TOE&LIT Excerpts 4

The Option

There is no benefit to either the United States or Israel in the creation of a Palestinian state, and these are the only two nations on the planet capable of birthing Palestinian statehood. This is why a Palestinian state will not happen. Activists and intellectuals who think public opinion or international opinion becoming more supportive of the idea, is progress towards achieving the idea, neglect the fact that the deciding states are not persuaded by popular opinion. To lead the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza to believe a state of their own is any closer, or at all possible, is like a doctor giving a positive prognosis to a patient he knows to be terminally ill.

YouTube Comments and Debates

12th Comment: Christopher Sabionski@Orion Simerl What cult killed your compassion?

13th Comment: Orion Simerl@Christopher Sabionski The cult of impartiality.

14th Comment: Christopher Sabionski@Orion Simerl Wrong. Your selfishness is propped up by some dark age religion that you have twisted to suit your apathy. never for a second should you consider yourself a good person.

15th Comment: Orion Simerl@Christopher Sabionski Not only do I consider myself a good person I can objectively demonstrate that I am a good person. The human ideal is liberty, evident in the fact that everyone wants to do what they want to do. All creatures can do what they want to do in a multi-being setting so long as they are not imposed upon, and possess the means. Means consists of money and know how. Systems determine circumstances. Systems that leave people circumstantially trapped exist by way of collective consent, meaning a lack of opportunity is collective imposition. Not only am I unimposing, but I’m also the creator of realizable solutions which are drowned out and suppressed by the very kinds of ignorance expressed in this channel. Meaning my conduct is unimposing and I am attempting to remove collective imposition. I am good. 

As for selfishness, all human beings are wholly selfish. A selfless act is motivated by the feeling associated with the sacrifice or idea of the sacrifice being greater than the substance being sacrificed.  It is a value determination. For example, I often give money and cigarettes if I have em to people who hold signs for money. The reason I do this (although not consciously thinking about this during the act) is because the feeling associated with giving the person something exceeds the feeling I could get from the money itself.

The Founding Intents of the United States of America

…Ellsworth also forecast the economic realities for most people in this country with the following quote arguing against southern states importing slaves: “As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless”. (13) No need to import slaves, because the system we are creating will lead to a mass of poor people who will be desperate for work. 

The labor market will be so advantageous, that it will cost less to pay a man wages for work than it will be to take care of him.  Something that is literally true today, as many working poor people receive state benefits because their wages are unable to provide for their needs. (14).

13: Slavery and Sectional Strife in the Early American Repbulic, 1776-1821.  2010 Gary John Kornblith

14: Bryane Keith-Jennings and Raheem Chaudhry, 3/15/2018, “Most Working Age SNAP Recipients Work, But Often in Unstable Jobs” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/most-working-age-snap-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs

Government as the Facilitator of Money to Power

The free speech idea is a candidate has values and solutions to problems.  People as well as businesses see the candidate as the representative of their values and their interest in the candidate’s ideas.  If this was true, no firm would ever support both candidates, because if both candidates represent your interest it doesn’t matter which candidate is elected.  It also shows the actual differences between candidates who in speech seem so contrasting, yet are similar enough for business to support both candidates, which means in the eyes of business, people are divided about candidates on superficial and non-substantive issues.    

Why would a firm waste money by contributing to the campaigns of rival candidates?  Are corporations, who have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit wasting shareholder money by funding the campaigns of rival candidates?  Or are they investing in policy with insurance? They do have a preference, so invest 2 to 1 on their preference, maybe 30k on one candidate and 15k on the other, where enough of these promotions may contribute to an edge to their preferred candidate, but they will still maintain good standing with the other candidate should he or she win.