthy BP is, he cannot even keep a straight face.
The wasted vote is the one for either of the Bankster puppets.
since i am 'homeowner' i will vote for Obama......but what about those fucking property taxes they love so much !!!!!!!!!!!
property taxes will go up as fast as the buying power of your earnings goes down.... ours have more than tripled in less than 20 years.... wish our earnings had.
Don't worry - the money will be spent wisely...
Don't vote!
Yeah, don't vote. But not voting is also making a choice, so you still don't get to say that that you are not responsible in some way for the result.
I vote to disband governments... all governments.
Of course that's not technically correct, since every "government", "corporation" and "organization" is a fiction and thus doesn't exist. So what needs to happen is simply for people to learn to distinguish all fictions from reality.
.
Not real until they're pointing a gun at your head with a badge and warrant...
WAKE UP.
WAKE UP.
WAKE UP.
Every organization is a fiction.
Every government is a fiction.
Every corporation is a fiction.
What DOES exist, and what CAN point a gun at your head, are the predators who do business as "government" or "corporation" or "central bank".
People need to understand the distinction. People need to understand that what controls the world today is:
predators DBA governments
predators DBA corporations
predators DBA banks
In other words, predators are responsible for all the misery, and all those fancy names they hide behind... have zero substance --- they do not exist.
Hell, even fundamental law (written more than 20 years ago, so not quite as intellectually corrupt as today) calls all organizations "fictitious entities". Probably the humans of 100 or 200 years ago never imagined how completely detached from reality modern humans would become. But here we are.
A "government" cannot hold a gun to your head... because "government" is a fiction and therefore does not exist. "SantaClaus" cannot hold a gun to your head... because "SantaClaus" is a fiction and therefore does not exist.
The important point is this. Until humans understand that every nasty action supposedly taken "by government" is simply an aggressive action taken by predators (doing business as "government"), humans will not understand the appropriate response to the endless attacks upon them.
What is real is that humans are a social animal. Most fundamentally, the species prospers only in groups. Individuals or nuclear families are marginal for self-sustainment without technology. In bands of 20-30, the social human can sustain a technologic base, and conquer the world.
How we organize ourselves makes a huge difference, at a level of society, and at the leve of the individual. Social organization may not be concrete - it may be virtual, but it is very much an artifact of our civilization.
Social organization has real-world impacts. Oppressive social organization can stifle thoughts, can induce (justified) paranoia, can create frightful enforcement mechanisms (think Chinese Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's USSR, or Columbian Narco-terrorist Kleptocracy). Robust and enabling social organization can spur innovation and creativity, and call forth the best in humanity (Classic Greece, mid-19th century USA, some of the sane/stable Egyptian and Chinese dynasties, arguably the 11th-12th century Caliphate).
Some social organizations are more self-preserving than others. American democracy is subject to periodic capture by your predators - Copper Kings, Railroad Moguls, Robber Barons, and our current Banksters. Our machinery is somewhat fragile.
Other social organizations are very dependant on the individuals implementing them. Chinese social organization (which is substantially unchanged for thousands of years, though frequently relabeled) is dependent on unchallenged excercise of authority at every level - no official can be seen to act incorrectly (never mind improperly). Part of the reason Chinese social organization goes on the best and worst lists is because its effectiveness depends intrinsically on individual capability or cupidity. On the other hand, the machinery is very resilient - even with brief moments of capture (such as Mao's Cultural Revolution), the basic Confucian/Mandarin system of organization reasserts itself.
Now if, as is the impression I gather, you're a big proponent of anarcho-syndicalism, that's OK too. But realize that it's a different form of social organization - not a lack of one. It has its own pros and cons, its own set of authorities, and its own restrictions. I'd also argue that anarcho-syndicalism does not seem to be a 'strong attractor' in social-organization-space (the only emergent examples I can really think of are pirates and whalers, maybe Occupy Wall Street (no really-analyze dispassionately) - the Internet really missed a potential boat). The disintigration products seem to be either cult-of-personality or strong-man-authoritarian organizations, unless the fragements are directly subsumed into some more robust social organization (korporate kleptocracy, statism). So beware what comes to inhabit your utopian 'vacuum'.
