Posts by David Johnson8

David Vaughn75 said:But here’s the kicker—those big-shot entrepreneurs and managers aren't usually the ones coming up with the genius stuff. It's the engineers. And yet, those same engineers end up fighting for nothing but crumbs while everyone else takes the lion's share.

Most of our American entrepreneurs and executives are essentially engineers anyway—pretty much everyone I know, at least, excluding the pure traders who just buy low and sell high.

David Vaughn75 said:Nah, it’s not about that—it’s about the fact that Chase won't just hand over a $100 million loan to some 30-year-old kid with zero assets to his name. Period. That kid's only shot at making anything is selling his vision to a massive conglomerate like Amazon or Google just to scrape together a 1% payout. Meanwhile, you've got some entrepreneur who inherited a massive empire from his old man, and he’ll just swoop in, grab that idea, and turn it into billions while the original creator gets crumbs.

$100 million? Seriously??? Look, I had an idea once, too—I spent my time grinding in logistics until I had enough cash in my account to actually make things happen, all without pulling any strings. You have to build something out of absolutely nothing, or close to it. If I needed a loan today, I could pull one together in twenty-four hours. I live off my "idea" now. But you? You'd need $100 million just to go out and play Ivica Todorić. Besides, you surely know how lottery winners usually end up, right?

David Vaughn75 said:The thing is, an entrepreneur isn't some 1,000x smarter or more gifted version of a regular worker. Even the absolute brightest human being on this planet is maybe only 2 or 3 times smarter than your average Joe.

The whole essence of capitalism isn't about "merit" or some "survival of the fittest" nonsense—that's just bad math. It's actually about meeting human needs (demand). You've got a customer who wants something, and you've got a producer stepping up to fill that gap. It works the exact same way with jobs. A manager doesn't pull in a massive paycheck because they're some kind of genetically superior superhero; they get paid that much because there's a huge market demand for a manager who actually knows what they're doing.

Honestly, those nominal figures shouldn't be your main concern—the marginal value of money drops as the volume increases. It's like how someone driving a $100,000 Mercedes isn't actually traveling ten times faster than someone in a $10,000 Ford, nor do they get ten times better news coverage from a major network like CNN just because they can afford the ads. In the same vein, someone who is 1,000 times wealthier isn't necessarily spending 1,000 times more than a worker, and their life isn't 1,000 times "better" either.

It’ll happen—the exact moment those two major ruling parties become nothing more than fringe players. When that actually hits? Honestly, I haven't a clue—though I am hearing this whole "third way" rhetoric pop up more and more lately.

Sean Sanders said:Nice try. A decent attempt at a spin, but it won't work. There are plenty of man-made things out there; some are stupid, primitive, and dangerous, while others are beautiful, like fine art. It was a good effort, but you can't pass this one. Sorry if my posts ended up shattering your worldview.

Anything can be weaponized if it falls into the wrong hands—I’ve already made that comparison using science—so let's be real. You claim I "shattered your worldview" 🤣, but honestly, you don't even seem to know what yours actually is; you're contradicting yourself and being inconsistent at every turn. Just because you feel the need to broadcast your animosity toward the nation and religion doesn't mean you've actually made an argument.

Sean Sanders said:Fair enough. My point is simply that anything man-made rather than nature-made is artificial and unnatural, especially when people start trying to rewrite the rules of biology. Things humans invent can be changed, abolished, or replaced with something entirely new. Personally, I wouldn't call nations "evolution"; I’d call them a step backward. Why? Because borders, different languages, and varying mindsets act as friction against the progress of humanity and our planet. They are limitations, obstacles, and complications—an artificial fragmentation of a single human race. This division causes different parts of humanity to develop at different rates, leading to one group exploiting another, fueling wars, and endless psychological and political games. Humanity acting as one people, and the planet functioning as one global state, is the only truly natural and correct path. Ultimately, it’s what’s best for us all. The longer these artificial divisions persist, the harder it will be for humanity to break free from them. But hey, we can save that for next time.

If you want my humble—and let’s be honest, completely subjective—take on what a "natural state" actually looks like, I’d say the whole concept is an oxymoron, for heaven's sake.

