Collaboration Versus Competition

Throughout history the extremes can be seen between the drastic difference between collaborators and competitors; Stalin-ism being the hyperbolic version of collaborators needing brute force to get to get tragic results--Fascism at the other extreme needs the same excess of force as well just to maintain "competitive" advantage of the regime. The difference can also be demonstrated through the prism of education as both being successful in their own way, Korean primary education system heralds competitiveness for all their children while Finland's schools are buttressed by collaboration so much that it bans private schools altogether.

At heart of the difference between these worldviews, is the holder's priority of 'others' vs. 'self'. Those that internalize collaboration to lead their lives seek to put others above themselves, while competitors believe themselves to be superior (whether or not facts bear that out) and is of the most ultimate concern when making decisions. So when individuals hold the belief that there is a end of civilization in the very near future (ex. Alex Jones), they do so with a sense of schadenfreude from preparing for an apocalypse that would devastate those that will be left starving and in a barbaric state of a nature. The hyperbolic individualists that without irony will brag that they never need anyone else (à la Craig T. Nelson’s claim “When I was on welfare, nobody helped me.”

Collaborators on the other hand seek out to improve their lives along with as many others as possible. Though err on the side of over-intervention and unrequested involvement, collaboration has the hubris of taking joy of helping--not whether or not the target of the help wanted the help are actual benefits from the assistance, but self-righteousness and smugness from completing a task no one asked for.

In the paradigm of government and public policy, the competition worldview believe that less government the better with expectations that private market will provide a general benevolence both domestically and abroad. They will point out that America’s drift towards empire is due to a “statist” government not giving way to the liberty of the individual. As Rand Paul arguing that Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bans private businesses to discriminate based on race was  unnecessary since it was simply ‘bad business’ to exclude a large segment of the customer base. It ignores that the individual that is on top of the heap tends to far less than benevolent towards everyone below and needs to be restricted to maintain a common well being. It also ignores the reality that the foreign policy that are criticized for being excessive and militaristic were all done at the behest of private businesses.

Collaboration has its excesses as well, mired in consensus building tends to lead collaborators to inaction or action that is far from effective. United Nations is an example of excesses of collaboration, to a paralysis through analysis, while American actions done in name of humanity concerns is just lip service and actually done for the benefit of corporate profit motives.

So in my humble opinion, their needs to be a moderation between these two views (a leaning towards more collaborative than competition) and neither proponents should hold to a purist view of either side.

Linda McMahon brags about being a "job creator" like last CT Senator back in the early 60's. Forgets to name the Senator

Linda McMahon brags about being the first "job creator" as Connecticut US Senator since JFK was president.

http://youtu.be/dAFymoNZHDM

Which is odd, why not just name the the so called "job creator"? Because that so called job creator name is Prescott Bush.

Is it even plausible that #OWS commits violence?

Occupy Wall Street even after being evicted has proceeded with their regular drawn out consensus process that would drive an average American insane. This is demonstrated by the quotation below from www.nycga.net forums discussing how to come to a consensus regarding a "vision and goals statement":
"Also, I’m really happy NOW with the changes that Rich has produced save one little edition I would like to incorporate. Change From: Where we learn to live in harmony and embrace principles of toleration and respect for diversity and the differing views of others. Change To: Where we learn to live in harmony and embrace principles of toleration and respect for all the diverse cultures that inhabit our ever-changing world. The terms “diveristy” and “differing” make the clause redundant since we address these points in the section on institutional racism and gender inequality. I think it would be incumbent on us to add the way we interact with indigenous (and in fact all) cultures in the world that is prone to constantly changing events ie. – climatic change and economic activity. So I think it would be a valuable addition. Whaddya’ think? See you all tomorrow. Peace!"

I wouldn't classify myself as a violent person, but after being put through everything that the people at liberty plaza has been put through, I don't think I could continue with such an non-violent resolution seeking mentality that these people obviously are still in. If they believed in religion, specifically the Roman Catholic flavor of religion, I would propose that they should be made into saints.

Cookie Monster's #OccuppyWallSt Manifesto

Yes, there always going to be rich and poor. But we used to live in country where rich owned factory and make 30 times what factory worker make. Now we live in country where rich make money by lying about value of derivative bonds and make 3000 times what factory worker would make if factories hadn't all moved to China.

Capitalism great system. We won Cold War because people behind Iron Curtain look over wall, and see how much more plentiful and delicious cookies are in West, and how we have choice of different bakeries, not just state-owned one. It great system. It got us out of Depression, won WWII, built middle class, built country's infrastructure from highways to Hoover Dam to Oreo factory to electrifying rural South. It system that reward hard work and fair play, and everyone do fair share and everyone benefit. Rich get richer, poor get richer, everyone happy. It great system.

Then after Reagan, Republicans decide to make number one priority destroying that system. Now we have system where richest Americans ones who find ways to game system -- your friends on Wall Street -- and poorest Americans ones who thought working hard would get them American dream, when in fact it get them pink slip when job outsourced to 10-year-old in Mumbai slum. And corporations have more influence over government than people (or monsters).

It not about rich people having more money. It about how they got money. It about how they take opportunity away from rest of us, for sake of having more money. It how they willing to take risks that destroy economy -- knowing full well that what could and would happen -- putting millions out of work, while creating nothing of value, and all the while crowing that they John Galt, creating wealth for everyone.

That what the soul-searching about. When Liberals run country for 30 years following New Deal, American economy double in size, and wages double along with it. That fair. When Conservatives run country for 30 years following Reagan, American economy double again, and wages stay flat. What happen to our share of money? All of it go to richest 1%. That not "there always going to be rich people". That unfair system. That why we upset. That what Occupy Sesame Street about.