So yeah - social organization is 'real' - the 'community' is real. There are real-world effects of the presence and character of these things. They are things that we as individuals and as groups can grapple with and alter - and that others seek to turn to their benefit as well. They also constitute an environment - populated with predators and prey, with demons, but also with angels. The character of the social organization strongly influences the ecosystem it supports, for good or ill. Social norms and mores determine what behaviors the community punishes, and trandition or law (in some analyses, fungible quantities) determine methods, means, and stringency of enforcement.
Choose your social organization - whether by construction (revolution) or modification (changing what's in place) - with care. Realize you're going to be subject to one, either by default or by participation. Realize it's got very real and substantial effects.
Unfortunately I don't have time to write a complete treatise on the nature of consciousness and then list valid and invalid processes of consciousness. At least not today and not here. So I'll try to clarify a few misconceptions.
There is no such thing as "society". You could argue that a "partnership" is real in one very limited sense... that without one male and one female, reproduction is impossible (though perhaps only for a few more years). And you might say an individual human being cannot implement "division of labor" and other relationships without at least one other human being. But that's not even true, because humans and other animals have implemented all sorts of division of labor since long before recorded history.
Individuals animals are real, including individual human animals. And yes, if one individual hands an object to another individual, that is a real action. Just because you attach some "name" to that action doesn't create anything new... your brain simply reconfigures a little bit in a way that results in a new mental unit you can subsequently manipulate. But mental units are mental units. Just because you have a mental unit you identify with the term "Santa Claus" does not mean that mental unit means or refers-to anything.
So be very careful to understand the nature of mental units like "society", "organizations" and combinations like "social organization" mean. When a human hands a shovel to another human, all that happened is "a human picked up a shovel and handed it to another human". No "social organization" popped into existence. The reality is the reality, and only the reality is the reality.
Now, if you understand how to operate your consciousness correctly, you can indeed legitimately hold all sorts of abstract mental units in your brain, like "social organization". But holding those mental units is dangerous unless you are always precisely self-aware of their abstract nature and status. Hell, I constantly scream against "fictions" (like "government" and "corporation" and endless others) in these messages and elsewhere... yet I have been an inventor my whole adult life. The connection? In a very fundamental way, my whole life is about fiction. That's right. Every new gizmo or technology I conceive is a fiction... until I design and implement a working device. Then and only then does my mental unit get "relabeled" as "real" rather than "fiction" or "speculation" or <whatever-detailed-provisional-status-I-have-assigned-the-mental-unit>.
I am definitely not an advocate of "anarcho-syndicalism" (whatever that is). I cannot be an "anarchist" because an anarchist is [approximately] a proponent of disbanding government. In contrast, I point out that "government" is inherently a fiction, that "government" therefore cannot exist, and therefore I advocate that people stop being insane and delusional by believing government does exist.
As for the "syndicalism", I don't see any connection to my positions either (as far as I can tell from my quick lookup on wikipedia).
What I am is a realist. What I am is someone who refuses to create or adopt abstractions (fictional ones or ones that have some potential legitimate relationship to reality in some limited context)... and somehow let them guide my thinking. What I do is to identify the fundamental nature of reality (including consciousness) to the behavior of "physical stuff" to "do physics" and to "mankind" to "do ethics". That's all --- no schools of thought here, just nature of reality applied to whatever I happen to be working on.
The only actionable "social organization" that I accept is voluntary agreement between individuals. Period. And I do mean period. All the rest is just BS as far as I'm concerned.
However, I don't have anything against individuals performing observations of large numbers of humans, finding patterns, tendencies, relationships and anything else they can learn. No problem --- as long as this remains entirely an observational exercise. Sure, they can apply their observations to their business... as long as all the actions they take are strictly constrained to not harming others (except by fully voluntary agreement). Why would anyone allow you to harm them? Next time you need surgery, you might indeed agree to let the doctor harm your body... even slice it open and remove parts!!!
