[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But i do understand what you propose, I just believe that some people have and will always want Wealth and Power over others.

What is the connection between what I supposedly propose and your belief that some people have and will always want wealth and power over others? Should those people be eliminated? Are they bad? Do they do anything good? Does getting rid of free market, or controlling the market, or abolish the market altogether, neutralize or do away with those people? Do those people inherently exist in any sizable community of people no matter what the political structure of those communities is?

That is why I referred you to that movie. The Bushmen had an absolute free market.

I guess I'd have to see the movie to discover what you mean by the Bushmen having an absolute free market. The articles that you posted don't mention or imply any market activity of the Bushmen. Actually, I will try to see the movie. It sounds interesting. Thanks for the referral.

Shakespeare also wrote comedies. Art is important in society as more than just pretty pictures.

Of course! I love the Arts. Shakespeare, and Homer, and the Bible, even in translation, are for me the summum bonum of language artistry. You can throw in Dostoevsky and Hemingway and a whole lot of poets. Twain is pretty good too. And on and on. Art speaks to what some call the soul--that which cannot be defined--that which stirs up powers of truth and beauty beyond logic or mechanical precision.

But, for me, they are not sources on how to form a government or fix a car.

Here is a more in depth look at that movie, take with a grain of salt like all things.
https://grahambaden.com/2014/04/04/t...must-be-crazy/

You're right. I need the grain of salt to digest what your article is trying to say. I starts off OK then drifts into a Post Modern, Cultural Marxist critique of power conflicts, race and class struggle stuff which, to me, is biased and off the mark. The noble savage being superior to the technocrat is a shallow perspective that touches on the surface of humanity but doesn't reach the universal depth of human nature.

But I do agree with the movie's theme of technology separating us from nature. But it is not the technology that does it. Rather it is our use of technology that results in making us an observer and master of nature rather than an integral participant. And that is not all bad. I may be wrong, but I'd guess that you would prefer to live in our techno world than as a pre-modern Bushman.

Still, we tend to become more abstract beings as we immerse into the electric, touch screen mode of living. But we still have the choice, in our leisure time to be in contact with actual people and actual places and actual nature.

Hey, it could also be a view in part of what the world will be like after the next world War.

Don't know about any of that, but I don't think Trump would start that war. If you want to be cynical about it, he has too many properties that would be destroyed. But I, personally, don't see any evidence of him being a warmonger. And that certainly is not in the nature of one who considers himself a deal maker.