Economy The Capitalism Crumble

[Mock Artwork]

I'm not talking about mere ownership of land, I'm talking about the fundamental principal of capitalism, private ownership of means of production/resources. Not just the land...the water, and thus...the fish in it. Not just the land but the trees and thus, then fruit they bear. Not just the land, but the oil contained in it. Capitalism necessitates the procurement of these things for profit:



Not sure if you've seen that flick but the land they're discussing had oil. The bank tried to claim it with essentially no payment so they could sell it to the oil company and profit. What stood in their way? An average family owning it. That didnt stop them. It never stops them.

Capitalism isnt the mere pursuit of profit. Its ownership, and the atrocities done to cement it. Who arbitrates need? That's where democracy comes in, democracy uncorrupted by capital.

I don’t think you realize the difference between a naturally occurring system and the conglomeration of resources and assets. Yes, what you described is capitalism but it’s not THE definition of capitalism. All resources will be worked in the world regardless of affiliation. Sure, capitalism speeds this up but you can thank all your modern conveniences to it.

What I mean by capitalism is small ‘c’ if you wanna call it that, not large ‘C’. Capitalism can be as easily applied to a farmer trying to provide not just for himself but his generational offspring.

Edited to just throw here: does communism not produce the same inherent hierarchies of abuse waste and neglect? If there’s a fairer game to. E played in all for it, don’t take me wrong.

 

[IanEdwards]

I'm far from being a religious scholar LOL, but I think it's not just greed, it's actually sloth that religious folks would primarily argue about gambling.

It's unlike the protestant work ethic, it's about looking for financial gain without commensurate effort/work. Gambling is largely a zero sum game of chance to attain wealth is the unethical part; that it's a "profession" that doesn't produce products of utility unlike a farmer or smith, and without a positive psychological effect that Church prosperity could be plausibly defended with. So it's in effect a parasitic occupation/behavior. If we go back to when the texts were written a religion/society based on practical work effort would outperform one filled with folks looking to get rich through gambling efforts - which is IMO where the genuine interest at the time lay.

Gambling really doesn't upset heirarchy in any meaningful way. The house always wins provided there's enough "action", it accentuates hierarchy as it invariable transfers wealth upwards, even if like a tiny fraction of folks actually are able to make a highly profitable living out of it, but that's rare much like lotto winners. I always tell people to invest money instead of gamble it (since investing isn't a zero sum game but one of expected positive returns) .... of course I am just dismissed as a nerd for saying that haha.

I actually had to do some research as I assumed gambling would have been explicitly forbidden in the bible, but seemingly it isn't. Of course, there is the forbidding of loaning out at interest, which is similarly 'parasitic' so yeah, it seems the early church had its biggest problems with *unearned* wealth. The woke, un-American, fucking fa**ots that they were. Thank goodness the modern evangelists know better

 

[Mock Artwork]

Sorry I didn't see this part. Does capitalism not also lend to abusive authority? I mean I can think of dozens of instances where it does. I'm not under the illusion that there are perfect systems. I just dont buy into the cybucal view that "people are always going to pursue profit and ownership so..." There are more people out there who are humble and can recognize when they have more than enough versus those who need 8 supercars and 3 giant boats. I keep referring to capitalism as a religion for a reason. According to religion they are also appealing to human nature, the human nature we have to have faith even when it requires suspending logic. It's true we do have this, but many view this as an exploitable trait. There has to be balance to these things, otherwise we end up making conscious horrible decisions to destroy each other and dont wake up until we see the destruction in the wake of it.

Absolutely not trying to shill here, by the way. I have thought a lot about it, studied it, talked to people who lived under different circumstances. All I can make of it is that capitalism is the best, but inherently flawed, model there is for incentive. If everyone was a good person, got up and asked themselves what they could do for society… sure, I’d be all over communism. It just doesn’t work that way.

What’s troubling is that capitalism and corporatism (the conglomeration of capital and assets) seemed to be lumped together. And rightfully so. But there’s distinct differences. Capitalism isn’t a political theory, either. China realizes this, Russia realizes this. It’s the natural game that evolves where everyone must play. Corporatism is a symptom of disrupted economic homeostasis.

 

[Natural Order]

ok cool its kinda emblematic of capitalism that beneath the 'glitzy glamorous facade' of somewhere like vegas there is always the exploited toil of the workers who keep the place going.

You're not wrong. The question becomes, how do you solve or eliminate the nature of hierarchies (observable everywhere in nature) in a manner that placates and inspires the human condition?

Having and not having is the universal struggle of everything on this rock. At least we've kinda moved on from immediate death to classism......still some kinks to work out for sure.

You think Karl got it right?

