Artist sticks it to the man by grouping groceries by color

[ApostateAbe]

This set of six photos is an artistic illustration displayed at the website: http://www.jesuismonreve.org/per-color/

Explanation:

I see the supermarket space as a space of manipulation. The attempt, in this action, is to subvert this structure of power.

That fits the Che Guevara shortcut icon of his home page:

Like Che, this artist fights against the corporate upperclass tyranny, and he strikes fear into the hearts of the bourgeoisie.

What have you done to fight the slave masters?

Probably less than this guy.

 

[Linsejko]

What have you done to fight the slave masters?

I argue here? And have clever statements on facebook under "political views"?

Probably less than this guy.

Damn...

 

[NoMan]

Sounds to me like he has subverted a space of manipulation and replaced it with another manipulative system. With the groceries grouped by color, they are not free to find compatibility with others on non-color bases, and are prone to falling into unhealthy stereotypes which decrease productivity and increase tensions.

Can't dig it.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I fight the man by opposing socialism when ever it rears its ugly head.

Che was nothing more than a tool to further enslave the masses.

 

[NoMan]

I have trouble opposing or supporting ideologies. Not ideals, just generalized ideologies.

It doesn't seem to me to matter what "ism" it is, the problems are usually the same:

1. Someone comes up with a system for organizing people and distributing resources. It works fantastically in theory despite a few inevitable drawbacks that are chalked up to being "products of human frailty."

2. Implementation of the system is not under ideal conditions, but rather, real conditions.

3. Incomplete education and miscommunication occur.

3. Corruption occurs.

4. Supporters of the system are often sheeple who don't fully understand the system, its implications, and whether or not it caters to the range of specific ideals that they might have. Many supporters vote against their own best interests out of ignorance. This undermines democracy.

5. The "products of human frailty" build up problems. Different problems, depending on the system. Not enough regulation of the market and you get cutthroat business practices; not to mention idiot consumers who will buy useless products that allow business with no practical value to the world to thrive. Industrial corruption via lobbying bleeds into politics and public affairs. Too much regulation and good businesses can't thrive and political corruption bleeds into industry.

The solution to me doesn't seem to be "opposing X ideology" but rather opposing the "known incompatibilities between x ideology and x human frailty". If we deal with issues individually rather than trying to build these ideological vacuums to act as fix-alls (and instead use them as temporary tools applied to ever-developing political situations), then the world might just be a better place.

Maybe I'm being naive.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I am of a different opinion. Not all ideas are beautiful, unique and valid. The greater majority of ideas are not even theoretically feasible. I think I have just about studied every single possible '-ism' out there. Took around eight years. Now I am studying the history of economic thought and implementation. By the way, democracy is a joke.

 

[NoMan]

I am of a different opinion. Not all ideas are beautiful, unique and valid. The greater majority of ideas are not even theoretically feasible. I think I have just about studied every single possible '-ism' out there. Took around eight years. Now I am studying the history of economic thought and implementation. By the way, democracy is a joke.

Is democracy the ideal a joke, or is democracy as practiced a joke?

Do you think democracy, pure democracy, not a representative democracy, would work in a society of rational, non violent people who look before they leap?

What if it was kept to small communities (and the issues of said community) of less than 100, and never implemented in large ones?

On what grounds is democracy a joke?

I like explanations of knowledge more than just claims to it. I'm not old enough to have studied such things for eight years, so I'm curious to how you got to such conclusions. Experience can't be condensed into brief, concise, explanations, but your logical cause-and-effect chains can.

Enlighten me.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Well representative democracy is merely the tyranny of a minority, appointed by the tyranny of the majority. The minority's agenda is only ever instituted by the use or threat of violence. True democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority. Once again the majority's whim is only ever instituted by the use of or threat of violence. If violence is required to institute an agenda, the agenda simply has no merit. The situation is no longer about whether or not the idea is a good one to follow. It is about who has the monopoly of violence to use against others. Subsequently, forcing others to follow their whims.

The classical British liberals believed that democracy was the best way of minimising government intervention in the market and the day to day lives of individuals. Evidently, they were wrong.

I like explanations of knowledge more than just claims to it. I'm not old enough to have studied such things for eight years, so I'm curious to how you got to such conclusions. Experience can't be condensed into brief, concise, explanations, but your logical cause-and-effect chains can.

Enlighten me.

Some books that I have read (off the top of my head):

'General Theory of Macroeconomics' Keynes
'Das Kapital: Volume 1' Marx
'Das Kapital: Volume 2' Marx
'Das Kapital: Volume 3' Marx
'Communist Manifesto' Marx and Engels.
'Theory of History' Marx
'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific' Engels
'Design for Utopia' Fourier
'Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations' Smith
'Freedom to Choose' Friedman
'Human Action' Mises
'Theory of Money and Credit' Mises
'The Road To Serfdom' Hayek
'Theory and History' Mises
'Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle' Hayek
'Prices and Production' Hayek
'The Pure Theory of Capital' Hayek
'On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation' Ricardo
'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' Rothbard
'Ethics of Liberty' Rothbard
'For a New Liberty' Rothbard
'An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought' Rothbard

I have read many books that I can't remember at this point in time. My library is at my parent's place. I have also read almost ad infinitum journal publications on the subjects at hand.

So I read publications and activate my critical thought faculties. I compare the ideas to the great experiment called history. I reject any ideas which don't make logical sense or has been invalidated by history.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

There are not many alternatives to democracy, particularly one that is palatable.
Rule by majority - direct democracy, parliamantary democracy
rule by select individuals, such as the wealthy, or royalty
rule by one, aka totalitarianism
rule by none, note, this is not anarchy, this would simply be Hobbesian. All anarchists I know are in favour of direct democracy.

