General Exchanges Between Sequestration and SHaring Paradigm persons – April 30, 2010 at 7:11am – reposted Jan 2012 after Facebook removes Discussion tab.

In Uncategorized on January 11, 2012 at 9:07 am

April 30, 2010 at 7:11am · Like · Comment

Alex Tan why so angry donaldson? give us the liberty to exist hahahah
May 2, 2010 at 2:16am
Marah Freedom Sharing of wealth at a USD$20 million level isn’t too little for you is it? How many billion do you need to live a normal life?
May 3, 2010 at 12:09pm
Donaldson Tan Compulsion of sharing wealth is THEFT. How can you guys support such an unethical act?
May 3, 2010 at 12:20pm
Marah Freedom I don’t think anyone needs USD$20 million to live a meaningful life. And I am not talking about GIVING to people already with millions but prioritising those with crippling debts to their pigeonhole apartment homes or rabbit hutch terraces, aiding people are dying from lack of opportunity or having no education, or funding welfare services, medical aid centres, do you consider wealth that belongs to everyone being put to such uses theft?

Such accrued and sequestered wealth above the level of USD$20 million is often gained unconstitutionally as well via closed tenders, arbitrary awards of contracts, printing and distribution of fiat, use of state apparatus to impose illegal tax systems. Is that sort of wealth, not stolen from the people to begin with? That sort of wealth is further used to create artificial shortages via hoarding of commodities to the detriment of the general consumer, is that not a form of theft or unethical to the point of illegality as least?

The wealth of the world belongs to all mankind, if you have TOO MUCH (i.e. above 20 million), then it’s time to cull the fat and give it to those in dire need . . .
May 4, 2010 at 6:52am
Antares M Poor Donaldson! His daddy must be worth bloody billions and if most of it was confiscated by God orthis Facebook Group, Donaldson’s lifestyle would be terribly cramped. @Donaldson, I’m not exactly an advocate of coercion by any means. However, the planet is in a hostage situation and I certainly favor disarming our captors – by force if necessary, and I feel it is now absolutely necessary, because it doesn’t appear at all likely they will drop their guns and surrender to the notion of natural justice and the divinity that dwells within every living cell. Problem is, what force can we apply on the plutocratic elite to make them comply – since they own all law enforcement agencies and every lethal weapon on earth, as well as all mass media save for sections of the internet? For now, the fact that this Facebook group exists greatly comforts me – as it reveals that there are at least a handful of humans looking at the big picture and coming up with possible ways to resolve the problems we face as a species on the verge of suicide through greed and stupidity compounded by arrogance.
October 10, 2010 at 10:51am
Jere Hodges Jr This is merely an effort increase through guilt that which cannot be obtained the old-fashioned way: by earning it.
January 29, 2011 at 7:24pm
Marah Freedom Nothing can be earned. It, and the Universe all belongs to *us*. If we refuse to do any services, or lift a finger, the greatest government much less a handful of plutocrat will find that everything they own, especially fiat or digits on a computer are worth NOTHING. The goods they own cannot be eaten or used and will rot and be wasted. This is the essence of civilisation BEYOND the Industrial and though not the automated Technological paradigm.

BUT as we are not yet at fully automated stage yet, you are at our mercy. If ALL operators, technicians and scientists BOYCOTT everything, nothing will work. What you can only do is just kill those who refuse to work except for subsistence, and that would make you a barbarian, even as your method of thought creates barbarism via non-sovereign individual paradigms which espouse equestration of wealth to no end.

Are you civilised and godlike, giving and sharing, or demonic selfish and greedy, binding people to do your work in an unequal relationship. If barter trade comes into play, all fiat and electronic currency ends. So how wil you make any person work for you? Who will obey you much less worship the non-existent money that they create with their efforts?

Civilisation is more than thuggery, and nobody can force anyone. This world belongs to all, want to test it? We could all walk out of your company to prove a test case point. Or just bully and threaten to kill everyone in. Such thoughts though would certainly attract retribution from *those* watching. An asteroid, a solar flare, or a few disgruntled employees, or a man setting himself alight as in Tunisia could bring everything crashing down.

So are you more that *I*? No. I which we all are, won’t do *your* work unless it is for everyone and not *you*, then what can you do? Bend minds with technology? Even that will fail as providence will put paid to whatever is not yours to claim – which is in fact – nothing, zilch nada, zero, no more than what anyone can claim. Do you think your guards will obey you? They might as well throw you out and take over the operation.

Play the EQUAL or be finished. The wealth and lands of the world belong to all, save for responsibile propagation of human kind, there is no other responsibilty in the temporl realm, though the spiriatula one is an entirely differentone altogether, so let the third world minded beware, their attitudes towards material objects have betrayed their underdeveloped souls.
January 31, 2011 at 2:36am
Jere Hodges Jr There cannot be equality when there is not equality of effort. Would you reward the lazy with the efforts of the industrious? Would you steal from the industrious to support the lazy?

No one “makes” anyone else work for them – that is slavery. But people enter into consensual work relationships – where one man is paid to provide labor to another. Is either man, then, more honorable than the other? No. But the communist would say that the worker is more honorable than the employer.

One of the major flaws with the communist utopian mindset is the “settle for” conundrum. When the workers own the means of production – there is no incentive to improve upon what already exists. If what already exists is “good enough” – why improve it? Why? Because the conditions under which it is “good enough” are bound to change – and so “good enough” will quickly become insufficient. There is no mechanism in pure communism to combat that.
January 31, 2011 at 10:21am
Marah Freedom One man sits in a 20K sq ft office drinking whisky and making casual calls, the other slogs in a sweatshop or construction site for 2 or 3 shifts. Equality of effort? Doesn’t seem like it. Whats so communist utopian mindset? Its supposed to be limits on sequestration of wealth.

Also try MAXIMUM wage based and salary increments or bnuses based on performance of a company. If a company makes losses, NO 100 Million bonuses for fat cat exec. To be proactive, if a company makes losses, fat cat should PAY BACK bonuses given in better years, not quit the company and retire or parasite another company.

Even further, try not being allowed to sell ANY stocks until formally retired. Painful? No. But just corporate responsibility, corporate loyalty to ensure best practices and genuine efforts, not golden parachutes at the investor’s expense.
February 1, 2011 at 10:00am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: