PDA

View Full Version : Sustinence Mutuality


TSA
08-15-2008, 08:30 PM
a hypothesis of mine


basically it means that government has no altruistic obligation to the people and it's main function is to exist and perserve it's own existance, and this and driven everything governments to for ages (in contemporary times alturism has been an increasing part of government, but is a part and not a core value). It was created so that its existance pervents a state of nature and therefore by existing it is serving its fundamental purpose.

therefore since a governments key function is to exist and it works to perserve its self, it also works to preserve and enhance its means of sustinance which is taxes that come from produce, people, and purchase.

therefore by working to enhance these 3 things it appears to be working to help the ppl or make things better for the country in an altruistic fashion, but that's not the motive it's just the result. Mutual dependance of 2 elements for sustinence.


im typing some shit about why Northern Nigeria is worst off economically recieving as much oil money as it does as opposed to taxes from farms and people even though it doesn't produce oil. The result was as i read statistics the more oil it recieved the poorer ppl got, and the further agricultural output declined until it when from exporting agricultural shit to fucked and dependant on the south's oil, also the more oil the country was getting period the poor ppl and things got, because the government had no obligation to them since its sustinance was coming from oil and not ppl. All attempts to be a good government because acts of pure altruism which was inconsistant, and a weak motive to improve things, or atleast weaker then sheer human greed.


It also shows why a lot of 3rd world governments are neglectful, cause they usually recieve money from all sources except taxes from ppl and business, or they recieve tax by force... (illegitimate authoritatian governments, since they are not legit theoretically taxes don't belong to them, like if your in a resturant and your about to pay 15 dollars to the person that owns it or has authority there, then it gets hijacked by robbers and you have to give the money to them cause they're now the highest authority and demand it)..and therefore it's not mutual, it's parasitic and all acts to improve the nation on their behalf is alturistic cause with or without them they're getting paid, nigga.


here's the fancy explaination i came up with





Government is an entity that is built with one goal in mind; to preserve itís own survival. Government is devised by man as a means of protection from a state of nature, or lawlessness. Therefore, in order to prevent this collapse into anarchy, governments are established, and the preservation of itself means the preservation of nation from nature, serving the original purpose of establishment. In order to continue to function, a Government is dependent on revenue from the nation and devises means of attaining it. In a Nation State, the government receives its sustenance from taxes, and receives taxes from purchase, produce, and people. Therefore, in order to enhance itself and better the chances of survival, the government works to enhance its lifeblood by promoting purchase, promoting produce, and promoting people, with the same mentality used by a business owner in enhancing a business or a farm in increasing production. These three elements combine to make what has been defined as Economy, and create another bond unspoken till today; Sustenance mutuality.

Prior to rational investigation into the issue, contemporary theorist, and the common man believed that the strive of government to Ďbetterí their nation was driven by an altruistic desire to enhance the existence of the people within itís boarders. This is in fact true to an extent, but a reflection of an outcome as opposed to an explanation of a cause. Belief in the altruism as a drive to improve a nation is the product of a limited understanding of the nature of mankind and the institutions it establishes. Government in actuality is still, and always will be, striving for itís own survival when hospitals, roads, schools, rails, and ports are constructed. These and other improvement given to a nation by its government are means to enhance purchase, produce, and people in order to enhance the sustenance provided by these three elements. This in turn translates to a government tied to its means of survival; people, that leads to the construction of infrastructure and law which appears to serve the people thus creating a civil mutualism. Because the people pay taxes, the government works to preserve and improve them the same way a factory owner fixes and improves his machinery. To enhance itís own revenue and ability to exist because existence is governments core motive, it works to improve the Ďeconomyí or purchase, produce, and people. This mutuality is characterized in the saying "donít bite the hands that feed you"


thoughts?

Prolifical ENG
08-15-2008, 09:19 PM
I gotta go but there is some things I wanted to say here possibly tomorrow so Im posting to subscribe to the thread.