Which do you prefer? Or have I left something out?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

There are always implicit rules that people must follow when interacting with one another to avoid conflict. I would say that these rules are self evident and are grounded in the nature of humans. Well, implicit rules followed by the greater majority. Others on this forum disagree with me on this. The disagreement revolves around animal rights. Why specifically animal rights? I don't know. I don't get these people. Anyway, I am simply a fan of non-violence. In its most applicable sense, no ruler/s without consent. The idea of a social contract no way in hell entails consent. Personally, I prefer no rulers what so ever.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

I too have a general faith in the 'goodness' of the average human, as in, in this instance, things like not killing without cause...
But are you also suggesting that in such a land with no rulers, that the economy will be run as it is?

Because in my way of thinking, competition inevitably leads to winners and losers, and those losers, in a world without any form of governance, will endeavour to get their fair share, and the big winners, such as, I don't know, Shell say, will do whatever it takes to maintain their privledge.

I mean, that is as much as it is now, only increase it by maximum percent, as they can do as they please.

So to me, if that is indeed what you mean, I see it as rule by the few, as in, rule by the corporations, and it would be brutal.

I think parliamentary democracy is pretty much a joke at most times, not because I am against democracy as a theory but that it is not so realistically a democracy.

The common anarchist position is that direct democracy, as it is seen by anarchists, as true democracy, means there are no rulers as you have a true say as much as the next person. No one is above you. I can envisage implementation issues with this too, and you never claimed to be an anarchist, but I wanted to point it out.

Why animals? i suppose the point is much along the lines of different cultures have different values, some don't seem to value animals? Or that different reasonable people can come to different reasonable conclusions?


As to the artwork, I'm not sure it will strike fear into the hearts of the borgeious, but I quite like it, more than I like most artworks, firstly because I don't usually 'get' art and I get this one... and after having too much to do with supermarkets and marketing than I ever wanted, the truth of the absurdity of it all is potrayed.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I too have a general faith in the 'goodness' of the average human, as in, in this instance, things like not killing without cause...
But are you also suggesting that in such a land with no rulers, that the economy will be run as it is?

Because in my way of thinking, competition inevitably leads to winners and losers, and those losers, in a world without any form of governance, will endeavour to get their fair share, and the big winners, such as, I don't know, Shell say, will do whatever it takes to maintain their privledge.

I mean, that is as much as it is now, only increase it by maximum percent, as they can do as they please.

So to me, if that is indeed what you mean, I see it as rule by the few, as in, rule by the corporations, and it would be brutal.

This is really damn absurd. I don't even know where to begin. The term winners and losers shouldn't be used. Its loaded language. In reality, there's profit and loss.

Profit signifies a correct combination of the factors of production to meet consumer demand. Loss signifies an incorrect combination of the factors of production to meet consumer demand. The occurrence of both is a good thing. Competition is a process of trial and error. It removes inefficient combinations of the factors of production from production. The capital is then free to be used elsewhere in the economy to meet consumer demand or the demands of society.

There is no static pool of actors supplying demand in a particular field. If one leaves due to losses, it does mean that the pool of individuals is forever decreased by one. New players are always free to enter the specific field and compete.

As for corporations, monopolies, oligopolies etc. They are only ever created by the hand of government. I don't think in a free society companies of the scale of Shell would exist. Let alone the funds to "do as they please".

 

[Joz_helloworld]

Multi-billionaires and starving children then?

Is it better to talk of profit and loss is if there is no other connotations other than their function? Can you seriously talk of capitalist virtue without acknowledging those who suffer under it?

I'm interested/concerned in the concept of post-democractic captialism.

I haven't considered the idea that corporations etc may not survive government, but I'm highly skeptical that they would disappear. I'll think more on this point. Do you think they would just relinquish their power/profit?

What do you think about the share market?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Is this a satirical piece, illustrating the futility of "counter-culture" movements? A joke with no real motive other than humour? I'm confused.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Winners and losers is indeed a loaded term. So too is the way you are using ther terms profit and loss, to re-frame my argument. It just doesn't sound loaded as it is the norm of today. I'm well aware what they are. Are you denying there are losers?

Yes, there are and will be losers. This is a good thing. Malinvestment ceases. Miss allocation of resources stops. Capital structure realigns. Wealth is allowed to be created with the now free capital.

I'm interested/concerned in the concept of post-democractic captialism.

There is no such thing as democratic capitalism. There is capitalism and there is not capitalism. The western democracies of this era mirror fascism or 19th century socialist movements. Today is a Fabian's wet dream. The fascists would titillate over the current state of affairs.

I haven't considered the idea that corporations etc may not survive government, but I'm highly skeptical that they would disappear. I'll think more on this point. Do you think they would just relinquish their power/profit?

It really depends whether or not the corporation is reliant on government intervention in the market. I could only speculate what companies would remain viable. I definitely know the banking industry would disappear over night. The banking industry is solely reliant on governments' monopoly of the issuance of currency, government created rules regarding fractional reserve banking and insurance.

What the hell is this power/profit thing? Are you alluding to they won't allow transition away from government created privilege?

I don't know why people demonise profit. In a free market, with no government intervention (no grants of monopoly or institutions of regulations favouring certain firms), profit is a signal to society of a correct combination of the factors of production and more resources should be allocated to serve the particular demand. People striving for profit is a good thing. It spurs on innovation to meet society's demands. Innovation can be in the form of more efficient combinations of the factors of production or inventing new technology for consumption. All good things.

What do you think about the share market?

The market has been rigged by government to favour a minority.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Multi-billionaires and starving children then?

Is it better to talk of profit and loss is if there is no other connotations other than their function? Can you seriously talk of capitalist virtue without acknowledging those who suffer under it?

Errr what? In all the eras throughout history where markets have been allowed to be free, the standards of living of the greater majority have increased. Today? This last 120 years? Is not an example of capitalism. Depending on the country it is socialism or fascism playing market. A nice litmus test: If there is a central bank, the geopolitical region no longer subscribes to capitalism.

Multi-billionarres and starving children? The direct result of government intervention.

---

A way forward? The realisation that violence is never a means to achieve desired ends of increasing the standard of living of the greater majority.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

Where in your opinion is true capitalism present?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Where in your opinion is true capitalism present?

The internet? People are doing interesting things with online currencies such as BitCoin. There are some 100% free, anonymous markets on the net.

