True Freedom = No Job, Marriage, Children or Mortgage

[momopi]

Children are a burden in MODERN society because from the ages of 1-18 they can't contribute anyway to the family nor can they take care of themselves. Then from the ages of 18 into old age, most kids decide to use their labor to help everybody else but their own family.
So what's the point? Parents are sacrificing their lives to raise healthy young adults who will then use their labor to make Burger King, the sex industry, the military, or the government rich, all while the parents have to scramble around and try and figure out how they are going to retire.
Edit: What needs to happen is the elimination of compulsorily education and children need to start working in their respective field at young ages because they can do it. For example, I believe that a 15 year old should be able to get a job at a hospital and apprentice with the head doctor (this is how it was done in the past). In doing so, a child can learn to take care of itself much earlier in life, and be able to contribute his or her immediate family.

I just remembered this silly thing:

[Ghost]

-----

[nik]

I agree with you Winston.
I have a similar theory of my own philosofi althouw mine is 40 % slavery if you work, 40 % if you have children and 20 % if you are married. I think mortgage loans should not be considered at all here since you can take a loan and have a well paid job, Then it will not take away anything of your freedom.
Anyway all those who disagree with Winston are either jelous about him or they are people so bored in their life, that their children gave them the happiness and interest they needed to fill their boring free time.
Children are a very interesting and beautiful thing in life, but those who said Winston is not a good father, i would like them to write me back here after 15 years, not now please. Now do not waste your time and take care of your babies who saved you from a boring life.
At last, some of you said that you have already travelled everywhere, met lots of women, and all these things are not interesting for you anymore. I think you live in a dream. Wake up!

[Seeker1514]

I agree with much of what the original post of this thread states, but I also disagree with some aspects of it. For starters, although it is usually said with regards to tyrants and people who want to do others harm and so forth, freedom isn't free! Whether it's freedom from tyrants or from a job, it isn't free. Yes, it sucks that everyone has to work, but if no one did any work, then nothing would get produced. Who would grow the food? Build the infrastructure? Operate said infrastructure? Who would serve as the medical doctors and medical personnel, who would invent the new technologies, etc...the innumerable goods and services that exist in society that make life much easier all have something in common, i.e. they are created through the work of humans.

You want to try to have a job that you like. But having a job should also be looked at in a different way, in that you are producing for society. Everyone who works and has a job, down to a lowly janitor, is doing work that ultimately people will appreciate. In order to have the freedom to be free from working, then you must produce something of such value that it then allows you to retire from working. Nothing wrong with this. Such a thing could be an invention you come up with or a business you build. But you must PRODUCE SOMETHING to have the money and wealth to achieve this kind of true freedom.

I think Winston misunderstands what a job is in the following sense as well. He writes:

A job basically enslaves you to servitude within a private dictatorship exchange for financial compensation. Working for someone else means you have to conform to a strict schedule - waking up at a certain time, eating at a certain time, and getting off at a certain time - while being in a position where you are constantly judged and evaluated by your performance. And of course, it locks you into a specific geographic location so that you can't travel (unless you are lucky enough to have a job that pays you to travel).

Thus, when you have a regular job, you cannot just wake up and say, "I feel like going to the beach today" or "I will go visit my parents today and spend some quality time with them" or "I will stay home and spend quality time with my kids today" or "I will sleep in and have a nice big breakfast when I wake up". Instead, you have to wait for the weekend to be "free", so technically, you are only free 1 or 2 days out of 7 days a week, which means that 70 percent of your week is spent in servitude! (and during the weekend, you are tied down by your spouse and kids)

So how can you call that freedom? It doesn't make any sense! But of course, we are all slaves to money so we have to work. So sadly, true freedom in this world requires financial independence and either lots of money or a steady flow of it. Therefore, it is best to find a way to work for yourself (ideally in a way that doesn't tie you to one location everyday, such as a portable business, internet based business or other form of residual income).

The thing is, it isn't the job that enslaves you, it's that NOTHING in this world is free. If you want food, shelter, clothing, etc...then you either have to do what humans originally did, which was to spend all day foraging and hunting to acquire them yourself and make your own clothing, or specialize in a particular skillset, and produce something from that skillset, which you then trade with society for all the other innumerable goods and services in society. Money serves as the medium of exchange, as you can't directly barter your being a lawyer let's say for gasoline and food.

The job itself, however, isn't slavery. So long as you are in a free society, you are generally free to quit your job whenever you please and work wherever you please. Certain employers have certain conditions for your employment, sure, but that's because depending on what good/services they provide, they cannot be hiring people who will only come in and work when they feel like it. If you don't like their conditions, you don't have to work for them (and competition from the free-market makes companies compete to offer good incentive packages).

About the only free thing in the world is air, because no one has to work to acquire it. It's there for the taking. To acquire freedom from having to produce, you must either:

1) Create a system that automatically does work for people with minimal involvement from you (some businesses can work like this)

2) Invent something or build a business that gives you enough wealth where your money can then basically work for you via investments and so forth, so you only need do minimum work for the rest of your life.

Now regarding things like marriage, children, and mortgage, I wholeheartedly agree on all those points. Marriage is completely pointless but can really screw you over later on, and mortgage and children, forget it. On the political parties, I'd have to say that I disagree that they both represent the same interests, they do not and they have completely different policy agendas that they pursue. The average person doesn't notice this much because they don't pay much attention, because for most people, that kind of stuff is incredibly boring. But there is enormous difference between the two of them.

[Winston]

I agree with much of what the original post of this thread states, but I also disagree with some aspects of it. For starters, although it is usually said with regards to tyrants and people who want to do others harm and so forth, freedom isn't free! Whether it's freedom from tyrants or from a job, it isn't free. Yes, it sucks that everyone has to work, but if no one did any work, then nothing would get produced. Who would grow the food? Build the infrastructure? Operate said infrastructure? Who would serve as the medical doctors and medical personnel, who would invent the new technologies, etc...the innumerable goods and services that exist in society that make life much easier all have something in common, i.e. they are created through the work of humans.

You want to try to have a job that you like. But having a job should also be looked at in a different way, in that you are producing for society. Everyone who works and has a job, down to a lowly janitor, is doing work that ultimately people will appreciate. In order to have the freedom to be free from working, then you must produce something of such value that it then allows you to retire from working. Nothing wrong with this. Such a thing could be an invention you come up with or a business you build. But you must PRODUCE SOMETHING to have the money and wealth to achieve this kind of true freedom.

I think Winston misunderstands what a job is in the following sense as well. He writes:

A job basically enslaves you to servitude within a private dictatorship exchange for financial compensation. Working for someone else means you have to conform to a strict schedule - waking up at a certain time, eating at a certain time, and getting off at a certain time - while being in a position where you are constantly judged and evaluated by your performance. And of course, it locks you into a specific geographic location so that you can't travel (unless you are lucky enough to have a job that pays you to travel).

Thus, when you have a regular job, you cannot just wake up and say, "I feel like going to the beach today" or "I will go visit my parents today and spend some quality time with them" or "I will stay home and spend quality time with my kids today" or "I will sleep in and have a nice big breakfast when I wake up". Instead, you have to wait for the weekend to be "free", so technically, you are only free 1 or 2 days out of 7 days a week, which means that 70 percent of your week is spent in servitude! (and during the weekend, you are tied down by your spouse and kids)

So how can you call that freedom? It doesn't make any sense! But of course, we are all slaves to money so we have to work. So sadly, true freedom in this world requires financial independence and either lots of money or a steady flow of it. Therefore, it is best to find a way to work for yourself (ideally in a way that doesn't tie you to one location everyday, such as a portable business, internet based business or other form of residual income).

The thing is, it isn't the job that enslaves you, it's that NOTHING in this world is free. If you want food, shelter, clothing, etc...then you either have to do what humans originally did, which was to spend all day foraging and hunting to acquire them yourself and make your own clothing, or specialize in a particular skillset, and produce something from that skillset, which you then trade with society for all the other innumerable goods and services in society. Money serves as the medium of exchange, as you can't directly barter your being a lawyer let's say for gasoline and food.

The job itself, however, isn't slavery. So long as you are in a free society, you are generally free to quit your job whenever you please and work wherever you please. Certain employers have certain conditions for your employment, sure, but that's because depending on what good/services they provide, they cannot be hiring people who will only come in and work when they feel like it. If you don't like their conditions, you don't have to work for them (and competition from the free-market makes companies compete to offer good incentive packages).

About the only free thing in the world is air, because no one has to work to acquire it. It's there for the taking. To acquire freedom from having to produce, you must either:

1) Create a system that automatically does work for people with minimal involvement from you (some businesses can work like this)

2) Invent something or build a business that gives you enough wealth where your money can then basically work for you via investments and so forth, so you only need do minimum work for the rest of your life.

Now regarding things like marriage, children, and mortgage, I wholeheartedly agree on all those points. Marriage is completely pointless but can really screw you over later on, and mortgage and children, forget it. On the political parties, I'd have to say that I disagree that they both represent the same interests, they do not and they have completely different policy agendas that they pursue. The average person doesn't notice this much because they don't pay much attention, because for most people, that kind of stuff is incredibly boring. But there is enormous difference between the two of them.

You are right, but you miss a few things.

First, theoretically, society could be automated to the point where no one would have to work, or at least do minimal work. But the elite don't want that. They need to keep the masses busy in a state of fear and survival mode.

Back in 1995, my anti-American history teacher said that the technology already exists to make output so efficient that every American could only work 4 hours a day, part time, and the quality of living in America would still remain the same. But the elite don't want that. They need to keep people busy so they don't think about starting a revolution after realizing all the BS they've been fed.

That's why they con you into thinking that working 8 hours a day is necessarily, and why they set it up so that you have to in order to pay your expenses. The elite are getting exactly what they want, otherwise they would change it.

I don't misunderstand what a job is. I know why you have to have a job or business. I'm just saying that the nature of society is such that one is forced into it, and most people are not doing what they love for a living. I'm not saying that the government forces you to take a job, but that the needs of living in a monetary society requires you to. So in that sense, you are forced to. We all know that.

I don't think what you said disproves anything about the forced slavery nature of a job. It's still a forced form of servitude in that you have to do it to pay your bills. Also, most Americans feel empty without a job, like they are bored and have nothing else to do, so they are conditioned to WANT their enslavement.

In the big picture, it's a form of imprisonment, regardless of which way you want to look at it. Most people do live in an imprisonment lifestyle, regardless of how you want to spin it. That's the main point. Their life is enslaved to a schedule, to big demands, to stress, to performance evaluations, to a boss, etc. That's not freedom at all.

See my new article here about this and about some possible solutions:

http://www.happierabroad.com/Awakening.htm

[Seeker1514]

You are right, but you miss a few things.

First, theoretically, society could be automated to the point where no one would have to work, or at least do minimal work. But the elite don't want that. They need to keep the masses busy in a state of fear and survival mode.

What "elite" are you referring to? Many of the "elite" today are wealthy people who got where they are by hard and intelligent (and constant) work. How could society be completely automated? If the toilet gets stopped up or a pipe breaks, or a road needs fixing, we don't yet have robots that can do all of that.

Back in 1995, my anti-American history teacher said that the technology already exists to make output so efficient that every American could only work 4 hours a day, part time, and the quality of living in America would still remain the same. But the elite don't want that. They need to keep people busy so they don't think about starting a revolution after realizing all the BS they've been fed.

I'd say many of "the elite" who are in positions of power they want to preserve, don't want people to work as much because people who work are self-reliant and independent. The goal of most government bureaucrats who want to retain power is to make the people into adolescent children. One way to do this is to make them dependent on the State. As opposed to working and producing for themselves, make them dependent on the government handouts. This makes the people needy and where they view the government as a parental figure (as opposed to the alternative where it's the government that acts like an unruly child and the people who are the parents that the government is supposed to answer to).

I would also find it hard to believe that people could just work four hours a day and the quality of living would remain the same. The business corporations would sure love to know of this as it means they could stop hiring people and automate lots of things. Industry automates as much as it possibly can, that is why manufacturing continues to increase (it is a myth that America doesn't manufacture anything anymore) while manufacturing employment tends to decrease.

That's why they con you into thinking that working 8 hours a day is necessarily, and why they set it up so that you have to in order to pay your expenses. The elite are getting exactly what they want, otherwise they would change it.

Nothing gets produced if no one works. A lot of work is intellectual, and thus cannot be replaced by machinery.

I don't misunderstand what a job is. I know why you have to have a job or business. I'm just saying that the nature of society is such that one is forced into it, and most people are not doing what they love for a living. I'm not saying that the government forces you to take a job, but that the needs of living in a monetary society requires you to. So in that sense, you are forced to. We all know that.

But there really is no such thing as a "monetary" society. Things like money exist due to the nature of the world, i.e. limited resources for unlimited wants and needs.

I don't think what you said disproves anything about the forced slavery nature of a job. It's still a forced form of servitude in that you have to do it to pay your bills. Also, most Americans feel empty without a job, like they are bored and have nothing else to do, so they are conditioned to WANT their enslavement.

I think you are incorrect on both counts here:

1) Again, jobs are not forced servitude. It is simply reality that you have to work to be able to have things. You either must make everything yourself or produce something that you can trade on the market. That is just reality. If you don't like that, then you must produce something valuable enough that you don't have to work again.

2) People who feel empty without a job are not conditioned to want enslavement, because people who continue working when they don't have to are just doing it for fun. A lot of people like to produce things, as it gives them fulfillment and joy in life. They take pride in their work. Nothing wrong with that. Such work is really just a form of play when you are doing it because you want to.

In the big picture, it's a form of imprisonment, regardless of which way you want to look at it. Most people do live in an imprisonment lifestyle, regardless of how you want to spin it. That's the main point. Their life is enslaved to a schedule, to big demands, to stress, to performance evaluations, to a boss, etc. That's not freedom at all.

That is true, but the prison sentence in that sense I'd say is simply life itself, as nothing is free in life. So everyone must work. However, if you are smart, you work hard and intelligently so as to produce enough value that you can then retire and be free for all intents and purposes.

[momopi]

That's why they con you into thinking that working 8 hours a day is necessarily, and why they set it up so that you have to in order to pay your expenses. The elite are getting exactly what they want, otherwise they would change it.

US Labor Law actually doesn't define full time employment at 8 hours/day and 40 hours/week. The Fair Labor Standards Act deals with subjects such as overtime pay, minimum wage, exempt/non-exempt employee status, and so on. The employer is at liberty to set the minimum number of hours worked per week to be eligible for full benefits. Many companies offer FT status with full benefits for 30-36 hour workweek, but you have to negotiate for it. Honestly, in many office positions there are less than 8 hours of work/day, and if you can make a good case to your boss and accept a pay-cut for fewer hours worked, it's to the company's benefit and they can be very flexible. Folks with kids make such arrangements all the time so they can leave early and pick up their kids from daycare.

Back in Summer 2010, I only worked 6 hours/day and got off in early afternoon & went to the beach almost every day. That was a sweet gig and I didn't mind taking a $20k pay-cut for fewer hours worked. I still got full benefits (with fewer paid vacation days), saved the company money, and got all my stuff done. But this would only be an option if you made enough to afford the pay-cut, lived within your means, saved regularly, and make investment decisions that yield positive cash flow.

To cite one example, dining out at local Korean restaurant is about $8+ tax and tip for a bibimbap. At the local Korean supermarket, the freshly made bibimbap veggie mix is $4, but gets marked down to 1/2 price at 7pm daily, along with lots of other dishes. So if I go shop after 7pm, I get it for $2, cook my own rice at home, fry an egg and toss it on top. I get my bibimbap for <$3. Back in Summer 2010 when I hit the beach a lot, I did a lot of 1/2 priced happy hour specials at the restaurants along beach front. Good times.


http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/full-time.htm

[Winston]

You are right, but you miss a few things.

First, theoretically, society could be automated to the point where no one would have to work, or at least do minimal work. But the elite don't want that. They need to keep the masses busy in a state of fear and survival mode.

What "elite" are you referring to? Many of the "elite" today are wealthy people who got where they are by hard and intelligent (and constant) work. How could society be completely automated? If the toilet gets stopped up or a pipe breaks, or a road needs fixing, we don't yet have robots that can do all of that.

My God. You seem to not know what's going on in the world. I strongly suggest you watch the greatest documentaries out there right now. You can find them on YouTube or Google Video.

Zeitgeist - The Movie
Zeitgeist Addendum (considered by many, including me, to be the greatest documentary of all time, totally mind blowing and worth multiple viewings)

Also:
Also see the Thrive film at:
http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie

And these:
- David Icke: Oxford Union (2 hrs)
- David Icke: Freedom or Facism (7 hrs)
- David Icke: The Lion Sleeps No More (7 hrs)

The elite we are talking about are not your local millionaire, but the billionaires that hide in the shadows, like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. They control the Federal Reserve, Oil Industry, Banking Industry, Military Industrial Complex, the US Government, CIA, etc. They can have you killed and make it look like an accident. They meet every year at Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove and do black magic rituals. They join Secret Societies like the Freemasons and Skull and Bones. Etc. You got a lot to learn.

Many of these families are elites because they are bloodlines. Not because they got there by honest hard work. lol. My God. Do you believe everything you are told and brainwashed with? lol. What you believe is way wayyyyyy outdated. I haven't heard anyone say that since the 1980's. lol

Also, you don't become a billionaire through honest hard work. You become that way with help from powerful people, and by screwing many people over. Get real. Apparently, you don't know how things work in this world.

Back in 1995, my anti-American history teacher said that the technology already exists to make output so efficient that every American could only work 4 hours a day, part time, and the quality of living in America would still remain the same. But the elite don't want that. They need to keep people busy so they don't think about starting a revolution after realizing all the BS they've been fed.

I'd say many of "the elite" who are in positions of power they want to preserve, don't want people to work as much because people who work are self-reliant and independent. The goal of most government bureaucrats who want to retain power is to make the people into adolescent children. One way to do this is to make them dependent on the State. As opposed to working and producing for themselves, make them dependent on the government handouts. This makes the people needy and where they view the government as a parental figure (as opposed to the alternative where it's the government that acts like an unruly child and the people who are the parents that the government is supposed to answer to).

Huh??? I don't understand what you mean, and I've never heard it put that way before. Can you cite any sources for this?

I would also find it hard to believe that people could just work four hours a day and the quality of living would remain the same. The business corporations would sure love to know of this as it means they could stop hiring people and automate lots of things. Industry automates as much as it possibly can, that is why manufacturing continues to increase (it is a myth that America doesn't manufacture anything anymore) while manufacturing employment tends to decrease.

Well that's what you're supposed to believe, and apparently, you've bought it. Look at the technology today, which is 100 years behind what the government black ops have, according to hundreds of government whistleblowers. A lot of things can be automated, and potentially everything can. Businesses have stopped hiring and automated lots of things. That's why there are less factory jobs now and more service jobs. But society is set up so that money controls everything and that you have to work a lot. It's all engineered that way. You gotta connect the dots. You are basing your beliefs on what you've been fed by the system.

You can't deny that we are overproducing needless junk that goes to waste. Too much production and consumption. It's unnecessary. My history teacher said this based on the scholar works of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States".

That's why they con you into thinking that working 8 hours a day is necessarily, and why they set it up so that you have to in order to pay your expenses. The elite are getting exactly what they want, otherwise they would change it.

Nothing gets produced if no one works. A lot of work is intellectual, and thus cannot be replaced by machinery.

I don't misunderstand what a job is. I know why you have to have a job or business. I'm just saying that the nature of society is such that one is forced into it, and most people are not doing what they love for a living. I'm not saying that the government forces you to take a job, but that the needs of living in a monetary society requires you to. So in that sense, you are forced to. We all know that.

But there really is no such thing as a "monetary" society. Things like money exist due to the nature of the world, i.e. limited resources for unlimited wants and needs.

Huh? We live in a monetary society, which is all based on money. What are you talking about? Money is used to control people. It was set up that way and infiltrated by the bankers.

Here is an animated explanation of how money started and became used to rule the world by an elite few. The part about the history of money starts at 8:50.

The American Dream

I don't think what you said disproves anything about the forced slavery nature of a job. It's still a forced form of servitude in that you have to do it to pay your bills. Also, most Americans feel empty without a job, like they are bored and have nothing else to do, so they are conditioned to WANT their enslavement.

I think you are incorrect on both counts here:

1) Again, jobs are not forced servitude. It is simply reality that you have to work to be able to have things. You either must make everything yourself or produce something that you can trade on the market. That is just reality. If you don't like that, then you must produce something valuable enough that you don't have to work again.

2) People who feel empty without a job are not conditioned to want enslavement, because people who continue working when they don't have to are just doing it for fun. A lot of people like to produce things, as it gives them fulfillment and joy in life. They take pride in their work. Nothing wrong with that. Such work is really just a form of play when you are doing it because you want to.

If they are not forced servitude, then why do most Americans put up with a job they hate everyday? You are spinning things and using irrelevant points that don't change anything. There is political slavery and economic slavery. They are both forms of slavery. It is reality because it was set up and engineered that way. You sound like a conformist who does not see possibilities and our true potential. You sound like a typical Asian who sees the practical world as the only possible world. You got a lot to learn. Please see all the films above to expand your mind.

Some people love to work, but most feel empty without work because they are told that they are failures and useless without a job. It's conditioned.

In the big picture, it's a form of imprisonment, regardless of which way you want to look at it. Most people do live in an imprisonment lifestyle, regardless of how you want to spin it. That's the main point. Their life is enslaved to a schedule, to big demands, to stress, to performance evaluations, to a boss, etc. That's not freedom at all.

That is true, but the prison sentence in that sense I'd say is simply life itself, as nothing is free in life. So everyone must work. However, if you are smart, you work hard and intelligently so as to produce enough value that you can then retire and be free for all intents and purposes.

Yeah that's the way things are set up, but it's engineered that way. You aren't seeing the big picture. You are basing your view of reality based on the propaganda you've been told. Other possibilities exist. See the films above.

[Seeker1514]

My God. You seem to not know what's going on in the world. I strongly suggest you watch the greatest documentaries out there right now. You can find them on YouTube or Google Video.

Zeitgeist - The Movie
Zeitgeist Addendum (considered by many, including me, to be the greatest documentary of all time, totally mind blowing and worth multiple viewings)

These films are for the most part just conspiratorial conjecture. I'm surprised you'd take them at their word.

Also:
Also see the Thrive film at:
http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie

Another conspiracy theory film that is not grounded in science at all (and from a true member of the global elite, who himself apparently seems to believe there's an even higher elite!).

And these:
- David Icke: Oxford Union (2 hrs)
- David Icke: Freedom or Facism (7 hrs)
- David Icke: The Lion Sleeps No More (7 hrs)

You can't be serious here. This guy honestly believes that the world is secretly controlled by a group of reptilian humanoids.

No offense, but I wouldn't utilize conspiratorial documentaries as a way of learning about the world.

The elite we are talking about are not your local millionaire, but the billionaires that hide in the shadows, like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. They control the Federal Reserve, Oil Industry, Banking Industry, Military Industrial Complex, the US Government, CIA, etc. They can have you killed and make it look like an accident. They meet every year at Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove and do black magic rituals. They join Secret Societies like the Freemasons and Skull and Bones. Etc. You got a lot to learn.

Actually, I have been aware of that view for years. That's like the textbook conspiracy theory regarding the elite that supposedly secretly run the world. While there are lots of billionaires that stay behind-the-scenes, and who have a lot of power and influence, they do not control the likes of the Federal Reserve (which is not a private bank the way the conspiracists claim), CIA, or the U.S. government (other then through lobbying efforts). Look at the Koch brothers for example, owners of Koch Industries, who are very libertarian (i.e. against big government of any kind).

I also wouldn't put too much stock into the likes of the Freemasons or Skull and Bones as being ways in which some elite run the world. Conspiracy theories regarding both of these are a dime a dozen. It never occurs to such people it seems that at most these are just groups where men of influence meet up with other men of influence and that's that. Freemason meetings for example are public knowledge. And there's so much out there on Skull and Bones that for being a secret organization for the elite to control the world, they sure let it be public knowledge.

IMO, considering the power this supposed elite has, if they TRULY had such meetings or organizations, they would be secret organizations that no one has even heard of outside of their circles, and no one would thus even know where the meetings take place or that such meetings take place.

Many of these families are elites because they are bloodlines. Not because they got there by honest hard work. lol. My God. Do you believe everything you are told and brainwashed with? lol. What you believe is way wayyyyyy outdated. I haven't heard anyone say that since the 1980's. lol

It sounds like yourself that is the one brainwashed here, again no offense. But you're citing every textbook conspiracy theory there is. It used to be where most super-rich were born into it, but today, inherited wealth only makes up a fraction of the wealth of the wealthy, with most of it having been self-made. The last 30 years alone have produced more wealth then the previous 200. A whole lot of new multimillionaires and billionaires.

Also, you don't become a billionaire through honest hard work. You become that way with help from powerful people, and by screwing many people over. Get real. Apparently, you don't know how things work in this world.

You can become a billionaire either way. You're not going to tell me that the Google guys or Mark Zuckerberg or Wayne Huizenga, Steve Schwarzman, etc...didn't work hard to become billionaires.

Huh??? I don't understand what you mean, and I've never heard it put that way before. Can you cite any sources for this?

What part don't you understand? We are talking about social control. How a true elite would go about seeking to control a large population. Do you want a population of independent-minded, educated, critical-thinking citizens? Heck no. You want a population of needy, adolescent-minded citizens who depend on the government to look out for them. That secures the power base of the elite.

One way to accomplish this is through the design of the public education system. If you look at the old Prussian education system, which the American system was originally based off of, it had three levels, meant for the three major fixed classes of Prussian society:

1) One for the working class (which just taught people a limit amount of knowledge so they could do work, and also conditioned them to obey higher authority). This system is what the U.S. public education system was originally based off of and is very efficient at creating soldiers and employees. For example, look at how children in public schools change classes via a bell ringing. That's a leftover remnant of a social control mechanism. Note that in private schools and Catholic schools, there is no changing classes via a bell ringing. Each grade has its own classroom.

The reason for this was because in the early days, big business was very dominant of many aspects of the economy, and many major business elites, academics, government people, etc...wanted to create a people that didn't think much, for the following reasons:

- Such people are easy to campaign for as a politician (they won't demand any complex explanations about policy)

- Such people are very easy for big business to market all sorts of products to that an intelligent person wouldn't be prone to buying

- Such people provide a steady stream of worker bee-minded people who will just shut up and follow orders in industry (this was the hey-day of the assembly-line and unions). The LAST thing big business wanted was any workers with critical-thinking skills, those are the kind who will rally the workers and make demands from the company that is likely being abusive of them and thus mess things up profit-wise.

2) The second level was for the professional class, the lawyers, engineers, doctors, etc...who were more schooled then the working class, but still not really educated like the elite. If you look at education in the old Soviet Union for example, they had excellent training in mathematics and the sciences and engineering, but beyond that, forget it. So you could thus have Soviet mathematicians and Soviet engineers who were brilliant in those fields, but outside of that, they were as clueless as a carrot (because the Soviet government didn't want them being educated in the whole history of democracy and freedom or anything like that!).

3) The third level was for the ruling elite. These people received a full-on classical education, in everything from history, languages, literature, philosophy, critical-thinking skills, all of that. It was this mindset for such an education system that was behind much of the structuring of the American public education system in its early days.

Some good books to read on it are by John Taylor Gatto, a man who taught in the New York City public school system for decades and who is a former New York City and New York State Teacher of the Year.

Another method of social control is to make people dependent on mommy government. Just as a critical-thinking citizenry are dangerous to those who want power, a mature, independent, rugged, self-reliance-based citizenry is also dangerous. Work breeds maturity in a person. And mature people do not just obey higher authority. Look at the average 24 year-old from the 19th century versus today. Today, 20-something people are considered "kids" still (the Obama administration's new healthcare law even lets people remain on their parent's healthcare plan until 26 years-old). Now look at 24 in the 19th century. Back then, there was no concept of the "teenage" years, a boy just turned into a man and a girl turned into a woman, very early in life by modern standards as people back then also didn't live as long. Children often worked hard in ways that today would be considered possible abuse, and by age 14, they were adults. Boys knew how to shoot, ride, hunt, and protect their family then, and even were starting their own families at those ages. 24 was well-into adulthood back then. A 24 year-old from then would tend to be far more mature then the average 24 year-old of today.

Such maturity is dangerous to the State. To expand on this moreso, look at dogs. What are dogs? They are wolves that, through constant breeding, humans have stupefied. A wolf matures into an adult. And as such, it will not just obey a human master. A dog, on the other hand, maintains a permanent state of adolescence. It basically remains a permanent child, and as such, is very obedient to its master.

Well just as humans turned wolves into dogs, governments that want permanent power will seek to turn their people into adult children as well, as those are obedient to their "master," the government, and they will look to the government as a parent. The ways to do this are via control of the education system and via the creation of an extensive welfare state that is meant to breed dependency on the government. As such, it makes little sense for any ruling elite to force people to work all that much. It makes sense for them to create ways to occupy the masses to keep them from becoming unruly, for example, the Roman government did this via the gladiatorial matches and the chariot races and so forth.

And if you want to look into a real conspiracy, one area to research is who was really behind the creation of child labor laws. You will find that big business played a large role, albeit from behind-the-scenes, as this was intended as a long-term social control measure. One step to stopping people from maturing is to stop children from working. Children who work become very independent-minded and mature. Keeping them from working can stunt their maturity. For example, imagine if Paris Hilton (yes her) had had to start working, hard, as a little girl. Do you think she'd be the immature, irresponsible ditzy party-girl she is? Of course not. She'd be much more mature and responsible.

Now in saying that, I'm not saying child labor as business did it was an okay thing, it was not. But big business that was interested in long-term social control only used child labor until industry could finally could automated enough to stop using them.

Today, as big business is not as dominant as it once was, and the assembly-line no longer exists as it used to, the modern public education system is a remnant of this old system. And the welfare state we are seeing its failure and break-down in the European nations (where if you notice, the people often act like unruly children, rioting over cutbacks in government programs that would make many an American laugh). And in saying the old education system was built on this framework, I am not claiming that there was some secret society or group that centrally structured the system that way, but that was the general mindset among all the people involved in public education at the time if you research it.

Big changes especially hit with the onset of the Space Race in the Cold War, and all of a sudden, the government wanted everyone to get educated to be able to deal with the Soviets in the race for superiority in science and technology.

Well that's what you're supposed to believe, and apparently, you've bought it. Look at the technology today, which is 100 years behind what the government black ops have, according to hundreds of government whistleblowers. A lot of things can be automated, and potentially everything can. Businesses have stopped hiring and automated lots of things. That's why there are less factory jobs now and more service jobs. But society is set up so that money controls everything and that you have to work a lot. It's all engineered that way. You gotta connect the dots. You are basing your beliefs on what you've been fed by the system.

Money has ALWAYS controlled everything. When hasn't it? There is no such thing as a society without money. The communists tried repeatedly to set up societies without money and they all failed, because there can be no such system. The Europeans have created systems whereby people do not have to work as much, as we are seeing the collapse of those systems. They for years have been subsidized by the U.S. defense-wise as they live under the security umbrella the U.S. provides, and therefore have been able to spend a lot more money on their social welfare states. They also have higher taxes. Yet, even with their higher taxes and lackluster defense spending, their welfare states are still unsustainable. The other side effect is that it has resulted in the populations of these countries acting like adult children now that their freebies are being cut-back.

Yes, there are some exceptions that manage to maintain large social welfare states and fairly sound finances, but those tend to be countries with small, homogenous populations (and in Norway's case, 25% of their GDP comes from oil). They also do not spend much in the way of defense.

And of course the military and government has technology that is decades ahead of what the average citizen has. That technology is also very EXPENSIVE, and thus only the government and military with their enormous budget, can afford it. When such technology becomes cheap, it becomes available to the masses. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the government had access to computers and electronics technologies that the ordinary person has today. But back then, the technology was just far more expensive. Just because a technology isn't yet affordable doesn't mean they can't technically create it.

They might today be able to make a computer the size of a penny that has the same power of a high-powered gaming desktop. Of course, said computer may also cost hundreds of thousands of dollars right now. But just because it costs a lot, and thus only the military and government have them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can't be done. In fifty years, the average person will probably have computers that have the same power as modern supercomputers. But note that computers with such computing power exist today, just the technology is very expensive at the moment as they are supercomputers. If some "elite" were really hiding new technologies, then why would they ever have let the personal computer even take off? That revolutionized the global economy.

You can't deny that we are overproducing needless junk that goes to waste. Too much production and consumption. It's unnecessary. My history teacher said this based on the scholar works of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States".

That it's unnecessary is not for you or anyone to decide unless you want to control society in the way you claim an elite is doing. We have a free-market, i.e. free exchange of goods and services. If the masses want to buy a bunch of ultimately useless goods and services and people are willing to produce them, then that's their private business. And there is nothing scholarly about either Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn (in particular Chomsky).

Huh? We live in a monetary society, which is all based on money. What are you talking about? Money is used to control people. It was set up that way and infiltrated by the bankers.

No it wasn't. Money always exists, in any society. There is no such thing as a society without money, as there would be no way to trade goods and services. Banks are a necessary institution needed for a functioning economy, unless you want to live in a Third World economic system. Banks are part of a developed financial system, which allows money to get to those who need it to develop businesses and invent new things and create jobs and thus make the modern economy work. Look at any poverty-stricken area of the planet, and you'll find a lack of financial institutions like banks.

Here is an animated explanation of how money started and became used to rule the world by an elite few. The part about the history of money starts at 8:50.

The American Dream

Another conspiracy theory video. Money started in that you end up with an item that becomes tradeable for all other goods and services. In prisons for example, where there is no money, low-quality cigarettes serve as the medium of exchange (i.e. money).

If they are not forced servitude, then why do most Americans put up with a job they hate everyday? You are spinning things and using irrelevant points that don't change anything. There is political slavery and economic slavery. They are both forms of slavery. It is reality because it was set up and engineered that way. You sound like a conformist who does not see possibilities and our true potential. You sound like a typical Asian who sees the practical world as the only possible world. You got a lot to learn. Please see all the films above to expand your mind.

I am not spinning things nor am I making any irrelevant points, I am just pointing out reality. You yourself sound almost like one ofthose utopians who claims that if only we could tear down the existing society and put people such as yourself in charge, you would have the magical key to creating a better society then the one that exists now. Yet no one has ever created such a thing. All societies function badly, all humans can do is create those that function the least badly. People are always going to have work, and we will always have governmental corruption and corrupt businesspeople and so forth, but democratic government and the free-market function the least badly as a system of government and economic system. And the market economy continues to make things easier to the everyday person. Work is no longer back-breaking labor like it used to be.

You asked why do most Americans work a job they hate? Because they otherwise have no way to get food, or clothing, or a house, or gas, or anything else they need. What part of that do you not understand? None of that stuff is free. Someone, somewhere, has to produce all of it. And those people will only trade it in exchange for other goods and services. Or, you can try producing it all on your own (good luck there and that's a ton of work as well!).

You are using vague phrases, saying it's just "set up and engineered that way," well since when has it never been that people needed to work? And why, if such a system where no one needs to work really can exist, has no one succeeded in setting it up? There has been no shortage of utopian schemes and attempts to create utopian society. Usually they result in the very thing the people creating them claimed the previous society was, i.e. a society in which everyone is oppressed and there is a ruling elite. That's what happened with the Soviet Union. The communists took power by force, and created a slave state controlled by a ruling elite (them), which is the very things they claimed they were replacing (actually they were, they just replaced one ruling elite and slave state with another one).

Some people love to work, but most feel empty without work because they are told that they are failures and useless without a job. It's conditioned.

To some degree, yes. But it also holds truth. If you don't produce anything, you for the most part ARE worthless. For people to be able to eat and live comfortably, people have to work. If no one works, you end up with famines like happened in China during Mao Zedong.

Yeah that's the way things are set up, but it's engineered that way. You aren't seeing the big picture. You are basing your view of reality based on the propaganda you've been told. Other possibilities exist. See the films above.

