I'm genuinely convinced we're in a matrix. (Or some of us are, and a ton of "people" are programs)

"

Boem wrote:

Not sure if you don't understand what i mean by merit though? I'm talking about IQ and productivity as standards for merit

Irrelevant. I'm generally against the (re) distribution of resources to those with the most merit because I believe resources should be distributed proportional to merit. That still means those with lowish merit are rewarded for small gains, a critically important and necessary incentive.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Not sure if you don't understand what i mean by merit though? I'm talking about IQ and productivity as standards for merit

Irrelevant. I'm generally against the (re) distribution of resources to those with the most merit because I believe resources should be distributed proportional to merit. That still means those with lowish merit are rewarded for small gains, a critically important and necessary incentive.

Not sure where you got the notion that people with lowish merit wouldn't be rewarded anything in my post.

"

Boem wrote:

society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds

That line says nothing about other people not gaining "any" resources. Like you said, proportionally the most wealth is generated by people with extreme IQ value's and extreme productivity value's.
Naturally they will have the highest pull to potential investors and gain most of society's resources.

Peace,

-Boem-

The difference between what I said and that one sentence of yours is: you are looking at resources as input, whereas I am looking at resources as reward. While the former is technically true, the latter is the economic motor; the latter is the incentive system.

I would oppose "society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds" if it meant taking resources by force from a thoroughly average person and giving those resources to the most productive person on Earth, which is "society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds" taken to it's ultimate authoritarian conclusion.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The difference between what I said and that one sentence of yours is: you are looking at resources as input, whereas I am looking at resources as reward. While the former is technically true, the latter is the economic motor; the latter is the incentive system.

I would oppose "society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds" if it meant taking resources by force from a thoroughly average person and giving those resources to the most productive person on Earth, which is "society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds" taken to it's ultimate authoritarian conclusion.

Bolted the part i explicitly refused in my initial post.

The free transfer of wealth.

If your looking for motivation, i think hunger and death are your prime candidates to look for, not keep people in a perpetual state of anxiety by offering the lowest possible means for survival and ensuring they can continually get that.

Even showing 0,001% merit in comparison to the most productive people would yield a sufficient life standard for most people currently because of the wealth generated by that top that goes around.

I'm not including fringe cases in this hypothesis situation for the obvious reason that we are both sensible people.

Peace,

-Boem-

Boem, I have no doubt that what you want and what I want are very similar to each other. I'm just pointing out, less gently than I had hoped, that the way you wrote that agreement had a sort of authoritarian bias to it. I didn't mean to imply that such a bias was deliberate.

There is some truth to the position that those with the most ability deserve the most responsibility, and with that the most access to resources. But there is also truth to the position that those of less (but nonzero) ability deserve an opportunity to further develop that ability and thus also deserve access to resources — not as pets of the productive elites to live or die at their pleasure, but as independent human beings with individual rights. As such, taking either of these competing positions to their logical extreme — or, in your case, focusing solely on one or the other, even within the context of a single message — is a mistake.

I made the assumption upfront that indicating free transfer of goods as the fundamental basis from which to act denies authoritarian interpretations.

Peace,

-Boem-

The general concept of what we saw in the Matrix was theorized by others before that movie came out. The universe might very well be some kinda computer program. Humans aren't really all that intelligent, and someone way smarter than humans could put something together to trick us, as easily as we could trick a hapless trapped rodent.

"

The Rockefellers control all the drugs, massive amounts of businesses, machines that allegedly control the weather, and now I've just learned that the first proposal for machine translation, (which nobody actually understands how computers work at all or who developed the original translators) came from the Rockefeller foundation.

This is a matrix, those are our overlords. They blatantly control literally every aspect of the entire world. Every time I decide to do some studying it always leads back to them. They have to be more than just the worlds most powerful family.

P.S. Praise the Rockefellers there's snow. (I planned on writing this when I came back before what I just read) And I'm doing great in Diablo, I'm in top 100 and steadily climbing. You'll hear plenty more about this when I'm #1.

I think that we are all dead and that the hell that was imposed on us as a matrix of reality is : 3.9

Its all simulation and thing we see us "i" is just illussion.