I can only speculate on geopolitical regions with the most free markets. I know China has freer markets than the west at this point in time. It is how they were able to prevent starvation en mass. Perhaps, some south american countries? However, these countries have some severe currency issues. They is a grass roots movement in Argentina producing and using its own currency in competition with the government's. This movement has enabled people to trade with one another more efficiently than barter. It is improving the standards of living of the participants.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Spoiler

Discussions like this never come to a mutual agreement.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Spoiler

Discussions like this never come to a mutual agreement.

Mutual agreement is not my aim.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

Discussions like this never come to a mutual agreement.

You are safe from me... for now...

I have something new to think about, I'm well satisfied.

 

[NoMan]

Some books that I have read (off the top of my head):

'General Theory of Macroeconomics' Keynes
'Das Kapital: Volume 1' Marx
'Das Kapital: Volume 2' Marx
'Das Kapital: Volume 3' Marx
'Communist Manifesto' Marx and Engels.
'Theory of History' Marx
'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific' Engels
'Design for Utopia' Fourier
'Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations' Smith
'Freedom to Choose' Friedman
'Human Action' Mises
'Theory of Money and Credit' Mises
'The Road To Serfdom' Hayek
'Theory and History' Mises
'Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle' Hayek
'Prices and Production' Hayek
'The Pure Theory of Capital' Hayek
'On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation' Ricardo
'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' Rothbard
'Ethics of Liberty' Rothbard
'For a New Liberty' Rothbard
'An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought' Rothbard

Wow, thanks for the book suggestions!

Always appreciate knowledge bombs being dropped.

However

Well representative democracy is merely the tyranny of a minority, appointed by the tyranny of the majority. The minority's agenda is only ever instituted by the use or threat of violence. True democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority. Once again the majority's whim is only ever instituted by the use of or threat of violence. If violence is required to institute an agenda, the agenda simply has no merit.

Are these statements really always true? If so, I find it counterintuitive and thus hard to just accept as fact (which isn't necessarily a discredit to you, as most of what I observe in depth ends up being significantly more subtle than I expected).

The situation is no longer about whether or not the idea is a good one to follow. It is about who has the monopoly of violence to use against others. Subsequently, forcing others to follow their whims.

Can't this be said to occur in mostly any political ideology that has ever been implemented? I've noticed that ideologies seem to have a kind-of half-life whereby the simple wear and tear of time and increasing complexity and subtlety of economic and political situations (due to the divisions, additions and merges of existing political factions and businesses, as well as the natural increase of corruption over time due to these factions attempting to deceive each other into submission) decreases the effectiveness of the ideology.

Then there's that often-cited Jefferson quote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

I don't agree with it in its entirety, but I do think society needs to either learn to treat ideologies as temporary tools to be changed and updated with the times (rather than as things to argue over and demonize because of past, improper applications by men with noticeably-flawed characters), or at the very least employ some kind of "refresh" mechanism whereby the economic and political histories are wiped clean (this is hard for me to word) and all the products of the deceptive methods put in action to skew data are thereby disposed. Though, I'm not sure how the deceptive methods would be disposed of. People retain their memory of them, and would still use them; and I'm not going to advocate human memory-wipes, although I fear they will eventually be used, and that evil will span the entire cosmic evolution, no matter how philosophically-refined we get.

*Sigh*

It's as though there's some kind of macroscopic observer-effect going on, where the very act considering a new economic or political doctrine increases its potential for corruption (because real-life application is always a little bloodier than conception).

The classical British liberals believed that democracy was the best way of minimising government intervention in the market and the day to day lives of individuals. Evidently, they were wrong.

Evidently, I need to get reading, if these things are indeed evident.

I have read many books that I can't remember at this point in time. My library is at my parent's place. I have also read almost ad infinitum journal publications on the subjects at hand.

So I read publications and activate my critical thought faculties. I compare the ideas to the great experiment called history. I reject any ideas which don't make logical sense or has been invalidated by history.

Does history really invalidate ideas, or does it provide data so that the ideas can be refined for future implementation?

What's the potential for a kind of "convergent evolution" in two completely-different political ideologies, whereby they become virtually the same idea over many generations due to people in the respective regions (or whatever) having similar innovations in response to the flow of history?

Then there's the aspect of semantics, and of probing individuals for their opinions. Popular opinions on certain political ideologies (even if they're completely subjective and wishy-washy) are important to consider:

What is, say, democracy, to one person likely won't be the exact same democracy to another person in the same nation-- region-- state-- city-- district-- or even crowd of people marching against the same injustice...

Even if popular conception of an idea is dead wrong, that misconception is going to greatly effect its implementation. I mean, after all, it's adding a variable to the grand equation, so why wouldn't it?

If a misconception can cripple an implementation, and the account of the failed implementation comes to be called "History," then can "History" really be said to be a reliable assessment of that idea's merit? Or rather can it be said to be a data pool that can be used to refine the idea, and increase its merit?

That's why I like to think of ideas as memory-based psychic tools, rather than as fix-alls to be implemented and then left to grow mold.

Thanks for putting up with my tendency to question like a five year old. I love this forum, already.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Are these statements really always true? If so, I find it counterintuitive and thus hard to just accept as fact (which isn't necessarily a discredit to you, as most of what I observe in depth ends up being significantly more subtle than I expected).

Well, in an ideal world one could freely choose to be part of a democracy, if they so wish. However, we do not live in an ideal world. If the participants of a democracy are not free to join and leave at a whim, the statements are true.

What one needs is a test. Say I don't like the idea of the state that I am coerced to be a part of killing innocent people in lands thousands of kilometres away. To remedy the situation, I stop paying taxes. You will find that sooner or later, a bunch of people in costumes will attempt to place further financial burdens on me, steal my property or kidnap me. If I resist the people in costumes will exercise violence against me.

Can't this be said to occur in mostly any political ideology that has ever been implemented? I've noticed that ideologies seem to have a kind-of half-life whereby the simple wear and tear of time and increasing complexity and subtlety of economic and political situations (due to the divisions, additions and merges of existing political factions and businesses, as well as the natural increase of corruption over time due to these factions attempting to deceive each other into submission) decreases the effectiveness of the ideology.