You'll never eliminate the "have mores", in fact, it's futile to even think in this fashion. What needs to happen is how we find an upper line on "wealth", and how to effectively tax it(needs complete philosophical overhaul). I'm pretty sure there is a mathematical formula for "fair", somewhere out there in the abyss.

 

[Sinister]

I'm far from being a religious scholar LOL, but I think it's not just greed, it's actually sloth that religious folks would primarily argue about gambling.

It's unlike the protestant work ethic, it's about looking for financial gain without commensurate effort/work. Gambling is largely a zero sum game of chance to attain wealth is the unethical part; that it's a "profession" that doesn't produce products of utility unlike a farmer or smith, and without a positive psychological effect that Church prosperity could be plausibly defended with. So it's in effect a parasitic occupation/behavior. If we go back to when the texts were written a religion/society based on practical work effort would outperform one filled with folks looking to get rich through gambling efforts - which is IMO where the genuine interest at the time lay.

Gambling really doesn't upset heirarchy in any meaningful way. The house always wins provided there's enough "action", it accentuates hierarchy as it invariable transfers wealth upwards, even if like a tiny fraction of folks actually are able to make a highly profitable living out of it, but that's rare much like lotto winners. I always tell people to invest money instead of gamble it (since investing isn't a zero sum game but one of expected positive returns) .... of course I am just dismissed as a nerd for saying that haha.

I was thinking about sloth as I typed it. But most of the references I sae when I looked it up real quick were to greed. Though I do see a strong case for sloth. However I still view that as locked into hierarchical thinking. There are LOTS of professions that people claim are parasitic and have no utility. Hell conservatives make fun of kids who pursue education for these things all the time. "What are you going to do with that stupid philosophy degree?" However there is a glaring hole in ournsicial discourse where the philosophers were.

I view gambling as performance Art when people are good at it. Especially in non-rigged games. I used to be pretty friendly with Patrick Antonius (he shopped at my store and liked to chat me up), that dude has ab UNCANNY ability to read people and remain absolutely stone-faced:



Its mind-boggling.



I show stuff like that to my fighters to demonstrate focus, calculation, and mental fortitude under pressure.

I agree modern big gambling mostly enforces economic heirarchy. But remember one of the biggest points of contention that Vegas Casinos messed up. They rigged the games harder and thought no one would notice. Now no one wants to play. There HAS to be some modicum of payout. The hope has to be there. But philosophically I wasnt talking about modern gambling, but just the notion of it. Theoretically bookees make a percentage of what people bet, not the lion's share of it. That's supposed to go to the winner(s). But I hear ya in terms of what it's become.

 

[Mock Artwork]

You're not wrong. The question becomes, how do you solve or eliminate the nature of hierarchies (observable everywhere in nature) in a manner that placates and inspires the human condition?

Having and not having is the universal struggle of everything on this rock. At least we've kinda moved on from immediate death to classism......still some kinks to work out for sure.

You think Karl got it right?

You'll never eliminate the "have mores", in fact, it's futile to even think in this fashion. What needs to happen is how we find an upper line on "wealth", and how to effectively tax it(needs complete philosophical overhaul). I'm pretty sure there is a mathematical formula for "fair", somewhere out there in the abyss.

This is exactly correct. Like markets, hierarchies tend to naturally appear. Take a look at the great apes for example. It’s more about how we hold accountability. In the US accountability on both political sides is laughable. Just wave your damn flag, red hat, blue sticker, and shut the fuck up.

 

[Sinister]

Absolutely not trying to shill here, by the way. I have thought a lot about it, studied it, talked to people who lived under different circumstances. All I can make of it is that capitalism is the best, but inherently flawed, model there is for incentive. If everyone was a good person, got up and asked themselves what they could do for society… sure, I’d be all over communism. It just doesn’t work that way.

What’s troubling is that capitalism and corporatism (the conglomeration of capital and assets) seemed to be lumped together. And rightfully so. But there’s distinct differences. Capitalism isn’t a political theory, either. China realizes this, Russia realizes this. It’s the natural game that evolves where everyone must play. Corporatism is a symptom of disrupted economic homeostasis.

No this discussion is very good. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the geopolitical problems is Imperialism. The US is doing this right now. We WANT our finger in that Greater Israel pie. We WANT that newly-privarized Venzuelan oil. We WANT those crops that are still in Mexico. So we are openly threatening or even committing violence. And we have a long track record of beating the sh*t out of Countries who tell us "no." I know you'll say this is the Corporatism because its Corporate capture of Government (which can also be called fascism)...but capitalism almost always progresses to this. Either physical or economic dominance. China does the same thing, just with loans. They figured out a way to do it non-violently, but they're still aggressively making much of the World more of China.

