Karen Rodriguez3: If you’re implying that humans are inherently wicked, I can't agree with you—just as I disagree with Anthony Garcia19 when he suggests human nature is noble. Human beings are incredibly adaptable creatures, evolving specifically to fit their surroundings. Concepts like good and evil aren't inherent; they are mere human inventions. Anthropologists have gathered significant data on this by studying isolated tribal societies. You see all kinds of behaviors. For instance, Inuit communities follow a strict code of sharing. Everything is considered communal property. When an Inuit person shares what they have with you, there is no need for thanks. It belongs to everyone. If they viewed it as strictly personal while you were dependent on their charity, it would create a hierarchy of dominance and submission, effectively destroying freedom. Then you have entirely different groups, such as those living on the island of doba. They view everyone as a potential threat and prize private property above all else, guarding it with absolute secrecy. Wealth is acquired through ruthless theft. Their most valued virtue is cunning. "If we intend to kill a man, we approach him, eat, drink, sleep, and work alongside him for months. We call him a friend."
Anthony Garcia19 said:So why does that happen? Unless those folks arguing that humans are just naturally greedy and selfish are right... What does your chameleon theory say about all this?
Maybe it's just basic math: there's always a few bad apples in any group. A loud, selfish minority usually finds a way to force their own values on the peaceful majority. Maybe we aren't all cut from the same cloth after all.
No, it is quite simple: humans evolve through interaction with their environment. Someone cheats someone else, gets away with it, and profits as planned. They try it again and see that it works, so they adopt a new behavioral model. The environment might not respect them, but it tolerates them, and he profits. Or, if he uses theft, people fear and despise him, yet they do not stop him. Then he finds someone similar to organize with, making them stronger and more successful together. Eventually, some dissatisfied people notice this and say, "Why shouldn't we act just like these successful people?" Everyone else hates them and complains, but in reality, they are just more successful than their surroundings. So, I follow suit. It becomes infectious. Once it spreads, it becomes obvious that general social morality has gone to hell, people retreat into themselves, and the opportunists take over. Resourcefulness becomes the ideal, while compassion, sharing, empathy, brotherhood, and unity are seen as part of that old, failed system—a system that hates you because you are successful.
Weeds grow faster than crops, stealing the sunlight, water, and nutrients while reproducing more quickly. Weeds grow wherever they can, whereas crops require a specific, favorable environment. If you don't constantly pull the weeds, you will soon have nothing but weeds in your field.
Anthony Garcia19: Neither one serves as a foundation. The true foundation is a person's capacity to become anything at all. Essentially, you need an environment that prizes empathy, creativity, selflessness, and cooperation. At the same time, selfishness and exploitation must be met with absolute disgrace. This requires constant effort. If you don't maintain it, the first rotten apple in the barrel will ruin everything. Communism initially succeeded because party officials went out to people who might not have even known how to read or write. They carried Marx's Capital and explained the essentials—human rights, the difference between labor and exploitation, and what defines a healthy society versus a sick one. But once that instruction faltered, charlatans took over. These people were mistaken for being "clever" or "resourceful," when they should have been cast out and punished. Human nature immediately resurfaced and communism collapsed: the apples rotted, and today, egoism is treated as a virtue while man becomes a wolf to man.
There is a mix of off-topic chatter, trolling, and genuinely useful content here. 🙂 But that is merely my own perspective; we shall see how the moderators view it. 😘
Scott Hall39 said:Well, John D. Rockefeller shouted too! So what if the Rockefellers are still around? The Roosevelts are still around too! These stories about American presidents serving oil companies and big capital are nothing but pure conspiracy nonsense from people who can't grasp that the world is far too complex to be boiled down to such banal relationships. They try to simplify everything. Either it's just mindless political ideology—Marxist or leftist rambling.
Politicians lack true authority. Theodor Roosevelt may have shouted his defiance, but the Rockefellers remain, and their wealth is intact. Today's President of the USA and those before him merely serve the oil giants born from Standard Oil. While Roosevelt fought against the dominance of oil tycoons, subsequent presidents have acted as little more than agents for their agendas and guardians of their interests. Obedient servants. Politicians exist solely to serve big capital. They might pass laws or appoint officials, yet every law can be bypassed, and every official can be bought or neutralized. Furthermore, a term in office is fleeting. The idea that politicians hold power is an illusion. Money holds the power.
It’s infuriating. The working class carries the tax burden while the wealthy remain untouched. His corporations and investment vehicles purchase the luxury cars, yachts, estates, and tailored suits, not him personally. Furthermore, he always has the option to secure millions from neighbors, banks, the government, investors, partners, or buyers. Someone who hasn't amassed such wealth lacks those avenues for quick capital.
Anthony Garcia19 said:It’s kind of like "don't trust everyone," I guess... I’ve heard her say it somewhere before, but I can't quite wrap my head around what she actually means! 🤔
It is like when a goat walks up and claims it isn't a goat. But it has horns and everything else, so you know it is lying and is indeed a goat. 🙂
These are just old folk sayings. Back when people lived on farms with livestock, everything was much more obvious. 🤣
Integrator, your observations regarding capital accumulation versus circulation are sound, but I feel the discussion is drifting toward the wealthy elites we all tend to dislike and their various scandals. In my view, this doesn't quite address the true misers—those who hoard wealth without ever spending it. Such individuals usually remain completely anonymous to the public and pass away in poverty, leaving behind nothing but massive, stagnant sums in bank accounts.
silverranger742 said:I really can't agree that capitalism is in charge simply because of the will of the people. From the rise of television to this very moment, so much has been manipulated to keep things this way.
If it wasn't by the people's will, then how can we say modern America was founded by the will of its people? The entire movement toward secession and adopting a Western economic model was supported. Our representatives voted in a new constitution. Social ownership was abolished, privatization took place, and the Constitution clearly establishes private property as a fundamental value. Niko didn't force this on us; we made a clear, unambiguous choice through democratic elections, and we continue to choose it every single time. There isn't even a mention of a worthy opposition to this, even though the system is democratic and could easily allow for an alternative model to compete on equal footing.
Anthony Garcia19: I see your point. You lean toward socialism, whereas I have been pushing capitalism. It isn't that I favor it or believe in its perfection; it simply exists because the people demand it. In my view, these are merely frameworks. A system itself is neither good nor evil. It is the individuals within it who possess character. There is no such thing as "fair distribution" if the people themselves aren't improved first. Since humans are inherently flawed—slow to learn and quick to forget—and since capitalism thrives on selfishness as its core value, my advice is this: acquire influence so you can provide for yourself and your loved ones. As for a global spiritual awakening or a more equitable society, forget it. Perhaps in another lifetime, or several generations from now. Today's generation won't make it happen. 😳
wanderingcrane5 said:Look, there's nothing wrong with having stuff. But let's be real: right now, it’s impossible to own anything without essentially taking it from someone else. That whole dynamic won't change until we actually invent Star Trek-style replicators and tap into basically infinite energy sources. As it stands, anyone holding onto wealth—whether directly or indirectly—has taken it from somebody else. That other person probably wasn't given the chance to sell their labor for what it was actually worth. Maybe they were just crushed by circumstances or stuck in a broken system where their hard work isn't valued. Meanwhile, you’ve got the first guy who’s a master at selling hot air, doing practically zero actual work while raking in massive amounts of cash.
The fact that some talented, honest, and brilliant people never reach their full potential might have something to do with them lacking guts or drive, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. More likely, they failed because their efforts were suffocated by everyone else's desperate, cutthroat grab for power, where people don't care what methods they use to get ahead.
Suffocated doesn't even cover it. They're constantly being undervalued. Think about it: why is a farmer working the soil treated like nothing compared to some corporate middleman? Those middlemen are parasites that destroy actual value, yet they get paid through the nose. Farming is essential; it's a top priority for survival. So why does society treat that work like it's worthless?