Relevance issue. I don't know how the quoted text above pertains to the quoted text below:

The situation is no longer about whether or not the idea is a good one to follow. It is about who has the monopoly of violence to use against others. Subsequently, forcing others to follow their whims.

I can say that many people do like to use violence to coerce others to follow their whims. Be this through the democratic apparatus or other methods.

I don't agree with it in its entirety, but I do think society needs to either learn to treat ideologies as temporary tools to be changed and updated with the times (rather than as things to argue over and demonize because of past, improper applications by men with noticeably-flawed characters), or at the very least employ some kind of "refresh" mechanism whereby the economic and political histories are wiped clean (this is hard for me to word) and all the products of the deceptive methods put in action to skew data are thereby disposed. Though, I'm not sure how the deceptive methods would be disposed of. People retain their memory of them, and would still use them; and I'm not going to advocate human memory-wipes, although I fear they will eventually be used, and that evil will span the entire cosmic evolution, no matter how philosophically-refined we get.

*Sigh*

It's as though there's some kind of macroscopic observer-effect going on, where the very act considering a new economic or political doctrine increases its potential for corruption (because real-life application is always a little bloodier than conception).

Once again, not all ideas are beautiful, unique, true and applicable. You speak of as if they were. This leads to a false line of reasoning. It is not about which ideas is better than another and hence, should be implemented. It is about letting people act in their own self interest or using violence to coerce to act otherwise.

What can be learned is what ideas work and what do not. Many idea implemented at the barrel of a gun or an edge of sword, do not even work in theory. I doubt that they could be tweaked in such a way that they become feasible. After thousands of years of tweaking the interventionist ideology into its subcategories, they have not solved the economic calculation problem. Unless the economic calculation problem is solved there is no such thing as a improper application due to flawed man. The ideas were simply flawed to begin with.

Evidently, I need to get reading, if these things are indeed evident.

Indeed.

Does history really invalidate ideas, or does it provide data so that the ideas can be refined for future implementation?

Yes, history does. Similar policies being instituted today were instituted in the 1300s in England. The policies led to the great depression of the 1400s. A decrease in living standards and degradation of health led to the black death. I don't know whether or not the king of England was acting in benevolence or malevolence. I do know the results.

I think I should make this more clear. It is not about what ideas should be implemented. It is about letting people act freely, or using violence or the threat of violence to coerce them to follow ideas against their wills.

What's the potential for a kind of "convergent evolution" in two completely-different political ideologies, whereby they become virtually the same idea over many generations due to people in the respective regions (or whatever) having similar innovations in response to the flow of history?

In many different regions around the world, over time, the structure or society cycles from freedom of the individual to serfdom. The periods where individuals are free to act, the standards of living of the greater majority increases. When individuals are serfs to the state, standards of living of the greater majority decreases. Empirically speaking, if increasing the standards of living of the greater majority is our goal, we should maximise the freedom of the individual and minimise violence against the individual.

Then there's the aspect of semantics, and of probing individuals for their opinions. Popular opinions on certain political ideologies (even if they're completely subjective and wishy-washy) are important to consider:

What is, say, democracy, to one person likely won't be the exact same democracy to another person in the same nation-- region-- state-- city-- district-- or even crowd of people marching against the same injustice...

Even if popular conception of an idea is dead wrong, that misconception is going to greatly effect its implementation. I mean, after all, it's adding a variable to the grand equation, so why wouldn't it?

If a misconception can cripple an implementation, and the account of the failed implementation comes to be called "History," then can "History" really be said to be a reliable assessment of that idea's merit? Or rather can it be said to be a data pool that can be used to refine the idea, and increase its merit?

That's why I like to think of ideas as memory-based psychic tools, rather than as fix-alls to be implemented and then left to grow mold.

Thanks for putting up with my tendency to question like a five year old. I love this forum, already.

I have found that people have not a clue of what they advocate. Some do but blame their failures on a scape goat, such as the word 'capitalism'. "Ahhh! The market crashed. Look what these damn capitalists do to us!" Response: "Well maybe if you did not create booms and busts with your monopoly of currency we would not be in our current situation."

Actually a nice example. Government uses violence to secure a monopoly on currency in a geopolitical region in order to fund social programs and wars. Government destroys economy.

 

[NoMan]

Well, in an ideal world one could freely choose to be part of a democracy, if they so wish. However, we do not live in an ideal world. If the participants of a democracy are not free to join and leave at a whim, the statements are true.

I'm not talking about ideal worlds, but rather ideal situations. And I'm not talking about ideas being universally applied, but rather situationally applied, in their ideal situations. You originally said that

I am of a different opinion. Not all ideas are beautiful, unique and valid. The greater majority of ideas are not even theoretically feasible.

Not even theoretically feasible? But sir, in the realm of theory we are working with ideas. Ideas are ideal. The situations we envision are ideal. They don't have the seemingly-infinite layers of factors that can be analyzed in even the tiniest of events in "reality". Until our brains are significantly enhanced by technology, our ideals won't come anywhere near having a true calculational resemblance to reality, who possesses mountainous topography in even the tiniest grain of sand. They will only be--as I said before-- tools. Tools of approximation. Tools for distributing resources and controlling people. Rules of thumb. Heuristics. Quick judgments to be used in place of further analysis. But why should the sometimes govern the always?

I think I have just about studied every single possible '-ism' out there. Took around eight years. Now I am studying the history of economic thought and implementation. By the way, democracy is a joke.

And my other problem was that "By the way, democracy is a joke" footnote. Ideas are not all true, or unique. You're right. But they are applicable. If not now, then later. If not in big situations, then small. My issue was this dismissal of the idea of democracy-- of public consensus by vote-- because real life national situations had shown it to be invalid (in national situations).

So Democracy is a joke. Let's say this is a sound judgment. Okay? Now what? Do we never think about it again? Should we start telling our children that it's a joke, thus decreasing the chances that they ever think about it critically and conclude the same on their own? Should the idea of democracy fall out of our cultural memory?

