@freemo Interesting that you engage, if such are your concerns.
Worst case, some dudes will try to smear you and we will reply with dadaist stuff. Standing at the ready.

After all, they are not world-changing big.

@admitsWrongIfProven I mean, my concern in that regard applies to any group that has membership... I have the same concerns joining a mastodon server (which is why I run my own) :)

@freemo And i thank you for that, qoto is very much where i want to be, if i want to be on social media at all.

@admitsWrongIfProven It always makes me very happy when I hear that :)

@admitsWrongIfProven Also it isnt about finding "happiness"... The idea is to support eachother to be a better person and largely to spend timein the fraternity engaging in charitable work. In fact almost all of what they do outside the lodge is charity.

@freemo "charity" is a dangerous concept... the moment you achieve the wealth to do so, how many people did you need to step over to gain it?

@admitsWrongIfProven Wealth? We arent talking about financial charity, though those who hav emeans do that too... There is no wealth requirement to freemasonry, the charity is mostly a donation of ones time, not money.

@freemo Oh... i guess building up some food supply and feeding the poor is nice - i just wonder what the actual difference is in the world.
See, why i don't try to help with soup kitchens is more get thrown into that slice of life than i could ever rescue. I don't aspire to be Don Quixote.

@admitsWrongIfProven Its usually much bigger than soup kitchens. For example the appendant bodies you have probably heard of tend to focus on very specific charitable purposes. For example the shriners focus on bringing health care to people who dont have access to it. They are responsible for starting a lot of non-profit hospitals and often are doctors or nurses themselves.

@freemo If you help and others take all they can, the result will not be favorable. It's an uneven match. I don't like violence, but violence is going on. That's about what i mean.

I doubt being nice is enough to turn this, please prove me wrong, i'll be with it in an instant. But i do not believe, just because it would be nice.

@admitsWrongIfProven

There also seems to be a gross disconnect here i just cant see in line with reality... The vast majority of people who have moderate to high wealth (millionairs) most didnt step on anyone.. I mean they are good people about as often as the poor... but most of them got where they were by working hard and treating their colleagues, clients, and employees fairly (which is why they excelled, because they supported so many people they got the best out of them). Shitty people sometimes make it rich, but more often than not they dont.

@freemo It is common for rich people to rationalize what they do.

There is so much wealth to go around, so much chances to be realized as profit.

Not everyone can be wealthy. In the end, one winning (more than others) needs another to sacrifice.

So, we could all have enough, but if some have more, others have less.

No economic shenanigans can defeat the physics behind having stuff. Stuff might be in abundance, but if you take all, none is left.

So, no rich person personally made anyone poor. It's just a general shifting of rules, chances. Nobody is to blame, but results are there.

@freemo Ok, i guess i will be recruited too by the freemasons if they read this and are good ^^

@admitsWrongIfProven they dont come to you, you can ask to join.

@admitsWrongIfProven yes rich people whoa re bad rationalize it all the time.. poor people who are bad also rationalize it... rich and poor have about the same perprotions of bad people who rationalize what they do.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> So, we could all have enough, but if some have more, others have less.

Also no, this is fundementally false and easily disproven... wealth isnt a fixed value you need to take from others to have more.

@freemo You cannot disprove physics. There are ten loafs of bread for five people. One takes all ten, the other four starve.

All economics arguments are invalid if that happens. And as long as food goes bad while people starve in roughly the same area, it does happen.

Your economic arguments come back into play if we have a less unfair power structure, but right now we do not.

@admitsWrongIfProven except there arent a fixed 10 loafs.. some guy might go out and harvest some seeds and make 100 loafs and come and now is loaf rich, all without taking any loafs from anyone.

@freemo That would be true if land was not owned :-)

Look at it from the result: we know starving people exist, way beyond the people that fast willingly.

So if the economic theory says that cannot happen, it must be wrong. Maybe only wrong due to circumstances beyond what is accounted for in the theory, but wrong none the less.

@admitsWrongIfProven the fact that land can be owned doesnt change the fact that i just demonstrated wealth (loafs) can be generated and isnt fixed... you just moved the goal post. Regardlesss to any otber objection you have i just showed how a oerson can become loaf rich without needing to take any loafs from the existing loafs being shared.

@admitsWrongIfProven also economic theory never claimed people cant starve... only that being wealthy doesnt mean i had to take it from someone else... they can be poor and starve all on their own without someone needing to take from them.

@freemo Ok, important distinction here: "can be", not "is". The products needed by people can be produced. That does not mean they are, it also does not mean they are available to everyone (affordably). After all, not everybody can just up and produce: one needs a place to do that and raw materials, which are not available to everyone just like that.

You yourself wondered:
> There also seems to be a gross disconnect here i just cant see in line with reality...

I think you fail to account for different starting positions in life. Even if someone modestly rich does not "step on anyone", that does not mean that everything is fine.
You once said you came from next to nothing and built everything up. Taking you at your word here, that is nice to accomplish. But it is not something that can reliably work for everyone. There is no reasonable safety net for those that fail, for those that just don't have a practical idea.

Which brings us back to the current status: people do starve, both here and in the US. Any talk about that it should work better is obviously not realistic - people don't starve for fun.

Maybe it would be time to reevaluate the core beliefs the economic arguments are based on? Somewhere in there, there must be something missing, and i would start with the assertions that people can do this or that. Can they really?

@admitsWrongIfProven you are all over the place man... one fact at a time... right now we are on the point that for one person to be wealthy (have a bunch of loafs) they dont need to take it from other peoples wealth (loafs), they can, and do, make more loafs without needing to take a loaf from anyone...

Once we establish and agree wealth is not a zero sum game and this is true we can go on to address other facts that may lead to unfairness ornpoverty... but one at a time or else you just muddy the water.

@freemo Ok, you are right, there are two things at play here:
The general economy, which can work better on counterintuitive principles. I do not doubt that part.

What i introduced additionally is the part where an economy, no matter how productive overall, is not useful to most people if distribution of its products is too uneven.

@admitsWrongIfProven Ok so do we agree atleast on the first point.. wealth isnt a pie, for someone to be rich they dont have to deprive other of their wealth, they can make their own?

@freemo Well it depends on who exactly.

Someone with no assets cannot do anything.

Assets can be abilities (is mentally stable enough and of able body regarding what a job needs) or money, land.

Obviously the latter (money/land) are way better, as you are way more flexible and do not expend your time, just something you have externally.

So, who do you mean? All are not equal!

@admitsWrongIfProven Who said anything about equality? We are talking about one specific thing, not if everyone can equally generate wealth, not if its fair, not anything but if wealth is a zero sum game.. once you agree to that we can move on to other aspects and get deeper into fairnes.

@freemo I agree that there exist people that can make their own, but not that they would not need anything. Assets are necessary, so they do not make "their own" out of nothing. They grow something from something, and what they use in the process is finite (at least for a snapshot in time).

@admitsWrongIfProven Again we arent addressing (yet) who can create wealth or if wealth can be generated fairly by everyone equally.. thats a fair tangent we can go on in a minute... But we agree on the fundemental original point, wealth is not fixed and one does not need to take it from others, it can be generated (even if generating it may mean converting and having some wealth to start).