I completely reject the notion of "communities punishing behavior". That is not only practically impossible, but also inherently corrupt. Not to mention that any so-called "community" is arbitrary and fictional. But I do not at all reject individuals compensating other individuals who they have harmed.
Unfortunately, as much as I type, I realize that I probably can't get more than 1 out of 1-million people to even grasp the distinctions I am making. Humans are essentially incapable of operating their consciousness properly. Why? Because they have no freaking idea what is the nature of their consciousness, or even what are the basic components (mental-units and processes-of-consciousness), much less their nature and appropriate function. I've been planning to write a non-fiction book with the title FICTION for years, to try to explain slowly and clearly enough for at least a few people to work through this issue. I don't even want to think about how much time and effort I had to invest to grasp this topic thoroughly. As a temporary measure I wish I could explain clearly enough why ethics and action theories must be formulated strictly in terms of individuals and their actions, while more abstract observational theories can be legitimate in limited context. At least then people would stop thinking they can justify virtually any kind of treatment of individuals by pointing at some huge concocted pile of abstractions they brewed up.
Finally, I am not subject to any social organization. I am subject to the consequences of actions taken by other individuals. And sure, they may have any number of completely wacko, mixed, invalid, contradictory abstractions in their brains that motivate those actions, including ones they label "social organization". But also ones they label "god", "religion", "government", "authority", "social contract", "whatever-I-can-get-away-with", and endless others. All of which is irrelevant to how their actions impact me and my life.
BTW, it is arbitrary and close to irrelevant to call man a "social animal". One could almost as legitimately call man a "wheat animal" because after all, virtually every human being has consumed nourishment from wheat. Similarly, virtually every human being has had some dealings with other human beings. But neither is fundamental because guess what... a human can survive without wheat and a human can survive without interacting with other humans. People need to be extremely careful when they elevate an abstraction like "social animal" or "wheat animal" to some highly-important, much less fundamental, overarching status.
.
.
Tomorrow, overnight swaps will crash. Liquidity has already dried up. Extreme "control-#p", then endgame.
that 16.000 billion dollar debt isn't real.
it will never be paid of, so it isn't a real debt.
Why 'Savers' And 'Homeowners' Should Vote Out Every Incumbent In Sight
Because in the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy...
"the old, dying, phoney, political left/right dialectic system that has been invented by the social engineers to keep you in a state of ignorance and infighting,"
You neutralise the false left/right paradigm by voting out every incumbent of both phoney parties owned by the same Fascist Oligarchs of Finance Capital and shove the wedge issues up the Oligarch's ass...
Collection of Useful Idiots
Like you could ever shove anything up an Oligarch's ass with Barry Soteoro, Willard Romney, Eric "Empty Suit" Holder, Wanker Timmah Jeethner and Cue-Bald Bennie Shalom's collective faces in the way...
Well said.
Reject both jesters and vote Ron Paul. 7-10% for Paul would send a more important (and scaring) signal to the oligarchs than 90% of votes for the jesters combined.
You think oligarchs can't hoard gold too?
Vote for RP, but find a rational explanation for doing so.
You think oligarchs can't hoard gold too?
Vote for RP, but find a rational explanation for doing so.
This never changes, a vote for anyone OTHER than Romney, is a vote for the worst POYUS for this country in 237+years.(He has done as much damage as FDR, and Wilson)..
And, no I do not want R, but I DAMN SURE don't want the gulag guaranteed w/ Sotero.
Ron Paul is the only candidate with a sense of sanity on how things really work and what's going on. Voting the jesters is a pragmatic calculation of chosing from bigger and lesser evil (which overall is illusory) and not an expression of free will and decision. I see it as a deliberate participation on the status quo continuation being trapped in the perpetual support of the 'fallacy of the false dichotomy'.
Resistance lulz.
And what do rising yields generally imply with respect to risk assessment?
LOL
im going to write in stalin
Keep fighting with each other. We dig it.
Love, The Powers That Be
IF this passes SCOTUS will have opened a can of worms, that will destroy the economy forever.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04
I just voted for a Champion backup generator.