What do we do with an idea that--as you put it-- is a joke? What do we tell all the people in the developing nations who think of it as a fantastic replacement for what they currently have, and are thus willing to die for its implementation? How would they react? Would telling them democracy is a joke and why it is a joke convince them, or cause them to get angry, and to alienate themselves from the truth further?

If democracy-- that is public consensus by vote-- is indeed a joke, then by what other means could one--say-- survey the prevailing opinion of a group of 20 people?

"Perhaps employ the scientific method." one might respond. "An objective survey instead of a corrupt ballot system might work."

Is not the scientific method in many cases (such as data-gathering surveys) merely a refined version of the democratic process? Are you not just interrogating nature at large for the sake of making judgments about it and implementing regulations and other means of controlling it and maintaining it?

Or is the democratic process an imperfect form of the scientific method?

Let's say it is.

Should we then discredit the word "democracy," a name under which a lot of scientifically-uneducated-yet-politically-aware people in the developing world receive knowledge of an objective, consensus-building process similar to science?

If so, how do we go about discrediting this old and useless ideal without confusing (and possibly breeding the contempt of) the many people who still recognize it as a pillar of reason and liberty?

Generalized judgments-- such as "democracy is a joke"-- are volatile, and we have to be very careful how we word them. Should we call this carefulness diplomacy, civility? Or should we call it a sniveling fear and a tendency to pander? Or should we simply call it strategy: Living to die another day.

These questions, ever emerging out of the others, are all very puzzling to me.

Which leads me back to:

If the participants of a democracy are not free to join and leave at a whim, the statements are true.

This is a modified version of your original judgment. Your statements are now only true "if the participants of a democracy are not free to join and leave at a whim."

Call me nitpicky, but this is important. You have essentially gone from saying "democracy sucks, period" to "democracy sucks, period, except for..."

Why not drop the "sucks, period," judgment, which is an investment in opinion which clouds the ultimate meaning here and just say "democracy is less likely to lead to bad things when..."

"Because that's semantics and semantics are silly" one might reply.

I say they're not because how you word an idea to someone determines whether or not they dispose of your idea in the garbage or take it into account. Yes, their emotions are their fault. But as a typically informed, considerate person, the INTP has to take his opponent's emotions into account when trying to communicate or debate important ideas. Democracy is an important idea, even if it doesn't work in some situations. Call me stern-faced, but I don't think it (or its current place in our world) is a joke.

This all goes back to communicating. It doesn't matter how good your idea is if you word it to society poorly. Society will take it out of context and put a permanent stain on it, thus decreasing its credibility (and leading to generalized judgments like "democracy is a joke").

Does that make the idea less credible in all situations, or just the situation in which it failed? Society will want to say the former, because it's easy. The truly considerate and rational types will stop to consider the latter, and experiment with its credibility.

If the participants of a democracy are not free to join and leave at a whim, the statements are true.

This means democracy can be implemented (like a tool, I keep using this analogy because I think it works, and will continue to use it until I am adequately convinced otherwise) in situations where "the participants" are "free to join and leave at a whim."

Consider the following statement:

Democracy has been used like a shovel when it should have been used like tweezers: Sparingly, and in small situations where the information was clear, the voters were informed, and the options considerate and well-worded.

Is this not a better assessment of democracy then "democracy is a joke?"

Is this not a better way to explain it to an uninformed person?

Communication is key.

Democracy is just a word. Words are vessels for ideas. The idea behind democracy-- I think-- was not corrupt and/or inadequately funded senates, houses of representatives, advisory committees, and electoral colleges originally; but rather it was a simple, clear situation in which a group of people build a consensus based on true information that was stated to them clearly. But because democracy is a tool, it has had these corrupt extremities attached to it over the years as a means to sweep problems under the rug, rather than tackle them head on, as originally intended.

Like trying to use tweezers in place of a shovel, what works for twenty people might not work for twenty-million.

Is this the fault of the democracy, or is this the fault of man? If this is the fault of man, should we then conclude that history has proven man invalid? I think no. You are free to decide yourself. Should we conclude that man is a joke? I think no. You are free to decide for yourself.

Like tools, resources, and other living creatures, ideas need to be valued, maintained, and used in the right situations. If you try to use a chainsaw on a steel object, the chainsaw's teeth will be ruined, and everyone will agree that it is now a "crappy chainsaw."

But is it the chainsaw's fault that it is now crappy, or the user of the tool for implementing it poorly?

What one needs is a test.

That sounds reasonable.

Say I don't like the idea of the state that I am coerced to be a part of killing innocent people in lands thousands of kilometres away.

You sound reasonable.

To remedy the situation, I stop paying taxes. You will find that sooner or later, a bunch of people in costumes will attempt to place further financial burdens on me, steal my property or kidnap me. If I resist the people in costumes will exercise violence against me.

That sounds terrible.

Again though, does this problem not lie in humanity's coercive nature: In its tendency to make equal for itself that which is right or true and that which is merely familiar: In its tendency to shut out competing opinions, rather than mull them over thoughtfully before interrogating them further: In its willingness to betray its fundamental values in the process of forcing them on others who wouldn't otherwise comply: In its tendency to govern its children towards similar beliefs, rather than encourage wonder and skepticism?

Isn't it these inadequacies--rooted in reality-- that ultimately lead to the "bunch of people in costumes" who "attempt to place further financial burdens" on you, and not the inadequacies of democracy: which is merely one of a plethora of ideological tools to be used in ideal situations?

Socialism, Democracy, Communism, etc.

These are all words. The words carry ideas. Different people associate different ideas with the word. The words are thus more often than not like a liquid: they definitely have volume, but they don't really have shape, save what shape the container (the individual person) chooses to impose.

Blame the cups, not the water. But what of the cups? Shall we blame the glassmaker, or the man who taught him? Who taught the teacher? Who watches the Watchmen?

I'm not saying never make judgments, I'm just saying fine tune them to the situation, and recognize the importance of ideas.

