Can Money Solve Everything? 2

Can money solve everything? No.
Can Anything solve Everything? No. (unless death counts, which could be debated)

“If you were given a 100 million dollars tomorrow….would your problems be solved?”

Most of them, but not all of them.

“Would you be able to obtain some form of happiness?”

Probably.

“Would you prefer to live?”

Probably.

“Would your depression vanish?”

Unlikely, though it would be severely reduced.

If such a thing were to occur, i would first make all the appropriate arrangements necessary to manage such an outrageous amount of money, and my next order of business would be to get some dental work done. Immediately after that, i would locate some small amount of land to buy, and buy a double-wide, an economy car for most things, and a truck to haul my stuff. I would build a supreme top-tier gaming-grade workstation computer, and begin learning about designing houses, and would quickly hack together the best ‘modest’ design that i could come up with, while having it “futureproofed,” and allowing for future expandability; a permanently modular home, incorporating various technological advancements like automation, solar power, backup generators, etc. And then i’d pay a professional architect a consulting fee, to have him/her assist me in perfecting the design, so that it can be built ASAP.

Meanwhile, i’d literally do whatever. Without all the stress of not knowing how i’m going to be able to ever have a life, or even survive… i’d probably concentrate on nutrition and fitness for a while, and might even spend time doing some college things, so that i could feel like i finally did something with myself.

I would hope to eventually learn the most important things i’ve always wanted to learn, but never had the means or the circumstances to facilitate it, and would hope to eventually create some things that i could point to, so that other people can see that i’ve made tangible and respectable contributions to the world (because they value that, and i can’t change how their minds work).

I would probably spend years just enjoying not having to worry about a damn thing. I might sometimes get bored or restless, or feel empty… but due to my decades of prior experience with managing and simply just tolerating unpleasant feelings, i would ultimately be “fine,” because i could simply decide to do something, due to the availability of surplus funds, and the lack of any obligations obstructing my pursuits.

Money would allow me to be comfortable, entertained, and mostly stress-free. Money would allow me to put my thoughts and ideas and plans and desires into action. Money would allow me to actually live; of which the lack of such options are the largest contributor to my misery. The problem is that i was not able to choose better circumstances, and those i’m now stuck with, due to making the best choices i could, from what was available, prevent me from being able to even live my life. And so essentially, i don’t even have a life. I am basically already dead, but remain alive enough to wish and desire and suffer the lack of anything worthwhile, and all the emotional and physical pain that comes with it.

Money doesn’t need to solve “everything.” Nothing is perfect. But if i had enough money, or a way to make enough money to do the things that interest me, i would not “sit around being depressed.” I might still be depressed, but it wouldn’t matter very much, because i would have real options to actually do something about it, other than just suffer until i eventually kill myself.

You guys are missing the point.

Both officially endorsed parties are wrong.

If you can deliver a solution that doesn’t involve either suicide or revolution, i’m all ears. Until then, we’re screwed.

I’ve decided the best thing we can possibly do is always vote out the incumbent, regardless of which party line you choose to tow. The less affect those career politicians have on developing the world, the better. Don’t let anyone stay in any office long enough to do anything significant, and we can slow the decline, and the machine. Leave them to their own devices long enough, and we’ll be living in a technologically advanced authoritarian fascist dictatorship that continues to refer to itself as “a capitalist democratic republic…” blah blah “freedom” blah.

On one hand, i like to emphasize that voting allows the masses (who are rarely the most qualified) to decide what to do about any issue, most importantly, the important ones.

On the other hand, “voting” in this country, in this day and age… perhaps even throughout all of human history, is a facade. It’s a giant show. It’s theater. It doesn’t /really/ matter.

And so it leaves me with difficult notions about things like “women’s suffrage.” Why is it such a big deal to be allowed to participate in THE ILLUSION of choice? Because that’s all it really is, anyway: an illusion. It’s there to give people the false impression of having a say, having a semblance of control. But we really don’t. We are encouraged to believe we have a say, specifically for the purpose of disguising the fact that we really, ultimately, don’t. We “have a say,” but our say doesn’t actually change anything.

If we keep playing their game, they’ll keep winning, and we’ll keep losing. That’s the way the game is designed to function. It’s like that arcade game from Wayne’s World. It was impossible to win, and was designed that way so that “the kids just keep pumping in quarters…”

Just like that, this system is designed to bleed us dry, and to preserve us as long as economically feasible, so as to extract as much wealth from each individual as possible, before our deaths. That’s why we’re not allowed to do drugs, that’s why we’re not allowed help with suicide, that’s why we’re not allowed to utilize prostitution. They restrict the things that require us to participate in the system to access, and make it difficult, even impossible, to simply choose to live outside the system if we dislike it. We really don’t have a choice. We can only choose to lose, or choose to lose more.

