Thoughts at the Asphalt Rack
Aug. 1st, 2011 10:08 pmDon't expect coherency, this is pretty free flow writing I've transcribed into electronic form.
Asphalt Thoughts I
By lordofasphalt
Things I Know
—————–
I am here because my parents had sex, so on so forth.
I am 23 years of age.
I don’t share a lot about myself with others.
All that exists is rational.
“I am Ugly”
“I am Unlikable”
“I am Unpopular”
Are all statements which can not be empirically determined. Qualitative analysis is not empirical and in fact is the antithesis to the ideal. Thus any type of survey or opinion based statistic will always be plagued by subjectivity.
Sartre felt he was ugly – was this true?
Are only the ugly truly drawn inward to search out deeper meaning?
Why were genes of resulting in ugliness allowed to be passed down for thousands, tens of thousands of years, if they were truly “ugly” and/or “undesirable?”
My only conclusion is that none of us are ugly outside of our control of physical fitness and eating habits. Plastic surgery/cosmetics are an attempt to literally look like a different person, and hide our unique genetic expression.
Standards of beauty outside of fitness and even of fitness are set in a normative fashion by the elite classes of the world. They are not set by the working class at large – else we would all have such standards and would have long ago dealt with the “ugly” “undesirable” genes of our races.
THERE ARE too many factors to be considered insofar as the unmarried, childless individuals are concerned. No conclusions can be drawn about them. Coincidence, chance, social standing, looks attitude, wealth, integration, network all play a role.
“Looks” then truly have no effect, as far as I am concerned, in the world of love. There may be slight tendencies – being of healthy weight, for instance – sharp or round features, eye color, posture, but again too many factors to come to any concrete understanding of the influence of appearance.
It is my opinion as well that any attempt to study these tendencies falls short.
If in fact that, for instance, the most attractive individual physically is the one with the most mixed genes, then it is unacceptable for us as a race to only mate with the most “attractive.” To make a truly near perfect race we must mate wide and far. Eugenics would be a mistake.
However, any further growth in the world population would be a mistake as well. Already there is too much competition amongst us, and it can only become worse. Our resources are kept artificially scarce as a result of 80% of all wealth being in only 10% of the hands…thus we can take the wealth of 90% of the bottom incomes and multiply it by 5 to come to an understanding of how much we are truly worth in the working low and middle classes. No actor, or manager, or musician, or politician, or “owner” of “land “organization” or “raw resources” deserves to “make” or “be valued” many times the amount of one of us.
As for ownership, it makes little rational sense. How can ONE profit from the extraction of raw resources? Even if he “owned” all of the equipment necessary, still he would only deserve to profit alone if he worked alone. Therefore those who he employs deserve equal share as long as their labor is equally important, and in many cases, it is more important.
What is “owning something?” Something private certainly makes sense to be owned – but how can a business be owned? How can resources be owned?
Land was first drawn into sections and sold with no original cost to governments. This is the first example of government profit without providing anything of value (because the land had no value.) This was an original instance of artificially making a resource scarce. Those within government were able to profit and even provide themselves large amounts of land without cost to them. And as the first salesmen of a valueless product, they set the value and started the ball rolling with inequitable distribution of wealth. Some families were grandfathered into their lands early in the colonization of America…but eventually indentured service and the land sales began.
Artificial scarcity is also produced by the existence of renting land or place of living. There is no need for the law to allow individuals ownership of multiple places of residence. The land lord mimics the “lords” and nobles of the feudal era, who taxed all serfs living within their lands. The lord, with threat of force, recovered all that he was owned. Today, if one does not pay rent, one finds oneself charged and prosecuted by armed, state-supported thugs. One faces jail time – no different than facing a dungeon in times past.
It is enough for the lord to simply collect tax (or rent) – he or she need not work or contribute positively to the society to earn their keep…they need only, like a parasite, to take from others what is not rightfully theirs.
Because there are many land lords, actual housing increases in value and cost, precisely because so many houses are already owned and rented. Scarcity increases value, this is a simple rule of simple economics. Thus our friendly leftover from the feudal era isn’t helping the vast majority of us live in relative ease whatsoever. It is only another expression of inequitable distribution of resources.
