Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: By the way...this is still a very hot debate happening today in the world of philosophy and it has been going on for thousands of years. So lets try and keep things composed and calm (i'm going to do my best  ) there are no hard and fast answers and there are plenty of gray areas for sure.

doodle,

There may be no hard and fast answers in your world, but you really don't know whether there are such answers in the worlds of others.

The things that trouble you now troubled me as well when I was younger, but they don't trouble me now.  I have found "hard and fast answers" that suit me well.

Perhaps one day you will also find such answers, but always remember that wherever you happen to be on the path of life has no bearing on where anyone else may be.  We are all hacking our own unique paths through this thicket of time and space.

MediumTex wrote:

doodle wrote: By the way...this is still a very hot debate happening today in the world of philosophy and it has been going on for thousands of years. So lets try and keep things composed and calm (i'm going to do my best  ) there are no hard and fast answers and there are plenty of gray areas for sure.

doodle,

There may be no hard and fast answers in your world, but you really don't know whether there are such answers in the worlds of others.

The things that trouble you now troubled me as well when I was younger, but they don't trouble me now.  I have found "hard and fast answers" that suit me well.

Perhaps one day you will also find such answers, but always remember that wherever you happen to be on the path of life has no bearing on where anyone else may be.  We are all hacking our own unique paths through this thicket of time and space.

MT,

I truly respect the position you have taken on life...I've been reading the Tao te Ching. I've read part of How I Found Freedom In an Unfree World. I simply do not share the same philosophies that you do at this moment. I know that what I'm about to say is going to be anathema for you, but I really think that it is possible to structure a more verdant, just, and prosperous society. I believe that society can have respect for liberty, freedom, and individual rights, but also create "rules of the game" that encourage behavior that benefits us all. I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. You probably just puked a little in your mouth, and I'm going to get lambasted as a totalitarian dictator or something probably for saying that. I view people who think that freedom and individuality is an all or nothing proposition as slightly extreme. The truth is in the middle way I think. We cannot walk away from reality and the serious issues that we face. I don't think it is a realistic option to stare at massive problems and just say....they will work themselves out. It isn't human nature to act in that way for better or for worse. Sometimes collective action is necessary.

There may be no hard and fast answers in your world, but you really don't know whether there are such answers in the worlds of others.

At the end of the day we inhabit the same space. There is one world that we and future generations all must share with every other living thing on this planet.

doodle wrote: MT,

I truly respect the position you have taken on life...I've been reading the Tao te Ching. I've read part of How I Found Freedom In an Unfree World. I simply do not share the same philosophies that you do at this moment. I know that what I'm about to say is going to be anathema for you, but I really think that it is possible to structure a more verdant, just, and prosperous society.

By whose standard will such a society be structured?

Will it be based upon voluntary associations or will it be coercive?

I believe that society can have respect for liberty, freedom, and individual rights, but also create "rules of the game" that encourage behavior that benefits us all. I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. You probably just puked a little in your mouth, and I'm going to get lambasted as a totalitarian dictator or something probably for saying that.

No, that's fine.  The question with these things is always "who decides?"  I would rather decide for myself than have someone else decide for me.

I view people who think that freedom and individuality is an all or nothing proposition as slightly extreme. The truth is in the middle way I think.

That's fine, but on what basis do you apply that standard to anyone but yourself?  Do you recognize the sovereignty of others?  Recognizing this sovereignty is the basis for creating a society in which people enter into voluntary exchanges and the world gradually gets better overall as a result of people being free to improve themselves individually.

Would you rather have three stores to choose from or one store that you are required to shop at?  I would prefer to have choice and let the provider of the best ideas/products/services naturally emerge.

We cannot walk away from reality and the serious issues that we face. I don't think it is a realistic option to stare at massive problems and just say....they will work themselves out.

But doodle, THEY WILL WORK THEMSELVES OUT!!!  That's the point.  Every problem will work itself out, as long as people are provided with the freedom to come up with solutions that actually work.  It's when a central authority tries to step in front of this process in the name of "what's good for other people" that small problems become large problems.

It isn't human nature to act in that way for better or for worse. Sometimes collective action is necessary.

The question will always be "who decides?"  I have no problem with collective action so long as it is not coercive.  The problem is that there is a certain personality type that is drawn to collective action that often seems to prefer coercion to persuasion. 

MT,

So every issue can be decided by individuals? There is no space for collective decisions where majority rule? You are a lawyer...who decides to coercively strip away a mans liberty when he commits a crime? Don't we do that collectively as a society among an arbitrarily picked group of people?