The majority only “needs” to be “lead,” because they are deprived of an adequate upbringing. And by “adequate upbringing,” i mean they need to be taught to think, and the value of suffering. The value of suffering is a good enough motivator to explain both the need for economy and mitigation of collateral damage, as well as the reasoning behind true morality: you don’t enjoy suffering, so don’t needlessly cause it for someone else. If you cause it for someone else, there had damn well be a very good reason for doing so, and if you gain something by exploiting someone else, you should give them a significant cut of your profits, because THEY had to suffer for what you STOLE from them, by imposing your will and occupying their life with miserable experiences; and that is time and experience you can’t get back or replenish or undo. Time is permanent, as it is written into history through our actions, which come from our thoughts and feelings, which are based on our ‘phaneron.’ This is why it is important to be realistic, and to strive for a clearer vision of both the world, and the self.

So, no, i don’t agree that laws are “necessary.” Laws are not “necessary” at all; they are, however, useful for controlling people’s actions through fear of imposed consequences. There are countless completely superfluous and entirely unjustified laws, for which millions upon millions of people have had their lives utterly destroyed.

And why? Well, because someone somewhere greased the right rails and fabricated enough “evidence” to convince a bunch of idiots to vote themselves out of more freedoms.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and oppression is the cost of not paying that price. We now have laws based on invalid precedents which make it almost impossible to repeal unjust laws that never should have been allowed in the first place. How can anyone respect a system that is so obviously exploitable and so blatantly lacks integrity? A system without integrity is not just vulnerable, but prone, to instability, exploitation, and outright abuse of those at its mercy, at the hands of those with the power to control what it does, how, why, and to whom.

Honestly, it’s fucking disgusting.

So; “if i had $100 million…”

I would buy a bit of land in a place where i have the least resistance to growing and smoking my own high-grade cannabis, and i would build a modest but awesome house, and i would spend my money on taking care of myself and being thoroughly entertained, and would perhaps attain some sort of measurable fulfillment through being able to afford access to the worthwhile experiences and enjoyable items i would otherwise lack. And i would be almost completely content to just pretend the rest of the world doesn’t even exist… because it’s not like there’s anything i can really do to really change it. Maybe i’ll spend years writing out a bunch of notes on what i think people should do differently, and how… and leave a legacy that i’ll never know about, which will only ever become important to anyone else, long after i’m gone. Meanwhile, i despise the idea of my life ticking away, virtually stolen from me by those with the power to choose whether to include me in good things, or lock me out. People always scrapping over bullshit, chomping at the bit to get another trinket, vying for illusory temporal dominance… i swear, 99.9% of all people are completely missing the point. And it’s because they’re lead to believe certain things, certain ways, because someone with the power to spread memes, has done so, in order to advance their own agenda. And it’s working. Isn’t that just horrible? I think so.

I say bring the anarchy. People will learn. Things would eventually get better, and would be on a better path than the one we are corralled along, today.

“…the last thing the moneyed interests wants is for people to doubt the system.”

Gonna have to stop you right there; that’s not a good enough argument for dismissing “cloak and dagger conspiracy stuff.” They aren’t “elected,” they are *Selected. That one little letter makes a world of difference.

Look, anyone who tries to make a law that says i, a fully discerning adult, cannot buy a video game that depicts certain fictitious graphically rendered events, and also that no game company is allowed to make and legally sell such things… that person should not be allowed anywhere near the lawmaking process. That person should be slapped repeatedly with a rotting fish; or some other such grotesque and humiliating, but minimally harmful activity.

Dawg, your ‘generalist’ side is showing. You’re all like “oh, those damn republicans!!!”

But those are not republicans, they are *neo-conservatives. There is also such a thing as “neo-liberals.” There is a lot of lexical dissonance at play these days, and the labels are intentionally self-contradictory and confusing, so as to create arbitrary conflict and impede understanding among the masses. It’s all part of the master plan.

As for the “you can’t teach Everyone…” argument; we don’t really need to teach everyone. Some people can’t learn. Those people should not survive. That’s how things are supposed to work.

A person properly taught, would be very unlikely to have an uncontrolled outburst of anger during an argument. A person properly taught, would be unlikely to provoke another person in such a way that they cannot resist loss of composure, or the temptation for violence. Two people properly taught, can disagree, even intensely argue, without the need for physical violence; if you start throwing punches during an argument, you lost the argument. You’ve abandoned civility, and traded it for imposing your will on someone else, just because they either don’t understand, or don’t agree. Two people properly taught would control themselves, because they would realize that even murdering the person who disagrees with you, won’t accomplish what the argument was intended to achieve.

Yes, there needs to be some sort of order; a self-imposed order that everyone values enough to maintain it, and protect it, themselves; both for their own sake, and the sakes of everyone else.

But would that scenario still occur, if people were taught right? That’s one of those exceptional situations where all 3 people know something like that could happen, and yet they proceed anyway. Two of them are primarily to blame, but if the “gun wielding husband” was taught right, would he still believe that the woman he married would never, ever, ever cheat on him? Or would he expect it to probably happen at some point? IMO, the best thing to do is walk in with a camera. Instead of shooting bullets, shoot evidence for the courts, and divorce that *****, and publicly shame them both.