Relevance issue. I don't know how the quoted text above pertains to the quoted text below:

I was asking if the phenomenon of monopolizing violence-- as you put it-- does not permeate through the entirety of the political fabric: I was asking basically what I've been asking this whole time: Can we really blame the failures of the system on the system, or on the people who implemented the system in a half-assed way? Who do we blame the people on, in this ever-growing reductionist model of blame? Judging by:

I can say that many people do like to use violence to coerce others to follow their whims. Be this through the democratic apparatus or other methods.

I can say that you might be asking yourself similar questions.

Once again, not all ideas are beautiful, unique, true and applicable.

Beautiful? No. Unique? No. Ideas are derived from their environment. They are the electrochemical sum of a brain and it's analysis of its environment via the senses. True? No. Applicable? Yes.

What can be learned is what ideas work and what do not

and WHEN they work and WHEN they do not.

Many idea implemented at the barrel of a gun or an edge of sword, do not even work in theory.

And many ideas implemented by consensus do not even work in theory. Many ideas implemented by people who are "free from tyranny to choose" do not even work in theory. Many ideas implemented at the barrel of a gun do work in theory. Many don't. "It's like this and like that and like that and-a"

Your conclusion based on these facts? Probably one I'll agree with, if it's not a generalized judgment, like

I doubt that they could be tweaked in such a way that they become feasible.

So you're telling me tools can't be sharpened? Sounds more like intellectual laziness than the existence of unfixable systems.

After thousands of years of tweaking the interventionist ideology into its subcategories, they have not solved the economic calculation problem.

Is dividing an ideology into subcategories, schools, or factions really "tweaking" it? Wouldn't attempting to conform an ideology to objective reality (like with the scientific method) be "tweaking it?"

And what is the economic calculation problem, in layman's terms? I have a few thousand more pages of reading before I'm as educated as you on these matters. I'm trying to catch up, but dividing time up between reading and replying is almost as time-consuming as reading and replying. :P

Unless the economic calculation problem is solved there is no such thing as a improper application due to flawed man. The ideas were simply flawed to begin with.

I'm dying to know what the "economic calculation problem is, and why the existence of "improper application due to flawed man" hinges on it being solved.

Indeed.

Stick that knife in me. Nice and slow now. Make sure I know how perilously uneducated I am.

I think I should make this more clear. It is not about what ideas should be implemented. It is about letting people act freely, or using violence or the threat of violence to coerce them to follow ideas against their wills.

I think we both are mostly thinking the same things, but use completely different mental dictionaries to describe it. Aye, it's a shame...

I have found that people have not a clue of what they advocate. Some do but blame their failures on a scape goat, such as the word 'capitalism'.

democracy is a joke.

...Aye, it's a shame...

 

[Jah]

The Soul Of Man Under Socialism - Oscar Wilde...



Seriously read it.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialism

"High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."

The whole essay is a quick read, and should be obligatory to anyone who is having this sort of discussion.



And as a point on the side of capitalism and free markets; You can't force people to do the right thing.
Morals and ethics are not products of law, law is the product of morals and ethics, and should reflect the nature of human compassion.
As an easy argument for this; The attempt at Forcing someone to do the right thing will mostly create the adverse effect where people say "Fuck You, I have free will, and I will do the opposite to prove my point".

 

[NoMan]

The Soul Of Man Under Socialism - Oscar Wilde...



Seriously read it.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialism

"High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."

The whole essay is a quick read, and should be obligatory to anyone who is having this sort of discussion.



And as a point on the side of capitalism and free markets; You can't force people to do the right thing.
Morals and ethics are not products of law, law is the product of morals and ethics, and should reflect the nature of human compassion.
As an easy argument for this; The attempt at Forcing someone to do the right thing will mostly create the adverse effect where people say "Fuck You, I have free will, and I will do the opposite to prove my point".

I find myself agreeing with a lot of the things he's saying, but:

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it

strikes me as quite odd. I agree that we need to reconstruct society on the basis that poverty would be impossible, but I'm not quite sure how altruism prevented these things. Can't dig that notion.

Being nice to your slaves may prevent the horror of the system from being realized by those contemplating it, but the blame here does not lie in those being nice, or in the act of niceness, or in the altruism, or what have you, but the horror lies in the economic doctrine of slavery itself, which constituted a hypocrisy in the larger dogma of American democracy. Going in with the ideological tweezers and removing the slavery was an altruistic act, even if it was motivated by other things. These altruistic acts are not usually bad. If someone contemplating the evils of the world is not able to see that slavery is evil even though some slave masters are nice to their slaves, then they lack perspective. That lack of perspective cannot be pinned on a single factor. This is an incomprehensibly complex system where biological factors effect economic factors, economic factors effect the day-to-day aspects of people's lives, which constitute the moving of matter of place to place, which is something physics talks about. This is all a wrapped-up deterministic system with little to no room for control. We're still babies as a conscious species. The best we can do for now is attempt to understand before we rule things as evidently nice as "altruism" out for the sake of being a smart-ass devil's advocate. Altruism, if it sometimes breeds naivety, is necessary in the day-to-day mental health of a human being. If my girl didn't give me backrubs and feed me while I write and do yard work, I wouldn't be half as productive. I do the same for her on her busy and sick days. The notion that we should stop such acts of kindness because of some contrived, seven-degrees-of-separation reason has always ticked me off.

These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture - in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life.

How pretentious, too...

I've never had much money. I've done a lot of manual labor. I've gone without food a few times. I've lived in ghetto neighborhoods. I stay up late into the night to manage my philosophies, my thoughts, my moods, my visions, my cultural realizations. Does this make me unworthy of charity? Should I never receive a dime from someone richer than I in an act of altruism, because I'm poor, and probably destined to non-greatness?

What bullshit.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ Noman,

The way in which you have structured you post leaves me unable to address it.

Some comments:

1) Too paragraphs with one or two sentences.
2) Too many metaphors and analogies.
3) Breaking about a paragraph in its component pieces in the manner which you have done, destroys the meaning behind the paragraph. Don't do this unless you actually understand the context and meaning of the paragraph as a whole.
4) It is evident you have miss understood me in several sections. This misunderstanding has led you to address strawmans.
5) Describing circumstances where statements are not true, does no signify a change in my position.