In your world would there even be a government at all? Would it just be total anarchy? Anytime there is a government there to enforce laws (private property laws included) it seems like coercive action is necessary. If I don't want to voluntarily join this immoral concept of private property that forms the underpinnings of this country, can I just opt out and freely roam and squat wherever I wish? I mean I have the right to live according to my own morality, don't I?

I just don't see how this philosophical viewpoint that you hold is applicable to reality. I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't happen to see things as black and white as you do apparently. I think reality is very subtle shades of grey.

There's no gray in your arguments at all, Doodle.  It's either anarchy or rule by Lord Doodle, arbiter of all morality and master of the "orderly" society.

doodle wrote: Noam Chomsky is a libertarian yet he realizes that somewhere along the line there must be a "moral code". I can't believe that you actually think that nihilism is ever going to be realistic. Its an interesting philosophy to thing about in abstract ways, but I don't see how it would be applied to our world today.

Please stop calling Chomsky a libertarian.  He's an anarcho-socialist.  He has as much in common with a libertarian as I do with a flatworm.

RuralEngineer wrote: There's no gray in your arguments at all, Doodle.  It's either anarchy or rule by Lord Doodle, arbiter of all morality and master of the "orderly" society.

That is the epitome of hyperbole! 

Meta-ethical moral relativism seems very compatible with anarchy actually. I don't happen to be a big fan of anarchy. It sounds a little scary to me frankly.

Lord Doodle sounds kind of nice! I don't advocate setting myself up as a dictator. I don't want to rule over anything. Heck I can't even keep my house clean. I think there are issues however that need to be decided through a democratic representative process. Should a gas company be allowed to frack beneath a cities well water? I don't know....complicated question. Ultimately in the arena of debate either the gas company is going to win, or the environmentalists. Not everyone can make an individual decision on this type of issue. Some group is going to get something they don't like. Moving and leaving and all that other jazz sounds nice in theory, but it isn't really reality.

doodle wrote: MT,

So every issue can be decided by individuals? There is no space for collective decisions where majority rule? You are a lawyer...who decides to coercively strip away a mans liberty when he commits a crime? Don't we do that collectively as a society among an arbitrarily picked group of people?

Every issue WILL be decided by individuals.  Sometimes they will be working together and other times they will be alone.

I would not point to the criminal justice system as an example of optimal communal problem solving.  That is an example of collective action, but it illustrates the problem I am trying to point out--it's clumsy and inefficient and it causes individuals to engage in absurd actions to carry out the will of the collective.

The individuals who decide to take away a criminal's liberty are those who sit on a jury or the judge.  Among the members of a jury, each member will tell you that they reached the decision as a group based upon their sense of justice as individuals.

In your world would there even be a government at all? Would it just be total anarchy? Anytime there is a government there to enforce laws (private property laws included) it seems like coercive action is necessary. If I don't want to voluntarily join this immoral concept of private property that forms the underpinnings of this country, can I just opt out and freely roam and squat wherever I wish? I mean I have the right to live according to my own morality, don't I?

When people are free to enter into voluntary exchanges and relationships, a natural organization of society emerges, sort of like Adam Smith's "invisible hand."

There is nothing anarchic about letting people make their own decisions about what they are going to do.

I just don't see how this philosophical viewpoint that you hold is applicable to reality. I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't happen to see things as black and white as you do apparently. I think reality is very subtle shades of grey.

Well, just drive around tomorrow and you will see what I mean.  There are many stores that offer different products and services at different prices.  You can choose to buy whichever ones you can afford, or you can choose to buy nothing at all.  The organization of society I am describing is already present in many facets of our lives.  You don't have to like it, but it's easily observable and it works reasonably well in satisfying society's needs and desires.

Well, just drive around tomorrow and you will see what I mean.  There are many stores that offer different products and services at different prices.  You can choose to buy whichever ones you can afford, or you can choose to buy nothing at all.  The organization of society I am describing is already present in many facets of our lives.  You don't have to like it, but it's easily observable and it works reasonably well in satisfying society's needs and desires.

Yes, it does work well in many situations. I like it. But it doesn't work well in all situations and it is not an accurate reflection of reality. You are extrapolating what works well at one level of society and applying it to the whole. That seems to be similar to the mistake people make when they take microeconomics and attempt to apply its principles to the macroeconomy.

