The reason I bring up the issue, and the reason for the whole thread is to do my little part to get it changing to the better a little faster.

Okay, time for my magical, mystical, "condensing the debate in order to prevent another Zarf/Smartys, enormous re-posting of old posts debacle!"
My responses have before them.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> 1: Elites can replace humans when possible, and can bribe humans when replacement isn't possible, which means oppression is inevitable because the elites don't have a dependence on masses.

Elites can replace humans when possible, and can bribe humans when replacement isn't possible, and, yes, this does mean oppression is inevitable.  But gauge the level of 'oppression' we face today as opposed to the oppression faced by humans in Ancient Egypt.  You must admit there is a trend toward more equitable state of human dignity, human rights, and liberty.

The cause of that was an increasing need for individuals as a result of technology.  World war 2 proved that we need special individuals (scientists, in that case) for the state to retain power.  Mass media and other tools become other "special individuals."  The transition between Ancient Egypt and today isn't just an increase in knowing.  It was an increase in specialization.  Remember, in ancient Egypt, a slave was a slave.  Farm, build pyramids, whatever.  Now, however, specialization makes each individual special.

But in the same sense, it also makes some individuals less valuable.  If I was the best crossbow-builder in 1700, and traveled to today to build crossbows, I would probably be a poor guy with lots of crossbows next to his cardboard box home.  (But you better not try to steal my tin cup or I'll mess ya up, biotch!)

Now we're headed toward a technological shift: when technology forces people out of many niches into others.  Low skilled labor is replaced with technology, which means the government isn't dependent on that low-skilled labor, so they're not representative of them.

Now in regards to more skilled labor, that's slowly going out the window.  If there's any job that requires human intuition to fill, two words respond to that: artificial intelligence.  Bam, the elites no longer need the people, even the highly skilled people, and they can do whatever the hell they want.

2: The elites won't make the transition because, despite what may be best for society, it's in their interests to retain power.

The elites will make the transition, albeit far too often it is done too late, which results in wars, which results in them being killed off anyway, albeit along with millions of humans, too.

One fact remains: If elites already have an advantage over us in technology, they can live through the war, which means the rest of the losses are mere pawns at most.

4: The elites have more weapons than simply brute force.  Economic, political, or cultural warfare can exact the same goals as military warfare, and give the same power.  Control of any important resource, spreading of a message, etc., can coopt your movement by fighting it tooth and nail.

But what good does this do them?  New technologies are always re-engineered by the humans to suit their purposes rather than the elites, when, of course, the LAW allows them to.

But technology can serve good and evil at the same time, as long as there are markets for each.  Let's use an example I personally love: nanotechnology.  I can develop disease-curing microrobots if I like and give it to the public, or I can create an airborne disease that kills all non-white people.  Or... I could create the disease-curing microrobots, then someone else could reengineer that to create the airborne disease.

The demand for both good and bad technology exists at the same time, which means both can be constructed at the same time.

>Once greater numbers, including their own population, becomes the enemy of the state, restraint for the purpose of protecting populations is meaningless since everyone is guilty.  If the government wanted to, they could pick any number of ways of taking down populations, including:
A: Direct warfare.

This usually ends badly for Elites.

Answered above.  Empirically, yes, it does.  But when power can be consolidated due to technology reducing dependence on individuals, bam.

B: Control of food supplies or other key resources.  Can't endorse a post-modern, harmonious society when you're all starving!

Yes.  Which is why technology needs to be released by relaxing intellectual property and patent laws to allow humans to create an abundance of basic needs.

It will happen anyway, mind you, but it would be a nice gesture by the developed world.

Now we get to something interesting.
A prerequisite for stopping elite power is for the elites to surrender their power willingly.  Notice a problem with that?

If not, I'm making two new threads today:
1: I know how to stop terrorism globally, and
2: Alot less people would have been killed during the Holocaust if the Holocaust didn't happen.

As for the "it will happen anyway," explain that further, please.  Maybe a justification as to how resources can be decentralized and can be prevented from being taken over by authorities if, as you say, those authorities actively work to stop that from happening.  Example: alternative energy.

How the hell did Jimmy Carter become the subject of this thread? 

> Black_Wing wrote:

> Xeno believes him a Good US President.

And how is that related to the original topic?  Unless your discussing his original topic, this doesn't disprove the argument and thus becomes a de facto ad hominem attack.

That's kind of like if you made a post about oil prices and I spent three pages saying how your use of the word "the" in the original post is somehow morally reprehensible.

> avogadro wrote:

> how is zarf a dirty politician and Black Wing not?

> avogadro wrote:

[ something that better not EVER appear here again]

That smiley I had earlier got wiped out of my face pretty quickly.

I did the following:
1: Lots of questions answered in the questions forum, especially in December
2: An Easter egg hunt a couple years ago
3: Lots of points from random games in general
4: Some parts of the FAQ are from me

There may be other stuff... I don't remember...

> avogadro wrote:

> sounds like ways to get positive points if you ask me...

Oh... then I said to one of the moderators "hey, can I convert my positive tag points to negative tag points?"
It was a difficult negotiation...
"Yeah, but each 2 positives is only worth 1 negative and vice versa."
Me: "Okay"

And that is the epic story...

By the way, Im just a Player. 

"very powers that be which you complain about originally are the very entities which make the transition possible"

The powers I complain about are not the very entities which make the transition possible.  The whole human race is the entity which makes the transition not only possible but a blatant and unambiguous fact.  The human race as a whole is always changing the system incrementally, day in and day out, each and every single person a catalyst for change by effects of the day-to-day choices they make: what foods they tend to buy for what prices / what sort of barter-based exchange, the places they tend to settle in, the number of children they have, the stories they tell, the amount of water / energy they consume.

The cumulative catalytic actions day-to-day actions of each and every human being IS the system, the only system; is TRANSITION, and always will be.

The system = transition

and please don't confuse 'the powers that be' with 'the system' anymore, for it is an erroneous concept.

Obama helps facilitate the transition

fa⋅cil⋅i⋅tate
   /fəˈsɪlɪˌteɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuh-sil-i-teyt] Show IPA Pronunciation

Whoops!  I haven't checked this in a couple days, so I forgot to respond.

And even if you got the "last word," you still didn't respond to a giant post of mine, which means I also got the "last word."

If your last words are "I like pie," it doesn't mean you win. 

"If the US was really a country where anyone can be anything, why is it that pretty much all the presidents of the united states are born with a silver spoon in their mouth, go to ivy league unis / west point / military academies / have military career / connections and interests with the corporate world."
Same reason a doctor goes to medical school. You want someone with the education and ability to do the job, not some nitwit who never graduated from High School.

As for your Military Industrial Complex, yes, the military tries to get who will help them most elected, but....alas. they lost this time? Obama's never served in the military and wants to end the war.

I DON'T like how there's a 1:1 Uniformed:Private contractor ratio in Iraq, I DON'T like the amount of money used for 'defense', and I DON'T like the state of the US economy, society, or education. 

America was founded on the belief that we can be who we want to become, and to some extent it's true, however, due to the way society is set up, and to some extent, selfishness and greed on the part of those better off, the poorest people in the country are in a position in which no matter how much hard work they put into finding a job, it will never be there for them because the school they went to had no computers, didn't have enough staff, was overcrowded or many other problems.

There are problems in America without a doubt, but to generalize Americans and to say you ALL say Land of the Free, etcetc, is offensive to many who do not share the views of many of the most vocal Americans who just so happen to be blindly nationalistic and somewhat irrational.