Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
That's a great example, but not of what you think it's an example of.
Let's consider terms like "punitive", "social engineering", and "wealth redistribution". That you used those terms is very enlightening about YOUR position on tax policy. You then project that onto what people say, and for YOU it seems like what they "really mean" when they're maybe talking about something completely other than that.
And it's not "how ace doesn't listen". This is fundamental to our makeup as human beings. We really actually know NOTHING about "reality". The point at which I interface with reality is the exact same point where I interpret my perceptions into meanings. Which means I'm NEVER seeing things as they are, I'm ALWAYS seeing things through a layer of interpretation. And then I interact with those meanings and interpretations as if they are the real and objective truth.
Look at the object nearest you. Notice that RIGHT THERE IN THE LOOKING AT IT, you know what it is, its name, what it's used for. That's one aspect the layer of interpretation I'm talking about. It's not just what it is--a lump of something with the properties that make it real (it exists in space and time, and has a shape). No, to you it's (in my case) a "wallet". Well, it's not, really. That's the name we give that thing.
|
If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain
I know why you're here.. I know what you've been doing... why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer. You're looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn't really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It's the question that drives us. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.
---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
you know, there's a side of what you're saying that seems to me obviously the case, pan: class distinctions are getting wider. the reason for that is the absence of state action, however.
|
gotta disagree here, roach. it's precisely because of state action that we are seeing class distinctions grow ever wider. The more regulations in law that we assume government is making for us 'worker bees', is also counteracted by corporate protectionism laws.
what i mean by that is, when any law put in to effect to benefit a worker, the employer is getting an assurance of protection, whether it be in the form of a tax break for hiring a certain quota of people or garnering a government contract somewhere. When the government goes to pay for these guarantees, the tax base is hit for the tab, not the corporation.