We are never going to bridge this gap. We agree on some stuff but are miles apart on others. Whether you like the system of representative democracy or not, I guess our individual votes are going to decide the direction that we collectively take as a country. 

doodle wrote:

Well, just drive around tomorrow and you will see what I mean.  There are many stores that offer different products and services at different prices.  You can choose to buy whichever ones you can afford, or you can choose to buy nothing at all.  The organization of society I am describing is already present in many facets of our lives.  You don't have to like it, but it's easily observable and it works reasonably well in satisfying society's needs and desires.

Yes, it does work well in many situations. I like it. But it doesn't work well in all situations and it is not an accurate reflection of reality. You are extrapolating what works well at one level of society and applying it to the whole. That seems to be similar to the mistake people make when they take microeconomics and attempt to apply its principles to the macroeconomy.

We are never going to bridge this gap. We agree on some stuff but are miles apart on others. Whether you like the system of representative democracy or not, I guess our individual votes are going to decide the direction that we collectively take as a country. 

Exactly.

Capitalism is just a purer expression of democracy.

I don't have a problem with living in a system like the one we live in, even if I can conceive of ways in which it might be improved upon.

Do you not realize that your buying decisions are exactly like the political decisions you make when you vote?  All our political system is is a monopolistic/oligopolistic approach to delegating power in society.  I can imagine ways in which it would be less monopolistic/oligopolistic, and thus even more responsive to the needs of "the market", but what we have is better than many other systems where there is no choice at all.

People in the U.S. complain about the government, but if you pay your taxes and drive the speed limit you can go your whole life without having any direct contact with the government at all, which is pretty cool if you think about it.

Capitalism is just a purer expression of democracy.

Yes, in fantasyland that might be true. On this earth it is not.  There is a neo-con theory that as long as you impose free markets on a society, then naturally a democracy will follow. I don't agree. Democracy without limitations and regulations is a tyranny of the majority. Capitalism without limitations and regulations quickly develops into a social nightmare. This social nightmare is the one that Marx lived through and described.

One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the United States is the idea that the free market is natural – that it exists in some natural world, separate from government. In this view, government rules and regulations only “interfere”? with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Even the term “free market”? implies that it can exist free from government and that it prospers best when government leaves it alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government – it is very much a product of government rules and regulations. The dirty little secret of our free market system is that it would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.

Our central disagreement is in the details of how the system we presently have should deal with certain issues. You think we should just take a totally hands off approach in most cases to problems that arise and let the market solve them. For certain situations I prefer a more hands on approach and for that I immediately get labeled a marxist. That is idiotic.

I think that our market should be regulated in such a way as to encourage behavior among participants that is environmentally sound based on the latest science. I think we should have regulations that force us to look at issues from a longer time perspective instead of only worrying about the here and now. I see how proper government laws and regulations along with a free market have resulted in huge improvements in human standards of living in the west. But new problems constantly arise that need to be dealt with. Overconsumption and the destruction of ecosystems is a big problem today that must be dealt with. There are negative externalities in the market that are not being accounted for. THESE MUST BE DEALT WITH. If you say they don't, then I simply disagree with you.

My position is not radical. It is supported by a HUGE number of careful thinking people. MT, your position is highly radical actually and I just happen to disagree. On this forum I might be the outsider or the insane radical, in the world and outside of this forum that moniker belongs to the position that you take.

I'm curious, MT. Do you support the government protections afforded under our legal system to limited liabilty corporations? Would these forms of organization be abolished in your concept of an ideal society because they represent government interference into the marketplace by affording special protections to a group of people as a collective entity?

Again,  I'm just trying to get an idea where you stand on some of these issues.

Slotine wrote:

doodle wrote: I think that our market should be regulated in such a way as to encourage behavior among participants that is environmentally sound based on the latest science. I think we should have regulations that force us to look at issues from a longer time perspective instead of only worrying about the here and now. I see how proper government laws and regulations along with a free market have resulted in huge improvements in human standards of living in the west. But new problems constantly arise that need to be dealt with. Overconsumption and the destruction of ecosystems is a big problem today that must be dealt with. There are negative externalities in the market that are not being accounted for. THESE MUST BE DEALT WITH. If you say they don't, then I simply disagree with you.

I'm actually quite the pro-science camp, so that always makes me think of this sadly:

http://pregnancy.thesfile.com/prenatal- ... ant-women/

Pregnant women were once permitted, even encouraged, to drink alcohol by their doctors.  In the nineteenth century, physicians prescribed champagne as a treatment for morning sickness, and brandy with soda as an appetite stimulant.  Well into the twentieth century, alcohol was viewed as an all-purpose remedy that soothed pregnant women’s nerves and fortified them for the rigors of labor.  It was believed that alcohol would relax the uterus following amniocentesis, and even arrest labor that had begun prematurely.