This premise is incorrect. If it were true, the total value of everything would always be zero, since nothing could ever be created. There is labor that generates value—an example you provided yourself: a farmer working in a field. Then there is labor that merely shifts value from one pocket to another, and even labor that destroys value. Furthermore, value concentrated under a single manager can either accelerate or hinder the effects of labor, depending on many factors. It is not simple.
Not just stifled. Frequently undervalued. Why is the work of a farmer not valued as much as the work of a corporate middleman? Middlemen destroy value; they are parasites, yet they are paid handsomely. Fieldwork is not only essential, it is a top priority. Why, then, is that labor not appreciated?
Corporate middlemen can be creators just as easily as they can be destroyers of value. They are necessary for a market to function, providing everyone with an opportunity to develop. Without them, we would still be in the Middle Ages. While there are some positive aspects to that, I believe the prevailing opinion is that we do not want that.
Fieldwork is certainly valued. We provide massive subsidies to farmers and ranchers, protect them through import tariffs and export incentives, and guarantee the purchase of their products, even when we could buy cheaper and often better quality goods from abroad. We compensate them for damage caused by natural disasters and other risks. We value them so much that we take food out of our own mouths just so they can continue doing what they do, even though under pure market conditions, they wouldn't even be able to feed themselves.
The big shot said:says: The President of Uruguay drives a tiny car, gives away his salary, gave up all his protections and perks, and lives in a studio apartment. As for family assets, his wife just has a small greenhouse for flowers. Meanwhile, his Vice President has a luxury vehicle and multiple estates...
I don't know much about the President of Uruguay, but the late Stipe Šuvar used to drive an old beat-up car and took nothing for himself beyond a modest paycheck. I respect him deeply, though I suspect I am one of the few who does. No one showed up to his funeral, and his name is hardly mentioned anymore. It is a tragedy that by being so selfless and handing over his power to others, he allowed far more damaging individuals to seize control of it.
Honestly, why wouldn't someone want power? The world is huge and filled with so much you can reach out and grab. There's plenty to enjoy. And when you actually have something, you can share it. You can actually change things.
Why frame it that way? Why assume it's a good thing for one person to hold everything just to decide who gets a slice and who doesn't? To me, that’s just pure ego. It's basically trying to play Bog.
Plus, you mentioned changing the world. Who's to say their standards are actually good for everyone else? They're the ones making the calls, and there's no guarantee their version of "better" works for the rest of us.
It really just comes down to having the guts to fight for it. Sadly, a lot of people lack that drive. They just retreat into their shells and accept being powerless. It's a shame, because I bet a lot of them could do great things if they actually stepped up.
Usually, people see those in charge as corrupt megalomaniacs, while those in charge look down on anyone unsuccessful as just being cowards. I think that kind of resentment and class divide pushes a lot of decent, smart people in the wrong direction. They decide not to seek influence just so they don't end up becoming "them."
When capable, honest, and bright people fail to reach their potential, it might be due to a lack of grit, but I don't think it's because they don't want power. More often than not, they get crushed by others who are desperate for control and willing to use any means necessary to get it.
Would it be better if nobody owned anything, leaving nothing to share? And who should decide who gets what? Why do you believe someone else should make decisions instead of the individual? 😕
If you expect a mature person—someone capable of making their own choices and creating value for themselves and society—to follow a mandate rather than exercising their own freedom and autonomy, then you are essentially advocating for servitude, or perhaps mindless obedience🤷.
Similarly, you suggest they can change the world. But are his standards appropriate for everyone else? He alone decides that, no one else. Will his actions benefit others?
Bog handed the management of this world over to humans long ago. I cannot say whether a driver will make decisions that are safe for the passengers and other motorists, but I know things will not go well if there is no one behind the wheel.
