Maggie's Farm

This is part of the only discussion that anymore seems worth having these days -- who is right, the individualist or the collectivist?

Many have noted how in the USA, the lab doing the groundbreaking work, the question has refined and clarified into one of nature's 50-50 propositions, and either/or, uncannily proven by the numbers of interested parties being pretty half of one opinion and half of the other.

This points to an answer, a general field theory, that could be stated, could be organized, the same way --into an either/or, a yes/no, a 'there's-two-kinds-of-people-on-this-earth' axiomatic.

So, given the conceit, what would that be? What are the words in the line in the sand?

"Half the people are above average and half are below average"?

If so, then "winners favor competition, losers favor collectivization"?

If so, then "zero sum" is real --regardless of the rise or fall of the general weight, volume, and mass of the emblems and artifacts of winning or losing.

If so, then a loser then could could be a winner again, even though in the doing, that accumulation of finished value, the moving finger of history writ, might be blasted into smoking ruin for one and all, for all time.

What can be done? Clearly more people need to think of themselves as winners. IOW, the entire dismal tide of leftist indoctrination doesn't need to be reversed --thank goodness, because it will always appeal to some and the communications (in the large sense of the word) revolution will keep them organized.

so only a few million Americans need to learn what a grand experiment this nation is --how radical it is --and how their votes will in turn keep the American way in the world's eye, and how this in time will convert the resurgent collectivists in numbers, how like the walls of Jericho were vibrated down by the music of jubliation, how everyone is a winner who preserves liberty for posterity's freedom of choice.

So anytime now we just MUST shake off the gloom and start blowing the trumpets --or we're lost --and considering a secret police with today's technology, lost may well mean not lost "until the elections" but lost for a long long time, maybe lost forever.

it would be easy if a person could think himself a winner by the passive receiving of gifts. But no such luck, making up the lost ground won't be that easy. Without a spiritual life filling a person with intrinsic, inherent actual self-worth, the project seems to have no how-to doctrine -no tools that by design reveal purpose.

maybe who we're after is the gloomy middle-aged and elderly. A young person automatically feels self-worth, because it is a fact, it's worn on the sleeve, youth guarantees potential, where there's time there's hope. It's no misconception, either, a young person IS more valuable --the store of resources ipso facto more valuable because more extensive.

So, are Grammaw and Grampaw voting thses days? You don't know? You better ask. You better go introduce yourself to those old folks down the street, too. We'll make it or not, one voter at a time. Makes setting a minimum goal pretty easy --just get ONE.

Just GET one.

mmm, me too, them thangs do wonders for sociability. Later you wonder why you gave away all your possessions, but what the hey.

--for sure, Barrett. Re 'zero sum' i was a little vague there --i was trying to say, with 'regardless of how much', that it doesn't matter that economics aren't zero-sum, nor that the poor people in the stats are mostly young people starting out and they of course, because of this thing called 'time', are ALL poor. or that in a dynamic society the actual individuals within a group stat change tremendously over life times.

Movement, motion, the activity of time, has some sort of spiritual element hard to describe, but it shows up missing in a lot of the lies we are told --missing but leaving a little black hole making the reality wobble around it.