TSA
08-15-2008, 10:43 PM
http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/image.php?u=3828&dateline=1209856796 (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/member.php?u=3828)cheers

TSA
08-16-2008, 05:02 PM
where you at Hoelific, i see you online homie
bird call
Brrrrurruruppppppuuuurururrr

Prolifical ENG
08-16-2008, 05:45 PM
Government's overall goal I don't think is to preserve itself like that however it is a primitive thing to do in establishing itself.

If the government has no obligation to the people, it will end up struggling to preserve itself even more....so in some circumstances governments will be like that. Then they need to fight off guerrillas for years.

If the government accomplishes the first step then it can focus on the people's obligations. Along with running the economy, the standard of living needs to increase (in order for more revenue). When people start starving, revolutions are forced and the government becomes unstable and its primitive "goal" failed. This is why France and Russia were behind during the industrial revolution leading to kings and czars being guillotined.

So I think it is a first step in forming a government, but not always the focus of the government. Of course the people in power want to stay in power and need to demonstrate their strength. You can't rule with an iron fist if your people are starving.

In the lesser economically developed countries I think their struggles go beyond this concept. Although I think you're right that these governments have to spend more energy preserving itself first as it is a priority. Agricultural options and lack of initial infrastructure (no communication) are obvious obstacles to overcome as well as too many revolutions each year. If there is more than 1 authority group and they aren't clear with each other on their roles (such as federal and municipal) then the people suffer. They are battling each other to protect/preserve itself from the other.

Ghost In The 'Lac
08-16-2008, 06:01 PM
It was created so that its existance pervents a state of nature and therefore by existing it is serving its fundamental purpose.

therefore since a governments key function is to exist and it works to perserve its self, it also works to preserve and enhance its means of sustinance which is taxes that come from produce, people, and purchase.



What do you base any of this on? The US government was not created for this purpose at all. "Created to pervent a state of nature" Wtf, thats on some B.S. Where are you getting this shit from. I think the nigga been reading too much karl marx.

I suggest you read more on the philosphpies of Benji Franklin, a founding father and constitution creator. He was for the people 100%. What you are saying is not only ignorant of him, but also disrespectful to your founding fathers. Dont blame the Bush GOP you have now on the past.

TSA
08-16-2008, 06:48 PM
Prolif, your really not disagreeing with me
see


Government's overall goal I don't think is to preserve itself like that however it is a primitive thing to do in establishing itself.

If the government has no obligation to the people, it will end up struggling to preserve itself even more....so in some circumstances governments will be like that. Then they need to fight off guerrillas for years.

and has such an obligation to preserve its self like you said. Why would the government fight off gurillas if the ppl have spoken and don't want it in place, and if theres guerillas theres enough of a problem for such a strong concensus to be against the government, yet the government throws it's self into self preservation.

If the country is not working, like you said, it will struggle more to preserve its self, therefore a government strives to makes sure a country is working in a way that points out self interest and not alturism if you read between the lines.



If the government accomplishes the first step then it can focus on the people's obligations. Along with running the economy, the standard of living needs to increase (in order for more revenue). When people start starving, revolutions are forced and the government becomes unstable and its primitive "goal" failed.

exactly what im stay, the ultimate state failure is the eventual ousting of the government for whatever reason, and in further proof to the reality of sustinance mutuality, what happens when you try and over throw that gov or get rid of it? resistance from that government EVEN though they know they've fucked up. Its because not fucking up is a secondary objective that is only complimenting the primary objective, existing. Governments primary obligation, not moral, not logic, but actual, is existing and preserving it's own existance, from there everything else sprouts.



This is why France and Russia were behind during the industrial revolution leading to kings and czars being guillotined.

Because they governments relation to the ppl in those nations were no longer seen as mutual, but none of those governments up and left by themselves? when the resistances got more and more fierce they through more and more resources into self preservation which they didn't succeed at until all their resources were focus of surviving in the final hour and they still failed cause it wasn't enough.

So I think it is a first step in forming a government, but not always the focus of the government. Of course the people in power want to stay in power and need to demonstrate their strength. You can't rule with an iron fist if your people are starving.

its not the first step, its really the only step, and everything eles sprouts from it. Once a government is established it has done what it is supposed to do, exist to prevent a state of nature, and the primary objective is to keep existing, so they do what they need to do to exist and more likely then not these things mutually benefit the ppl.




In the lesser economically developed countries I think their struggles go beyond this concept. Although I think you're right that these governments have to spend more energy preserving itself first as it is a priority. Agricultural options and lack of initial infrastructure (no communication) are obvious obstacles to overcome as well as too many revolutions each year. If there is more than 1 authority group and they aren't clear with each other on their roles (such as federal and municipal) then the people suffer. They are battling each other to protect/preserve itself from the other.

yeah,, my reference to 3rd world countries means this is part of the equation, a HUGE part of the equation.

You have to consider the most corrupt countries in the world and check how much of the money the gov has comes from ppl, it ususally doesn't. If it isn't Aid, its some natural resource extracted by international companies.

when this happens, the Government is not as obligated to the people as it was because with or without their contribution they're gonna make it, so they're more and more neglectful and when they decide to develop things in the country its out of patriotism and alturism as opposed to a gut need to have these institutions in place to ensure government survival. Usually this patriotism and alturism is inconsistant cause not everyone in gov is gonna be this way, and thats when discontent that eventually leads to overthrow or state collapse.

But if you look at the United States, the vast majority of our gov funds come from the middle class, which is why the government needs to make sure ppl can keep being middle class and the slightest economic fluctuation is a problem.

In Nigeria on the otherhand the vast majority of our gov funds come from oil, which is why the government needs to make sure oil can keep pumping and is not as obligtated to the ppl (and acts so) as it is to oil companies and itself, it really doesn't need them, if they try and overthrow the gov then its a result of the neglect born by a lack of sustinance mutualism. Now in the colonial era and first decade of the Republic this wasn't so, gov. money came from taxes, and business and therefore the amount of accountablity gov. had to ppl was healthy, things grew, roads were built and so forth. Then you see a pattern, the higher the % of gov funds came from oil the more decay, the less building, the less development, industries fell farming was completely neglected, and Nigeria's rank in the corruption index climbed.



like when you go to a business, why is a resturant so focused on pleasing the customer and making sure you spend money and come back? cause your the means of sustinance, but does it offer this same type of gratitude to all people? ppl on the street, do employees walk up to them and say "are you guys doing ok?", no, they don't, cause that companies sustiance has nothing to do with the ppl on the outside, its about the ppl on the inside and if somehow somebody started funneling money to them out of nowhere that behemoths over the amount they're getting from customers im talking 99% from funnel 1% from ppl like 3rd world countries you will see a change in attitude and focus

because that company is in the business of preserving it's self and it's primary goal is to preserve it's self but getting sustiance. If that sustiance comes from customers then a mutual relationship is developed.



-co-sign the guy in the white.

what your basically saying is if a gov goes by this mentality it will fall. What im saying is gov's fall cause they go by this mentality, and it's not really a mentality, its a reality. A gov. actions are driven by a need for self preservation, exactly like a business, and even like people in a broader extent. Everything done by these three elements is primarily based on self preservation which sometimes translates to good and bad deeds, but ppl confuse the seemingly good deeds of government with it's objective cause these good deeds are how their objective is reached, and even when the existance of a government proves to be bad for the ppl it still tries to preserve itself, cause good and bad are not in the equation, the equation is self preservation and what must i do to get there.

because ppl give taxes that allow preservation the government serves them, but if the sustiance provided by taxes is proved by an alternative source you'll see the relationship between gov and ppl change for the worst cause it doesn't need the ppl, and this causes failure in all aspects of governance.

TSA
08-16-2008, 07:06 PM
What do you base any of this on? The US government was not created for this purpose at all. "Created to pervent a state of nature" Wtf, thats on some B.S. Where are you getting this shit from. I think the nigga been reading too much karl marx.

I suggest you read more on the philosphpies of Benji Franklin, a founding father and constitution creator. He was for the people 100%. What you are saying is not only ignorant of him, but also disrespectful to your founding fathers. Dont blame the Bush GOP you have now on the past.

this have nothing and everything to do with the US government at the same time. If you are not aware of the state of nature law its gonna be hard for you to continue past this point. But yes, a government is established by a people to prevent a state of disorder-anarchy-ex, or as referred to by Benji Franklin, a state of nature.

Ben Frank was for the ppl cause he was a nice guy, cool, but that's a swallow interpretation of what im saying. Government is run by ppl. Ppl can be good (ben frank), but that doesn't mean Government is good. Like a tractor, a tractor isn't good or evil, it's a damn tractor, but the drive can be good and do good with it or bad and do bad with it, but that's another arguement


i base all this on every credible philosopher on the subject i've read in the past 5-6 years, including benji frank, logical conclusions i've made, and the books he's read to know that he knows over a period of sociological, economic, historical and political studying that has been going on since i was 13.


but yeah, you missed my general point. A government is established by a people to prevent or avoid anarchy, savagary, or a state of nature. This state of nature is prevented by having a government in place. A government's primary drive then, is to continue to to prevent that state of nature by continuing to preserve its own existance, and almost everything a government does is based around this. To keep surviving a government gets its sustinance from whatever means it can, often taxes. When they gov gets it from taxes, it therefore tries to enhance its ability to collect more taxes, or keep these taxes coming be caring for the economy, or people purchase and produce.

it's catastrophic to a country, both gov and civilian when this sustiance isn't coming from taxes, but instead from an alternative source, example aid in Haiti, oil in nigeria, oil in chad and so forth. These countries don't need to tend for their people purchase and produce cause quite frankly they don't need them, the same way a business owner doesn't need the ppl across the street and therefore doesn't use 'customer service' on them.

when this tie of mutuality providing eachothers sustinance is broken, countries often fail into corruption and disrepair unless the occassional good hearted leader comes in and helps, but in general it becomes more of a favor from a sense of civic duty as opposed to a NEED.

if any road in US fucks up it gets fixed asap, why? cause the middle class needs that road, and the government need the middle class, not cause the gov is dedicated to good.

Prolifical ENG
08-16-2008, 07:15 PM
Yeah im not really disagreeing.

Its hard to find concrete evidence in a well working government of sustenance mutuality because the people do benefit anyway.

In a struggling nation I guess you can cry "sustenance mutuality" since it could be the trigger of most of the issues keeping the nation down because they keep going in circles with it and get no work done. Going closer to the main source you could just start defining and identifying "true" nation (states).

TSA
08-16-2008, 07:49 PM
well the relationship isn't the problem, its when it's broken or gov gets its means of existance from a source other then ppl.

this is why governments most dependant on their peoples taxes are the most accountable and most functional because the gov's need to maintain a country goes beyond just being nice because the government's survival and enhancement is critically linked to the peoples output and taxes.


its an invisible hand that drives everything the government does.

when i was reading A History Of Britian, it became evident that imperialism was an answer to overproduction, everything else, the christianity and the racism blah blah was external and cause coating to the real cause: creating markets for the surge of products industrialization is causing.

it was the first industrial empire, which is different from agricultural empires.

an industrial empire needs to find markets for an surplus of goods or else the economy will collapse under its own weight (too much shit, no customers). Leading to an eventual collapse of the government, and also since the british government, like most western governments, has always been upheld by taxes and taxes alone, the richer the ppl the more enhanced government can be, so imperialism made sense.

all the shit they did to other countries was to create more customers and get more raw material to keep pumping out da juice.


an agricultural empire is one who's government based purely on the acquistion of property and power to enhance its own survival. Its not really looking for customers, just purely reasources cause its not over producing, like the rome, spain and portugal. Greece begun to establish colonies when they were overproducing agriculturally and needed different resources from different regions and to solidify wealth.

America and modern China, and most empires after the Crimean War are industrial empires, theres less a need for an land and direct control and conversion of ppl they're are over, but instead a need to create markets for their goods.

China is building roads, ports, and rails and buying debts all over the world(the more debt you have with the country to more trade), and America is being American.


but yeah, in the end they just governments trying to preserve their own existance by enhancing the wealth of their ppl, which will translate to mo'pahwah.