There are countless other examples where prescriptive solutions have ended up being so wrong.  There are GRAND leaps between scientific measurement, hypothesis, and theory.  Sadly, environmental issues fall into the 'by the time we can test whether our prescriptions formed on top of hypothesis are right or wrong, we'd likely be long dead' group.

Thus I shiver at any heavy-handedness brought about by 'we don't have time, we must ACT NOW!'  That's always easy justification for promoting your own belief system over real science. 

Slotine, so the answer to problems that will surely arise is to do absolutely nothing? Yes, sometimes solutions don't work out as intended. Non action however is not an option. When the Cuyahoga river catches fire four times because it is so polluted by the negative externalities of business, then agencies get created to solve these issues. This is how humans deal with problems. You might prefer some movement through the legal system rather than a government agency. I would support that if I thought it would work. As elegant as it sounds, I don't see individuals taking down multinational corporations in court.

Regulations based on scientific relativism? Scientists will often look at the same hard data and come to completely different hypothesis and conclusions. Who are you to say which conclusions and hypothesis are correct?

Imagine a group of scientists do a study on what causes rainstorms. Every time it rains, the scientists notice that people are carrying umbrellas. The scientists conclude that people carrying umbrellas must cause rainstorms. Based on the conclusions of that study, do you think the government should pass a law to stop everyone from carrying umbrellas?

Imagine another study that observes that firemen appear whenever a house catches on fire. The scientists conclude that firemen must be correlated with fires. Should we stop employing firemen based on that "scientific" observational evidence?

Gumby wrote: Scientists will often look at the same hard data and come to completely different hypothesis and conclusions. Who are you to say which conclusions and hypothesis are correct?

Alas science is badly contaminated by politics.  Scientists know if they publish things which go against the politically correct view of certain things, it will not go well for them.  There were e-mails released a coupla years ago where you could see this process in action i.e. what steps were being taken to prevent heretical (to them) views from being aired, given traction, etc.

doodle wrote: I'm curious, MT. Do you support the government protections afforded under our legal system to limited liability corporations? Would these forms of organization be abolished in your concept of an ideal society because they represent government interference into the marketplace by affording special protections to a group of people as a collective entity?

Again,  I'm just trying to get an idea where you stand on some of these issues.

I don't think it matters that much either way.  If there are limited liability entities available it will probably pull more capital into risky ventures that would otherwise expose investors to significant potential liability.  OTOH, limiting liability reduces the remedies available to people who have been harmed.

Overall, I think that there are a lot of pros and cons to either approach and I don't really have a strong opinion either way, so long as market participants are provided with clear expectations regarding what the policy will be.

doodle wrote:

Capitalism is just a purer expression of democracy.

Yes, in fantasyland that might be true. On this earth it is not.  There is a neo-con theory that as long as you impose free markets on a society, then naturally a democracy will follow. I don't agree. Democracy without limitations and regulations is a tyranny of the majority. Capitalism without limitations and regulations quickly develops into a social nightmare. This social nightmare is the one that Marx lived through and described.

It is not a fantasyland.  It is outside your door right now.

There is nothing neocon about allowing markets to do their thing.  The neocon approach is to pick the winners and allow them to turn the government into a tool to protect their markets from any would-be competitors.  That's not at all what I am talking about.

What you may not be understanding is that markets will always be present--it's just a question  of how they are structured and who controls them.  Once you see that the government is just one more market participant trying to influence outcomes it is easier to see what I am saying.

In North Korea there is a political marketplace, it is just subject to the monopoly of the state, which won't allow any competitors to set up shop.  It's still a market, though; it's just a very inefficient market.

One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the United States is the idea that the free market is natural – that it exists in some natural world, separate from government. In this view, government rules and regulations only “interfere”? with the natural beneficial workings of the market.  Even the term “free market”? implies that it can exist free from government and that it prospers best when government leaves it alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government – it is very much a product of government rules and regulations.

So in a state of nature, two cavemen would not be allowed to trade with one another until a caveman government was set up?  That's ridiculous.

The dirty little secret of our free market system is that it would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.

The government can perform a very valuable function in facilitating trade, resolving disputes and protecting against market failures.  I don't have a problem with any of that.

Our central disagreement is in the details of how the system we presently have should deal with certain issues. You think we should just take a totally hands off approach in most cases to problems that arise and let the market solve them.