The fact that some capable, honest, and intelligent individuals fail to reach their potential might stem from a lack of courage or fighting spirit, but it has nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. Rather, they failed because their efforts were stifled by others' excessive hunger for control, often through unscrupulous means.
Perhaps. But if you believe the problem lies with ruthless power-seekers who obstruct brave and intelligent people (who also desire influence) from reaching their potential, how can you simultaneously advocate for limiting personal achievement and decision-making freedom?
Anthony Garcia19 said:It's true that power can buy you freedom, but you don't need to be powerful to be free. Financial independence is enough. Once you achieve that and keep stacking cash just for the sake of it, it's no longer about being free—it's about wanting to control others. That's where the hunger for power comes in.
So, saying people without a drive for power have "small needs" doesn't really track. If someone is chasing total personal autonomy, their needs aren't small. Honestly, craving power isn't a sign of big ambitions; it's just a sign of a small mind...
I don't understand how you can label people as small-minded while simultaneously claiming that freedom means having just enough for oneself, yet treating anything beyond that as something to be dismissed. What about the people you care for? What about those who truly deserve better? It doesn't seem to occur to you that a powerful individual can actually create jobs, improve society for everyone, or fund researchers, charities, schools, healthcare, and local development. Is helping others really considered being "small-minded"? I would call such a perspective selfish. 🤷
Most people carry their own complexes and flaws, but that isn't the sole driver behind the pursuit of power. Quite simply, why wouldn't one desire influence? The world is vast, filled with abundance waiting to be grasped, embraced, or claimed. There is much to enjoy. When you possess resources, you can provide for others. You have the capacity to reshape the world. It merely requires courage and the will to fight. Unfortunately, many lack this grit; they retreat into their shells and resign themselves to helplessness. It is a tragedy, as I believe many of them could make significant positive contributions if only they were capable.
Furthermore, just as the public often views those in power as corrupt megalomaniacs, many powerful individuals view those who fail as nothing more than foolish cowards. I suspect this mutual resentment and class division misleads many honest, intelligent people. They choose to forgo power simply to avoid becoming like "them."
Anthony Garcia19 said:Power is an interesting thing. I have to admit, I just don't get it. I've never felt that itch myself. To me, finding joy in controlling others or pulling strings is just a sign of insecurity, low self-esteem, or narcissism. And honestly, that leads right back to what I said earlier about amassing massive wealth—hoarding way more than anyone could ever actually need.
Power equals freedom. It is possible you have never felt that need; many people never do. Most people's actual needs are quite modest. 🤷
The world should be guided by those who actually understand what they are doing, rather than just any random fool. Intelligent people make sound decisions; fools only make mistakes. I consider myself intelligent—my track record proves it. I know exactly how I achieved my success through hard work, strategic thinking, and overcoming everyone in my path, including the best of them. Besides, everyone believes they are smart; why should I hold a different opinion of myself? God created fools so that the intelligent would have someone to take money from. If that weren't the case, what would intelligence even be for? Without it, everyone would be equal, whether smart or not, and we know that isn't true. Even if equality were possible, it wouldn't be fair. It is immoral to allow a fool to keep their money. If they hold onto it, they will only waste it on something stupid, whereas that capital could do something productive in the hands of someone smarter. In any case, someone more capable will eventually take it from them anyway; why shouldn't that person be me? The more strictly I follow these undeniable moral principles, the better and greater a man I become. 👋
You can find all sorts of rationalizations out there. Some people honestly believe they don't deserve better, so they're too afraid to even try for someone high-quality. Then you have those who view themselves as saints, convinced their endless love can somehow heal a broken person and turn them into something decent. And then there are the ones with massive egos who think they're too good for any of the five great options available, choosing instead to pick someone toxic just so they can "fix" them.
It’s all total bullshit. Broken people gravitate toward broken relationships. It's just a traumatized mind carrying the weight of the past, trying to relive that history in hopes of finally overcoming and healing it. Usually, it passes once they reach a certain level of maturity. As you get older, you start to realize how much stability actually matters. 👍