Yes, democracy is a joke. It is amusing. It makes me laugh.

 

[NoMan]

1) Too paragraphs with one or two sentences.
2) Too many metaphors and analogies.
3) Breaking about a paragraph in its component pieces in the manner which you have done, destroys the meaning behind the paragraph. Don't do this unless you actually understand the context and meaning of the paragraph as a whole.
4) It is evident you have miss understood me in several sections. This misunderstanding has led you to address strawmans.
5) Describing circumstances where statements are not true, does no signify a change in my position.

You know exactly what's wrong with my post yet, you are unable to address any of my points, instead you list nitpicks about my use of metaphors and analogies, which I think lend to the whole communicative process. All the metaphpors and analogies were were carefully-structured attempts to reinforce and explain differently what I had already said. I think you're just being dismissive, and unwilling to admit that the process of voting to reach a consensus can be applied to good use in some small situations.

And how have I misunderstood?

In each of these posts of yours, you always tell me that I'm wrong, or that I've misunderstood, but you never explain why or how. Rather, you list a bunch of esoteric books that I'm apparently dumber than you for not having read yet. If these ideas are so good, then why not explain them, instead of telling me over and over that I'm wrong and that I've misunderstood without telling me why.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You know exactly what's wrong with my post yet, you are unable to address any of my points, instead you list nitpicks about my use of metaphors and analogies, which I think lend to the whole communicative process. All the metaphpors and analogies were were carefully-structured attempts to reinforce and explain differently what I had already said. I think you're just being dismissive, and unwilling to admit that the process of voting to reach a consensus can be applied to good use in some small situations.

I'm not insulting you. I just can't address the format. I'm a bloody engineer. I'm use to a particular format of writing which appeals to my brain. I attempted to address your post.

In each of these posts of yours, you always tell me that I'm wrong, or that I've misunderstood, but you never explain why or how. Rather, you list a bunch of esoteric books that I'm apparently dumber than you for not having read yet. If these ideas are so good, then why not explain them, instead of telling me over and over that I'm wrong and that I've misunderstood without telling me why.

If you think democracy is a good form of governance, go for it. Just don't coerce others to join your democratic paradise.

 

[Jah]

I'll dive into some of it, but probably won't address all your points;

Yes, Oscar Wilde has a fairly extraordinary way of putting things on the edge, but;

The point of the kind slaveowner is valid,
It is the Altruism of good people which masques the true suffering of those in need.

It's a medicine which targets the symptoms, while the underlying condition worsens, and at a point will overcome the abilities of that particular remedy.
At that point, the Altruist will be nothing more than the little girl running along the shore tossing starfish into the water; cute, admirable, yet far too little, and far too late.


Now, the fact that the text puts things on the edge is to prove a point.
The point being, as far as I understand it, not that we should not care for one another, which most of us will find happens naturally, but that we are aware of the condition which our caring may be hiding from plain view.

In a pursuit of happiness, no man is truly happy until all men are happy. (think 6 degrees of separation here.)

If the system we operate within does not allow that, then even though we will strive to make the system work as well as it can, it will never completely allow our true goals to be reached.



As for the statement about those poor amongst us; It is an example of how Wilde holds Self-realization as a prime goal in life, which all should pursue.
Becoming the beasts of burden, the exchangeable cogs in the wheel of our civilization has little "true" value in this idealism.
Though you may argue that we need these cogs, I am inclined to agree that we should aim higher in our individual lives. To truly become an individual.



This is idealist, but I am mostly convinced that anyone can reach their goals if they truly have found their will to do so. (Do What thou wilt... and all that)
Find your true will in life, and want it enough that you will not stop until you have it. (I'm sorry, this is Crowley speaking, and we all know he's an evil, evil man. So for purely contrarian reasons, I'll listen to him and place my stakes according to what I consider correct.)

 

[NoMan]

I'm not insulting you. I just can't address the format. I'm a bloody engineer. I'm use to a particular format of writing which appeals to my brain. I attempted to address your post.

I didn't think that career-based specialization would effect your ability to get what I was saying. I apologize if this got out of hand.

I'm a nineteen year old uneducated hippie, I don't know a lot of the jargon, but I think I understand a lot (not all!) of what's going on in the world, in principle, if not specifically.

I'm just trying to communicate with someone who I figured knew more than me, but I started noticing things that seemed to contradict each other.

For example, you said that you hated when people used words like "Capitalism" as a scape goat for everything that's wrong with the world. I've done things like that before, and understood why someone economically-educated would be irritated with such flippant use of a term that actually means a lot more than robbing people of their money. It's a system of distributing resources. Just because it's been practiced poorly doesn't mean the idea is bad. Right?

But then I remembered your "democracy is a joke" comment. I was merely asking if you think democracy AS PRACTICED THROUGHOUT HISTORY is a joke, which I would agree with, or if democracy AS AN IDEAL, AS A SYSTEM OF REACHING CONSENSUS BY SURVEY is a joke, which I would disagree with. I think voting is important, but that it's been horribly mispracticed throughout history.

You seem to look at democracy very simply as the sum of its history: Democracy hasn't worked, therefore it's a joke. I was trying to point out that you were "scapegoating" democracy in the same way people "scapegoat" capitalism.

I thought democracy merely means reaching consensus by vote, and that all the corrupt addons to it: Senates, houses of representatives, misrepresentation of the issues, complicated legislation that no one reads but everyone seems to have an opinion on, etc. were just products of human frailty.

My thesis here (I guess) is this:

Democracy is an ideology.

Ideologies are rooted in idealism.

Idealism only works in situations that are already ideal. Because it's idealism, not realism or rationalism.

Therefore ideologies should be treated as tools to be used when they're needed: In ideal situations. Because those are the situations they were originally intended to be used in.

Use voting when it makes sense: In small groups where everyone has a fair say. That's the spirit of democracy, because democracy was not thought-up as this system of false choices and oppression, but rather as an idealistic way for everyone to have a say.