Because I can not be sure of actual causes for disparity in treatment, I can only assume that much of it is in fact due to random chance.
However, it is true that if we do things the same way that we can expect similar results, if the scientific method is true.
Thus must I change who I am to obtain the treatment I desire?
Many americans seem to be on a similar wavelength when it comes to the government. It makes little sense that it continues to persist with the same ideology, knowingly bringing about further dissent. Eventually the pendulum will break and the people will make their voices heard, not through a peaceful democratic process – as it has been corrupted beyond repair – but through ammunition. There is nothing particularly surprising about this as history teaches us, but it is perplexing that the high classes continue unabated and ignorant of the future consequences they alone are producing.
Moreover, I can not bring myself to understand their reasoning. Short term gain has no place, although I suppose being that we are mortal, those who can take advantage of their situation will with the utmost disrespect for the rights, desires and emotions of others not in an advantageous position, will.
As Plato’s ring teaches us, those who don’t take advantage of it are fools, and those who do are criminals.
But can we blame the high class if this is the case? Can we expect morality in a world of moral relativism?
The snake does not consider issues of morality – no animal does. Only human beings have constructed a code of ethics. And indeed created it when once there was nothing, to the best of our knowledge.
But in my heart, I know that I want to be treated well, thus I should treat others well, as they are my equals.
The government only does what benefits the position and condition of the high class. Welfare prevents riots and coups. So do unemployment benefits. Taxes are kept minimal for the high class, and the tax code allows for further tax forgiveness for the wealthy. Universal health care does not benefit the wealthy, and so it has yet to be implemented.
The working class produces all tangible wealth in a nation, but receives only a small percentage of that wealth in return. The minimum wage could easily change this, but once again the postulation holds true. And if one must work to live, he or she has little time to become a revolutionary. Thus only the miscreants, undesirables, the resistors of authority, the addicts, truly involve themselves wholly in movements,which makes them easily destroyed by mere propaganda. The unions were our best and only hope, but even they are destroyed because of the seeding of jealousy in the non-unionized majority. The high classes are mysteriously absent in all walks of life and the world except in fantasy – movies, music, TV – propaganda
Asphalt Thoughts I
By lordofasphalt
Things I Know
—————–
I am here because my parents had sex, so on so forth.
I am 23 years of age.
I don’t share a lot about myself with others.
All that exists is rational.
“I am Ugly”
“I am Unlikable”
“I am Unpopular”
Are all statements which can not be empirically determined. Qualitative analysis is not empirical and in fact is the antithesis to the ideal. Thus any type of survey or opinion based statistic will always be plagued by subjectivity.
Sartre felt he was ugly – was this true?
Are only the ugly truly drawn inward to search out deeper meaning?
Why were genes of resulting in ugliness allowed to be passed down for thousands, tens of thousands of years, if they were truly “ugly” and/or “undesirable?”
My only conclusion is that none of us are ugly outside of our control of physical fitness and eating habits. Plastic surgery/cosmetics are an attempt to literally look like a different person, and hide our unique genetic expression.
Standards of beauty outside of fitness and even of fitness are set in a normative fashion by the elite classes of the world. They are not set by the working class at large – else we would all have such standards and would have long ago dealt with the “ugly” “undesirable” genes of our races.
THERE ARE too many factors to be considered insofar as the unmarried, childless individuals are concerned. No conclusions can be drawn about them. Coincidence, chance, social standing, looks attitude, wealth, integration, network all play a role.
“Looks” then truly have no effect, as far as I am concerned, in the world of love. There may be slight tendencies – being of healthy weight, for instance – sharp or round features, eye color, posture, but again too many factors to come to any concrete understanding of the influence of appearance.
It is my opinion as well that any attempt to study these tendencies falls short.
If in fact that, for instance, the most attractive individual physically is the one with the most mixed genes, then it is unacceptable for us as a race to only mate with the most “attractive.” To make a truly near perfect race we must mate wide and far. Eugenics would be a mistake.