Anything that wasn't cooked up by nature is technically "unnatural"—that much is obvious—but does that actually make it bad? I mean, look at it this way: there are all sorts of different types of tribes out there, some passive, some aggressive. Historically, people formed these groups specifically to protect themselves from the more aggressive ones—essentially, collectivism is what eventually managed to tame the raw savagery you seem to despise so much. And honestly, that same logic applies on a macro level too—when you look at it through the lens of national identity.

Sean Sanders said:To me, calling a nation a "primitive" or "animalistic" category feels a bit off. We've already covered this ground elsewhere.

So, you’re calling me out on the whole "natural" thing—implying I’m actually out here championing it? Honestly, you're being a bit contradictory in certain spots there—it feels like you're missing the nuance of my actual position.

Sean Sanders said:Well, that would be a total disaster for anyone with any sense of nationalism or tribal identity. But your argument that viewing things through a tribal lens is "natural"? Come on! Look at history—that kind of thinking is basically a horror movie waiting to happen. It’s essentially animalistic logic. It’s like marking out territory and then attacking the first outsider who wanders onto your turf. Look, I realize some people have been brainwashed or just lack foresight, but we’ve evolved past basic animal instincts. What are you actually describing? An animal kingdom. Thanks, but I'll pass; that's repulsive to me. It’s no wonder historical atrocities like the Holocaust happened if people view the world this way. If I view everyone as equal, I'm certainly not building a concentration camp, but if I start looking at things through a tribal lens... well, you see the pattern. It’s incredibly primitive. Sure, a nation is a social construct—Mother Nature didn't just tap the earth and say, "Okay, now there's the United States and then there's Mexico"—but still, let's be reasonable here.

Mother Nature didn't just show up one day and hand us the internet, computers, medicine, art, or science—it doesn't work like that. Those are all human constructs, really. And honestly, that’s precisely what sets us apart from primitive animals—well, places ourselves above them, anyway. The same logic applies to the concept of a nation.

Sean Sanders said:The classic response from those living in fear. It’s what happens when people let anxiety about nature and common sense take over. This is the inevitable result when basic logic and physical reality get pushed aside in favor of manufactured cults, whether they be nationalistic fervor, religious dogma, or other social constructs.

Sean Sanders said:Wow, you really went out of your way to twist my words there... Honestly. I wasn't even talking about communism. My focus is on valuing the individual, nature, and personal autonomy, though I personally view nations and religions as flawed constructs—they feel artificial and unnatural. I thought I made that quite clear. It feels like I’m having to explain myself just so you or someone else can try to trap me on a technicality. It seems like the goal is to pick apart my logic just to defend your own worldview and prove yours isn't under threat, which feels like a bit of a circular exercise. What I said was straightforward; you can agree or disagree (though it feels a bit like debating whether the Earth is round), but it was stated clearly. Any attempt to nitpick what I said feels less like a discussion and more like an attack. I'm not interested in debating things that are as plain as day.

Nationhood and religion aren't "cults"—you're mixing up your terms. While it's true plenty of wars have been triggered by religion, religion itself isn't the cause; the cause is always greed for power and wealth. Religion, nationality, race—those are just the tools used to manipulate the masses. But that doesn't make those concepts inherently bad. It's not all black and white. Blaming religion is kind of like blaming science for the atomic bomb and calling science regressive. Even nationalism is relative to time and space; being a nationalist in one era or region is nothing like being one in another. Actually, right now is exactly when we need culture and its various fruits most, because globalization is making everyone eat, work, look, and think exactly the same way—essentially leading us toward a kind of mental slavery. Otherwise, this asceticism you seem so drawn to is pretty characteristic of radical right-wingers—including folks like Hitler and various nationalists throughout history. You aren't being consistent, even though you claim everything is "plain as day," because you've reduced everything to a single dimension. It sounds like you've got one grandfather who was a hardline conservative and another who was a staunch liberal, so you've just clumsily mashed together whatever ideas happen to suit you. If you haven't read Knut Hamsun, you should—he advocated for an ascetic lifestyle and was a favorite of the Third Reich 🙂. He’s a bit dull if you ask me, but you might actually enjoy him.