Humans Are Livestock

People don’t generally do things just because they can. The fact that people can often “get away with” carrying debt, i.e. carry debt to their benefit, is only part of the equation. They can get away with it, and it actually benefits them.

Well… You said it was hard to prove, and I stated that of I can figure it out, I’m sure people are doing it! That was my whole point… Perhaps over the top though …

That doesn’t mean that they “want debt”. That merely means that they want something else enough to tolerate debt.

Debt has never benefited me. It’s a burden of a perceived failure, no matter how it arises.

This is a semantic distinction. The “something else” they want is the cash, which is just the obverse of the debt.

In any case, people freely choose to take on debt because they expect it to benefit them and they are frequently right. To my mind, it is fair to say that they wanted that, and even more clearly that they wanted it more than the other available options. If you prefer to use some circumscribed, technical, obtuse or otherwise idiosyncratic definition of ‘to want’, by all means.

Damn you guys, I’m trying to leave…

I made a really weird post in this thread …

BUT!! The point is that people would rather be given something without debt… James is correct …

Informed consent can be…

Here’s your choice … I punch you in the shoulder or kick you in the nuts!

James is articulating this aspect of want and consent!

The issue at hand is that getting away with debt is being given something… But it was being given something with debt, people prefer to be given something without debt.

You’re being a little pedantic here. People say things like, “I want a job that pays well”. That’s a totally normal, meaningful use of the word ‘want’ and we all understand what is meant. It does not change anything that the speaker may greatly prefer to be paid well without having a job.

Similarly, people can want to take out a loan to buy a house. Sure, they’d love to just be given a house, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to take out the loan, to take on the debt.

But the word ‘want’ is not the point. The point is that debt can be and frequently is part of a desirable outcome that people choose for themselves without coercion.

There’s a big difference between debt and overhead for one…

A person would much rather buy a house than take a loan for two…

And sometimes debt is not voluntarily assumed, sometimes liens are transferred inter generationally, as when predecessors die with extremely heavily mortgaged expensive property, with bleak outlook of payout in four or five generations or more, as in the cases of downward mobility. The overhead of course decreases dramatically, but there remains the caviat of the transfer of deed to never sell. All the families’ sum income is needed for this effort. The family is constrained to get along under horrendous circumstances, yet, there is no elements of whether this is feasible or not, since the mortgages are based on absolute ownership and control. The serfs and the Lords of the Middle Ages knew what this meant, in real terms.
The ruined aristocrats of modern times with titles but no money are also privy to this form of slavery to land and title.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=190193

I wouldn’t say humans are livestock, but more analogous to bees, insects, or worker drones.

Or even bacteria and viruses.

Honeybees are very successful and efficient. In one point - offspring / reproduction ( :exclamation: ) - they are even more efficient than humans.

We are virus, we are better than virus; we are plague and contagion, we are what cures it. We are symbiotic with all life around us and feast off of it as it feasts off of us. Energy vampires to actual feasting of flesh and blood, muscle and sinew. Welcome to the great circle of life.

Not sure how I missed your earlier comment, Jerkey, my apologies.

In US law, this generally isn’t possible. Most debt dies with the debtor, after the estate is exhausted. There are apparently rare cases where children have been found responsible for their parents medical bills, but that’s the exception. Even a clause in a will that says the heir can never sell a property will only tend to disinherit that person (and my recollection of property law is fading, but I believe many such clauses don’t even do that). So if a property is a net cost, the estate can sell it and wash their hands.

I’m not sure how it works in other countries, so it may be that in places where there are hereditary titles and estates, debt can also get passed down. I agree that’s a bad system, but I have to think it’s the extreme outlier.

Other countries could have broader inheritability of debt generally, and that too is a bad system and may be more common. But given that the US is among the most debt-friendly jurisdictions, with among the most indebted citizens, I think as a proportion of debt this is a small concern. I am open to correction though, if you know otherwise.

The only defense i could give to this sppearent naivete on my part,Carleas, is, that i am of dual national background.

That said, or admitted, the oversight to relevance to topic may be mitigated by raising the literal bar of interpreting the nature of debt away from the material to the metaphoric sense. In that manner of speaking, it is not as though a completely new form of language has to be invented, but what is sought after would ideally be more metaphoric, more rich in its potential ways of interpretation. This desirable way of communicating sees the old Continental and British ways of dealing with debt.

This is what early immigrants to the United States sought to escape. The ramifications de facto, debt, show a different story. Reparations to Native American and Black American people show a political capital owed to them within the language of a class form of depreciation of value. This form of debt is still outstanding, garnering interest, in spite of arguments contrary.

In this sense, at least for those improperly repaired, the debt can incite a nominal pre inflated value.