However, any further growth in the world population would be a mistake as well. Already there is too much competition amongst us, and it can only become worse. Our resources are kept artificially scarce as a result of 80% of all wealth being in only 10% of the hands…thus we can take the wealth of 90% of the bottom incomes and multiply it by 5 to come to an understanding of how much we are truly worth in the working low and middle classes. No actor, or manager, or musician, or politician, or “owner” of “land “organization” or “raw resources” deserves to “make” or “be valued” many times the amount of one of us.
As for ownership, it makes little rational sense. How can ONE profit from the extraction of raw resources? Even if he “owned” all of the equipment necessary, still he would only deserve to profit alone if he worked alone. Therefore those who he employs deserve equal share as long as their labor is equally important, and in many cases, it is more important.
What is “owning something?” Something private certainly makes sense to be owned – but how can a business be owned? How can resources be owned?
Land was first drawn into sections and sold with no original cost to governments. This is the first example of government profit without providing anything of value (because the land had no value.) This was an original instance of artificially making a resource scarce. Those within government were able to profit and even provide themselves large amounts of land without cost to them. And as the first salesmen of a valueless product, they set the value and started the ball rolling with inequitable distribution of wealth. Some families were grandfathered into their lands early in the colonization of America…but eventually indentured service and the land sales began.
Artificial scarcity is also produced by the existence of renting land or place of living. There is no need for the law to allow individuals ownership of multiple places of residence. The land lord mimics the “lords” and nobles of the feudal era, who taxed all serfs living within their lands. The lord, with threat of force, recovered all that he was owned. Today, if one does not pay rent, one finds oneself charged and prosecuted by armed, state-supported thugs. One faces jail time – no different than facing a dungeon in times past.
It is enough for the lord to simply collect tax (or rent) – he or she need not work or contribute positively to the society to earn their keep…they need only, like a parasite, to take from others what is not rightfully theirs.
Because there are many land lords, actual housing increases in value and cost, precisely because so many houses are already owned and rented. Scarcity increases value, this is a simple rule of simple economics. Thus our friendly leftover from the feudal era isn’t helping the vast majority of us live in relative ease whatsoever. It is only another expression of inequitable distribution of resources.
Because I can not be sure of actual causes for disparity in treatment, I can only assume that much of it is in fact due to random chance.
However, it is true that if we do things the same way that we can expect similar results, if the scientific method is true.
Thus must I change who I am to obtain the treatment I desire?
Many americans seem to be on a similar wavelength when it comes to the government. It makes little sense that it continues to persist with the same ideology, knowingly bringing about further dissent. Eventually the pendulum will break and the people will make their voices heard, not through a peaceful democratic process – as it has been corrupted beyond repair – but through ammunition. There is nothing particularly surprising about this as history teaches us, but it is perplexing that the high classes continue unabated and ignorant of the future consequences they alone are producing.
Moreover, I can not bring myself to understand their reasoning. Short term gain has no place, although I suppose being that we are mortal, those who can take advantage of their situation will with the utmost disrespect for the rights, desires and emotions of others not in an advantageous position, will.
As Plato’s ring teaches us, those who don’t take advantage of it are fools, and those who do are criminals.
But can we blame the high class if this is the case? Can we expect morality in a world of moral relativism?
The snake does not consider issues of morality – no animal does. Only human beings have constructed a code of ethics. And indeed created it when once there was nothing, to the best of our knowledge.
But in my heart, I know that I want to be treated well, thus I should treat others well, as they are my equals.
The government only does what benefits the position and condition of the high class. Welfare prevents riots and coups. So do unemployment benefits. Taxes are kept minimal for the high class, and the tax code allows for further tax forgiveness for the wealthy. Universal health care does not benefit the wealthy, and so it has yet to be implemented.
The working class produces all tangible wealth in a nation, but receives only a small percentage of that wealth in return. The minimum wage could easily change this, but once again the postulation holds true. And if one must work to live, he or she has little time to become a revolutionary. Thus only the miscreants, undesirables, the resistors of authority, the addicts, truly involve themselves wholly in movements,which makes them easily destroyed by mere propaganda. The unions were our best and only hope, but even they are destroyed because of the seeding of jealousy in the non-unionized majority. The high classes are mysteriously absent in all walks of life and the world except in fantasy – movies, music, TV – propaganda