Everyone goes around saying "Fuck this," "fuck that," and I think it's short-sighted. If my son asked me what democracy was, I would tell him "Well it's a system where the idea is to reach a solution by letting everyone vote in order to show their opinion, but it doesn't really work in many situations for a lot of those reasons (then I would tell him them)..."

and let him make a decision on his own.

Not mislead him with the dogma that "democracy is a joke."

That's how crusades happen. That's how useful ideas fall out of cultural memory, because they weren't associated with their intentions, but rather with their ineffective use.

 

[NoMan]

As for the statement about those poor amongst us; It is an example of how Wilde holds Self-realization as a prime goal in life, which all should pursue.
Becoming the beasts of burden, the exchangeable cogs in the wheel of our civilization has little "true" value in this idealism.
Though you may argue that we need these cogs, I am inclined to agree that we should aim higher in our individual lives. To truly become an individual.

I'm actually in total agreement here.

I think-- because of situations beyond our control-- it's okay to become a cog in body, but not in mind. Those few cubic inches of space are all we have any real control over, if we have any real control over anything.

In my ideal society, everyone pursues knowledge, avoids pettiness and subjectivity, is a mild Utilitarian (but not so cold as to hate art, or beauty), grows their own food, owns just enough land to live off of, and is technologically equipped for their time. Naturally, this is how I should like to live with my family.

Actually, my ideal society is nothing. That's the only system truly at rest. But that's idealism. A little chaos is always fun. And necessary for human existence. We're the tyrants of our own bodies. Legions of cells die for us. Even if there's no tyranny in the human world, there is tyranny in the worlds within the human.

 

[Jordan~]

I'd weight in and say that I think that to be interested in oneself over others is the greatest evil in terms both of scale and severity. But that's unlikely to go down well here. Any system predicated on greed and self-interest will be corrupted to its core by them.
My ideal society is that in which we've achieved, without wiping ourselves out and without the need for atrocities, such powers through the cooperative application of our mental efforts that we're capable of eradicating all suffering by either manipulating our present universe to alter the rules that necessitate it or by creating and moving to a universe that functions according to rules which make suffering impossible. Maybe that'll never be possible, but it's worth a shot, I think.

Incidentally I don't think ideologies are primarily rooted in idealism, I think they're the natural creation and promotion of those ideas which are necessary for the preservation of the status quo in most cases; that is, prevalent ideologies are usually a natural product of the power relations of the societies they dominate, rather than a product of the ideals of an ideologue.

On the subject of the thread, read in a German accent: "Industry castrates art. The only honesty is in suicide."

 

[NoMan]

Incidentally I don't think ideologies are primarily rooted in idealism, I think they're the natural creation and promotion of those ideas which are necessary for the preservation of the status quo in most cases; that is, prevalent ideologies are usually a natural product of the power relations of the societies they dominate, rather than a product of the ideals of an ideologue.

Well, that's a very eloquent way to put it, and you've gotten me to take into account a factor I missed in my assessment of ideologies. Thank you.

My initial linking of idealism to ideology (which I now realize was flawed) was mainly due to my noticing that ideologies are often promoted as a "one solution" to a type of problem, as though they were an algorithm. But ideologies pertain to human affairs, and we do not yet understand the cause and effect chains of nature deeply enough to be able to have a "one solution" to human affairs. History is young. Things change rapidly with developments. Refinement of current ideologies, and the treatment of them as tools, rather than the constant spawning of new ideologies, and the treatment of them as a one stop shop for eternal good would benefit humanity I think.

If kids were raised on the idea that philosophies and science are different tools (with different levels of precision) for figuring out the world, they'd be less prone to merely swallow an ideology at a young age and spend their entire lives fighting for it meaninglessly, and they'd be more likely to see it as a means to a more important end: the improvement of the human condition.

And before someone tells me philosophy is useless and that science is the way (I hear this notion from INTJs a lot), understand that we still have a time gap between now and when we'll have theories on social interaction that are as mathematically-accurate as the other sciences. We need philosophy to make day to day decisions. Philosophy is just a word for using your intuition to ponder things that you can not know for sure. It's actually pretty useful for approximating things in the absence of objective theories.

 

[Jordan~]

Well, there are various disparate phenomena all of which are described as ideologies (because, as I say, ideology is defined more by its social function than its content). For example, Stalinism is an ideology, but so is "be nice to people". One could argue that either will solve all of the world's problems, but I think it's more likely that a guiding principle - like the latter - under which everyone tried to live would be far more likely to improve the world. For example, if we lived in a society where the ideology that emerged naturally was one of wanting the best for others, we would be driven to advance the human conidition in order to get the best for all those others out there.
Idealistic maybe, but I'm extremely idealistic. "Don't settle for anything less than the best of; everyone settles for the rest, not the best of; I will die for no less than the best of life."
I'd always emphasise that the content of an ideology is almost irrelevant to its consequences - the political motives of those who have the power to control that ideology determine what it's used to justify. "Never kill anyone" can mean "kill everyone" if the right person says so; equally "kill everyone" can mean "never kill anyone". For an example of what I mean look at the cyclical nature of peace and barbarism in Abrhamic religions - the texts don't change, but the Christian and Islamic worlds have variously been the pinnacles of civilisation, culture and learning and depraved nests of vicious violence, intirigue, murder and genocide depending largely on the global political situation at the time. The very same words were used to praise one and justify the other.
It would be very naive to identify one course of action as the solution to the world's problems. That's probably what's gone wrong before. Everywhere and everyone will need different solutions, and every solution will be cultural, political, social, economic, scientific, philosophical, geographical, etc. etc. in nature. You can't boil mankind's problems down to one issue alone and imagine that when you solve that the world will magically be a happiness orgy. We're very complicated animals, or if you prefer, very broken machines.
I can't stand people claiming that science is more important than philosophy. As if it existed in a vacuum. Science is a philosophical quest for understanding. It is philosophy, without its supporting philosophies it'd be a weird ritual based on a series of baffling assumptions.

 

[Causeless]

Can't dig it.

But I'd still smile if I were the bagboy.