Or we can see it another way, and simply accept that people will seek out what they desire, even if they have to break the rules. Should we be upset that people who do so end up damaged or destroyed? Should we punish the husband for doing what is essentially the right thing, just taken to an unfortunate extreme?

Idk. I don’t think that all casualties are inexcusable. People are people, and bad things will happen sometimes, based on people’s choices. What law currently prevents a gun-wielding husband from shooting his cheating spouse and her lover? There isn’t one. There is only punishment for excessive retaliation, AFTER the event occurs. Despite the existence of laws, people are going to do what they want. What they want, will still occur, if they have the opportunity. Laws aren’t stopping those things. We don’t really need laws, except *perhaps in the most severe and heinous cases.

And for a counter example: cannabis should never be illegal anywhere, except perhaps while operating heavy machinery, or piloting passenger planes, or driving professionally, etc.

All laws should be retroactive and transparent.

Nothing should be illegal unless you hurt someone else while doing it.

Wanna do 100mph in a residential area? Great! But if you hurt/kill anyone, or damage anything, you’ll pay heavily.

Wanna cook meth and sell it? Great! but as soon as anyone dies from your stuff, it’s your fault. If no one dies, then you are simply supplying responsible drug enthusiasts with their preferred recreational substance.

That’s the way things should work: everything is legal until someone gets hurt. If someone is harmed, harsh penalties are issued, except in any case where the victim feels that forgiveness for an accident is appropriate. Maybe the victim did something stupid that wasn’t the fault of the person who inadvertently harmed them while coincidentally being under the influence of some substance? Just throwing out examples. I could do this for… probably indefinitely.

I can’t rewrite the entire legal system in an evening.

@Dawg: well now you’re making sense again. I agree that both (all) sides of the system are essentially owned by the same people, and they will win no matter which “driver” places first. But that’s just one of the various strategies that can be employed (or deployed). They can control it any which way. They can decide in advance that they want a particular candidate to end up in office, or they can just let “the masses” vote… but the masses are easily mislead anyway.

sidestepping:

Honestly, if you look at Romney’s recent campaign… it’s hard to believe he was serious. It’s like they didn’t even try to seem legit. Or, it’s like obvious sabotage. It’s unclear which of those things is more true, but either way, both the beginning and the end are the same. “They” wanted Obama in there; just like they got Bush TWICE (thank you diebold!), while most of the world considered him to be laughably inadequate for the “job.” Then again, he made a great clueless patsy who thought he had actual power. He was nothing but a puppet. “Mission Accomplished”

Remember that clip of him fumbling through the phrase “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me?”

Try to wrap your mind around the irony of him saying that. They are practically rubbing it all in our faces and “laughing all the way to the bank.” It’s diabolical.

They ‘say’ “innocent until proven guilty,” but if i’m innocent, how does that justify giving an enforcer the right to detain me prior to any verdict, or even any trial? If i’m innocent, no one has the right to detain me. If someone has the right to detain me prior to my being found guilty of whatever crime, then i am in fact NOT “innocent until proven guilty.”

And then we have to figure out what to do about being found guilty of violating a law that should never have become law in the first place. Lots of people are guilty of such invalid crimes, but because “the precedent exists,” you basically have to argue against history itself. When the precedent is set unjustly, through illegitimate means, then the precedent is invalid. When the supreme court refuses to abolish an illegitimately established precedent, and then refuses to hear any further arguments in favor of doing so… then what? We let 9 people decide that we can’t fix an unjust law? The cannabis laws are at the crux of the issues i have with the “legal” system. If our legal system is not even reasonable enough to figure out that cannabis shouldn’t be illegal (arguably the same for most, if not all other drugs), then how can i respect it for any other reason than the fact that it simply has power to impose upon me whatever it decides, without REASON, and due to a precedent established through bribery and fabrication of evidence, and especially hearsay and false testimony… it’s just bullshit. The whole thing is bad, for this particular reason. TPTB have the power to make bad laws, and there’s nothing we can do about it. That’s not justice at all. That’s authoritarianism. That’s neither freedom nor democracy.

…and then you take that free prison labor and make backroom deals, and soon you’ve got unjust laws meant to fill countless prisons with otherwise law-abiding citizens, so that someone can profit from all that forced free labor. You can buy a new law to create a bunch of free forced workers who cost the system only as much food and electricity as it takes to keep them barely alive. In fact, another version of this is already occurring, as an integral facet of the conspiratorial “war on drugs.”

You want to build prisons so you can get gov’t money, and so they make a new tax that pays for the prisons, and you buy a new law that gets lots of people arrested and sentenced, and then you’re getting free money from the gov’t, just so you can house the “criminals” who only broke the law you paid to create, so that they could exist to justify the money you skim from the taxes raised to support your numerous prisons. And then you have a faceless corporation controlled by sinister profiteers, who are able to take out enormous equity loans (probably) on the corporation’s assets (which are obviously numerous for a corrections/detention facility). You can also “create jobs” for staff and security and all the other fun stuff that goes into the whole prison system.