No, that's just the reality of nature, not the way things are set up by humans. If you disagree, then how are things engineered that way? What alternative way is there? How is food going to get grown if no one grows it? How do new technologies get designed if no one designs them? How does anything get produced if no one does anything?

[anamericaninbangkok]

100% freedom = only having to take care of yourself and having the ability to do so without anyone else's assistance.

This is extremely rare IMO. If you have a business, you need customers, so they assist you. If you're a writer you need readers and an editor and/or publisher.

Also, I once read about freedom equaling enough savings to cover yourself for the entirety of one's life. So if you require $24,000 a year to live and you're 50, if you figure your lifespan to be 85 years, you need $24K x 35. The problem here is that there are always variables. You might get sick, your insurance might not cover you any longer, you might need to pay $100K for a surgery, etc., etc. But financial freedom makes it easier to have complete freedom.

I'm just wondering, now that your son is older Winston, do you still feel he's a burden or feel like you don't need to take care of him? The reason I ask is that it took me a couple of years (4 or 5) before I really felt like I had bonded with my sons. When they're laying around eating, crying, pissing, and shitting, it was tough for me to feel a bond. Now they're 12 and 10 and I have a relationship with them both, they look up to me (scary), and I have the obligation to prepare them for life.

For me, I like living a comfortable lifestyle. For me, comfort means less bills and stuff and more freedom without worry.

When my kids were growing up, I was traveling all over the world and would be gone from a week to a month at a time. I saw them thru Skype and did what I felt was necessary at the time. Now I'm home the majority of the time and my time spent with them has been the best time of my life. You never get the time back and they grow up quickly. My wife wanted to work after our first son. I told her no, she needed to be home with our son. Then after our second son she wanted to work, I told her no again. Years later, she's thankful for the time she had with them in their formative years. Many women are not in the position to stay at home with their children.

[Moretorque]

True freedom is when you have a counterfeiting charter.

[jamesbond]

Good video from Aaron Clarey explaining why men don't want to have children.

[Winston]

Have any of you noticed something? Society is too extreme in that it ALWAYS wants you to live for others and never for yourself: When you are a child, you live to serve your parents and teachers and school system and must be obedient to them (despite being told that you live in a "free country" if you're in America, go figure). When you get out of school, you are expected to get a job and serve the needs of your employer and company, putting their needs above your own. Then you are expected to get married and start a family. Once you do that, you serve their needs and live for them, putting your family's needs above yours. This is especially the case when it comes to children, you are expected to put their needs ABOVE yours and serve all their needs as though you were your kids' slave and servant and owed them everything.

So you see, if you do what society told you to do and be, and followed the ideal life set by society, you essentially NEVER get to live for yourself. You NEVER get to do what you want and what you love. You ALWAYS serve the needs of others. You are ALWAYS enslaved to others needs. In short, you NEVER get to truly live for yourself.

So what's all this talk about freedom? Freedom what? Freedom to always serve the needs of others and never for yourself? But alas, this is normal and it is what you are supposed to want.

[publicduende]

Have any of you noticed something? Society is too extreme in that it ALWAYS wants you to live for others and never for yourself: When you are a child, you live to serve your parents and teachers and school system and must be obedient to them (despite being told that you live in a "free country" if you're in America, go figure). When you get out of school, you are expected to get a job and serve the needs of your employer and company, putting their needs above your own. Then you are expected to get married and start a family. Once you do that, you serve their needs and live for them, putting your family's needs above yours. This is especially the case when it comes to children, you are expected to put their needs ABOVE yours and serve all their needs as though you were your kids' slave and servant and owed them everything.

So you see, if you do what society told you to do and be, and followed the ideal life set by society, you essentially NEVER get to live for yourself. You NEVER get to do what you want and what you love. You ALWAYS serve the needs of others. You are ALWAYS enslaved to others needs. In short, you NEVER get to truly live for yourself.

So what's all this talk about freedom? Freedom what? Freedom to always serve the needs of others and never for yourself? But alas, this is normal and it is what you are supposed to want.

That is a decent piece of logic, until you start noticing that a number of men, perhaps not "most of them" but "enough of them", actually like to serve their wives and children, and even their employers. Every bond of love, or even one of simple respect and loyalty, does involve sacrificing something of one's personal freedom so others can benefit.

On other posts, several members feel nostalgic for the good ol' marriage of yesteryear, the one where wives are sweet, feminine and attentive to their men's and kids' needs. They usually forgot to remember that an equal sense of devotion was expected and often exercised by the husbands and fathers as well, in equal measure if not a higher, since many were the sole breadwinners in the family.

It's always a matter of personal choice and balance. Some people here find your conduct reprehensible, and it might well be. Yet you are at least showing the courage to be yourself and consistent with your principles. By the same token I think you should have respect for those who decide to live for the others out of genuine love and desire to have a good family and be productive members of society.

[IraqVet2003]

Very interesting post!!!! I myself don't have any children nor do I have a mortgage. Also, as a guy at age 42, I never have been married and I don't feel I missed out on anything. And I agree with Winston that there is a certain freedom of being single and without kids. However, I think some of you H.A. fellows may be interested in this recent article entitled:

"Why More Women Are Choosing Not to Have Children"

http://www.yahoo.com/parenting/why-more-women

Also, check out this youtube video by Sandman: "Shaming Single Men".