And that is not to say that the ground of such a defense purportedly rests on a purely elevating sense within its own formal rhetoric.
U
And to be totally honest, I did not appreciate this difference, until You pointed this out. However the connection in my mind
, at least, between the de facto and the dejure forms of interpretation, did not rise to the level identifying with earlier components of this argument.

And finally I do admit my obvious attempt to draw away a possible closed debate away from the realms of the insubstantive into the opinionated metaphoric analysis. The facts of the debate have been well settled, the winner declared. However facts do not always correspond to the interpretations given them, and in this sense, these can clear the air, or, obfuscate them.

In this debate, without going into particulars, there is an attempt for closurr, closure in the sense of making irrelevant the continuation of trying to create grey areas between the questions of, whether or not, humans are livestock.

This grey area would create a sense of irresolution, where. Such may not be needed, since there is always some leakage of information which I’m wrong hands, can develop further information, ultimately resulting in adjacent areas of misinformation.

This is why, at times the original source is needed to validate whatever spin happens to gain the upper hand in any newly formed conviction.

Therefore to my mind, the question of debt, although outmoded and substantially outmoded, retains its formal elements, and seeks validation with or by formal authority.

The material content will eschew no difference between class consciousness in one hand and literally substantive ideas by which such consciousness is figured.

So stripping away a less formal argument of contestable substantive ideas, may not imitate them, merely put them on hold. They are still there, but rendered ineffective.

That there always remains a leakage , of that I have no doubt, and the supposed doubt always arises, when the similarities overweight the exact originals.

Therefore, rather then supposing the two forms of debating being similar or distinct, could very well show an analogy between a proto argument of a split idea of convincing Trumpians of their weakness or ineptitude of developing a public persona of a misinformed bunch, more reactive than autonomous, more steeple livestock than human.

But what of the idea that livestock is essentially nothing to do with labor, and just gets used to produce milk and ultimately to be eaten?

I mean if the metaphorical path is chosen, a more apt metaphor needs to be used. Like humans as oxen and ox-cart-drivers.
(‘One law for lion and ox is oppression’ - Wild Bill)

Another way in which the divergence of the image in the metaphor from mr Ha’s meaning for it becomes apparent is in that cows are fed reasonably well so that the meat tastes right, whereas these cattle-like humans that really do exist a good (meaning large, not actually good) part of the word in the form in which it its meant, are fed, by cheap pricing and ready availability of suboptimal materials presented as great food, as badly as possible so that they become sick so that they must pay and ultimately get as a collective so sick, that a collective heath tax is imposed which cripples the haha-cattle-class even more and reduces more people to haha-cattle.

But the final argument in spirit of Carleas, that humans should be able to overcome these conditions and prove to be more than cattle or work-mules also goes for McDonalds - you can survive it and overcome your pitiful state and eat some raw fennel like I saw an opera singer do in the elevator.

Also someone in this room is going to to publish a booklet of mr Ha under the name “We are Livestock” and profit from his unrewarded work as he stews in the mud. But thats just good capitalistic taste.

I think the debate was lost because the metaphor wasn’t being scrutinized to begin with so the abysmal condition of livestock cant be examined now because humans have victimized themselves so evilly that even livestock must further suffer indignation added to injury and insult.

I do think the metaphore can be useful in light of evolutionary assumptions of current views, and the last few centuries are indicative toward those types views
But no one can set store by an issue, which has not been completely resolved, so the metaphore remains as figurative relatively speaking , as prompted by untimely propositions of hypothetical aims of understanding the constitution of the homosapian

The pre evolutionary hypothetical aims of natural selection ,primarily understood in material terms , , can be seen as a final dictate, or the earliest definitional aims of humankind
of presumed meaning embedded within the aims of human experience believed to be equally relevant,.

I think,both are significant, apart and inclusive as both: whether their interpretation appears at times contradictory, other times shadowing incrementally. In near perfect harmony.

The level of apprehension determines the substantiality of the interpretations regarding the aims of project Man, and in this way of seeing can be both: a sacred animal who lost his way, or merely sidestepping his own self realization, to cope with existential preoccupations dealing with the issues we are currently facing ;overpopulation, civilizational unhappiness and strife,and the unfortunate effects that scientific applicationswhich has changed the previous firm terrain of the planet.

But all this can pass away, including the downward devaluation of the role man plays in the natural design. Which, sorrily, has come down to individual, psychologically predisposed views of man being alone in the universe.

It’s equally possible we are not alone, and even in former times, others were here. Atlanticans, other civilizations may have precursors the planet. Billions of years stymie the lapse of maybe a million years of evolution. If we develop metaphors which are so relativistic as to demean the potential and categorically significant prior visions of meaning, we may undermine Nature’s ultimate goals for mankindd, and foreclose upon Nature’s own precedent , Her own aims in Her own need to become aware of Herself, not the other way around.

I think men can become as livestock, and through the will exert power to force others to subscribe to this notion, , Nature may not go along with it, and entertain other forms of creation.