No.  That's not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that the government is just one more market participant that is trying to influence outcomes based upon its own agenda and interests.  Since these interests are often incoherent and inefficient, I would like to see as little influence as possible from this particular market participant.

For certain situations I prefer a more hands on approach and for that I immediately get labeled a marxist. That is idiotic.

I didn't label you a Marxist.  If you are talking about a "hands-on" approach, though, you are often talking about the hand of the state plundering wealth that someone else created.  All government action is undertaken with good intentions.  A benevolent looter is still a looter.

I think that our market should be regulated in such a way as to encourage behavior among participants that is environmentally sound based on the latest science. I think we should have regulations that force us to look at issues from a longer time perspective instead of only worrying about the here and now. I see how proper government laws and regulations along with a free market have resulted in huge improvements in human standards of living in the west. But new problems constantly arise that need to be dealt with. Overconsumption and the destruction of ecosystems is a big problem today that must be dealt with. There are negative externalities in the market that are not being accounted for. THESE MUST BE DEALT WITH. If you say they don't, then I simply disagree with you.

They WILL be dealt with.  It's just a question of how and by whom.  If, however, the government can't keep the potholes filled, on what basis do we believe that it can protect the earth's climate, eliminate suffering or end war?  That's silly.

My position is not radical. It is supported by a HUGE number of careful thinking people.

It's just a standard statist line.  Many people believe the same things you believe.  In many ways statism has replaced religion as a secular mental framework that provides a sense of wholeness to people's lives.  People want something to believe in, and a state that can make the world a better place is very enticing.

MT, your position is highly radical actually and I just happen to disagree. On this forum I might be the outsider or the insane radical, in the world and outside of this forum that moniker belongs to the position that you take.

It's okay for you to think it's radical and to disagree.

TennPaGa wrote:

Gumby wrote: Imagine a group of scientists economists do a study on what causes rainstorms. Every time it rains, the scientists economists notice that people are carrying umbrellas. The scientists economists conclude that people carrying umbrellas must cause rainstorms.

FTFY.

Nah... every area of science is polluted by observational studies that often prove nothing. Happens all the time. In reality, these observational studies are supposed to be used to form hypotheses for further study, but the media tends to report them as if they were fact and other scientists will often cite those loose observations as fact as well. There's a lot of bad science out there.

I think the brand of libertarianism going on here would be called "Libertarian Capitalism" (except for MachineGhost who seems to be an anarcho-socialist now) According to Chomsky this American perversion of real libertarianism is a contradiction of terms. Now I'm really done with this discussion 

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.
If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

It's also worth pointing out that Doodle has previously argued that certain political parties deliberately ignore scientific evidence.

See: http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/in ... 1.msg15983

A few years ago, I might have agreed that the government needs to enforce such "science" more closely. However, after realizing just how much "junk science" there is out there, I'm rather fearful that governments are in the business of enforcing unproven observational hypotheses.

There was a time when the top doctors considered Heroin and Cocaine to be extremely safe treatments for various diseases.

[align=center][/align]
[align=center]Source: Clinical excerpts, Volume 5, 1899[/align]

[align=center][/align]
[align=center]Source: Therapeutic Gazette, 1899[/align]

A few decades later, the best scientists concluded that we needed to cook with Polyunsaturated fats and trans fats. These days, the government recommends a specific diet that appears to cause obesity.

If Doodle were a king in the middle ages — or a even modern dictator — he'd probably be enacting all sorts of "scientific-based" legislation, but in all likelihood he would be unknowingly killing his population with junk science.

Does anyone know if eggs and bacon are good or bad for me? 

melveyr wrote: Does anyone know if eggs and bacon are good or bad for me? 

Ask your government or your dictator

I bow down before my capitalistic master Gumby and lick his boots clean so maybe he'll throw me a few scraps of newspaper to cover my naked and freezing body. Apparently no one is taking YOU seriously....

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

Gumby wrote:

melveyr wrote: Does anyone know if eggs and bacon are good or bad for me? 

Ask your government or your dictator

There is sort of a "boy king" streak of authoritarianism in doodle's posts that he may not even be aware of.

doodle, the only one with any hatred here is you. You're full up with anger and resentment but you don't even seem to realize it. You long for a world of perfect freedom yet envision it created by political power, presumably wielded by someone as enlightened as yourself.

You need to sort yourself out before the world will make any sense to you. Right now you're just arguing yourself in circles and alienating those around you.