This is why I always wonder at the claim that no other system works. The Soviet Union sucked for many citizens, however in a very short period of times under their proto-socialism they got to being considered the greatest threat to US hegemony. How? They didnt do everything right, but saying they didnt do A LOT of things right is just not true.

I think it's tough to say capitalism is invariably "the best" because it seems to create the most fortunate poor people, or some other weird contention like that. The finest dumpsters to eat out of. It lends too much trust to giving resources to private entities who we are just supposed to trust to have the public interest at heart. I mean, this is an system who thought up fiduciary responsibility, then ignored it and crashed entire markets.

 

[IanEdwards]

You're not wrong. The question becomes, how do you solve or eliminate the nature of hierarchies (observable everywhere in nature) in a manner that placates and inspires the human condition?

Having and not having is the universal struggle of everything on this rock. At least we've kinda moved on from immediate death to classism......still some kinks to work out for sure.

You think Karl got it right?

You'll never eliminate the "have mores", in fact, it's futile to even think in this fashion. What needs to happen is how we find an upper line on "wealth", and how to effectively tax it(needs complete philosophical overhaul). I'm pretty sure there is a mathematical formula for "fair", somewhere out there in the abyss.

You think Karl got it right?
as far as what he diagnosed, I'd say he described the system and how it worked back then pretty accurately and provided a decent framework for much of what happened after his death.

The question becomes, how do you solve or eliminate the nature of hierarchies (observable everywhere in nature) in a manner that placates and inspires the human condition?
solve and eliminate, no chance. Alleviate, we certainly can. My problem is with people who think as we can't entirely eliminate them, we shouldn't try to even partially alleviate them. Although my suspicion is that in many cases this is misanthropy trying to masquerade as hard-headed sense.

You'll never eliminate the "have mores", in fact, it's futile to even think in this fashion.
absolutely, but preventing them from rigging the game in their own favour is very much desirable, IMO.*****

What needs to happen is how we find an upper line on "wealth", and how to effectively tax it(needs complete philosophical overhaul). I'm pretty sure there is a mathematical formula for "fair", somewhere out there in the abyss.
100% agree



***** Eg from the UK: Private Schools used to be exempt from sales tax/VAT. The current gov't removed that exemption, to much gnashing of teeth. Amusingly the RW press tried to portray 'most parents who send their kids to private school' as not being wealthy or privileged, but 'most of them are normal, hard-working families'. which is of course nonsense given that average private school fees are literally half the average yearly wage, like 'normal' people can afford that, its preposterous

You may be aware, it may be the same in the US, but in the Uk attendance at private school *significantly* increases life chances for kids, not just in terms of 'better education' but in terms of access to networks which will ultimately provide those precious, rare, presitigous job opportunities via the old boys network/ nepotism.

so you have a situation where the top bankers, lawyers, journalistsm, politicians, etc etc, are overwhelmingly privately educated *and much more so than 20 years ago- this is getting worse*. Those schools are literally little factories for perpetuating inequality, and yet, when they made them pay VAT *just like any other business*, of course these privileged scumbags were up in arms. They will trumpet the values of the free market, but apply those values to their own privilege in a way that affects them, they are furious.

so, stuff like making sure privately-educated politicians don't stack the deck in favour of future privately-educated, *already-privileged* kids, yeah, that is very important to me.

cheers

 

[Natural Order]

You think Karl got it right?
as far as what he diagnosed, I'd say he described the system and how it worked back then pretty accurately and provided a decent framework for much of what happened after his death.

The question becomes, how do you solve or eliminate the nature of hierarchies (observable everywhere in nature) in a manner that placates and inspires the human condition?
solve and eliminate, no chance. Alleviate, we certainly can. My problem is with people who think as we can't entirely eliminate them, we shouldn't try to even partially alleviate them. Although my suspicion is that in many cases this is misanthropy trying to masquerade as hard-headed sense.

You'll never eliminate the "have mores", in fact, it's futile to even think in this fashion.
absolutely, but preventing them from rigging the game in their own favour is very much desirable, IMO.*****

What needs to happen is how we find an upper line on "wealth", and how to effectively tax it(needs complete philosophical overhaul). I'm pretty sure there is a mathematical formula for "fair", somewhere out there in the abyss.
100% agree



***** Eg from the UK: Private Schools used to be exempt from sales tax/VAT. The current gov't removed that exemption, to much gnashing of teeth. Amusingly the RW press tried to portray 'most parents who send their kids to private school' as not being wealthy or privileged, but 'most of them are normal, hard-working families'. which is of course nonsense given that average private school fees are literally half the average yearly wage, like 'normal' people can afford that, its preposterous

You may be aware, it may be the same in the US, but in the Uk attendance at private school *significantly* increases life chances for kids, not just in terms of 'better education' but in terms of access to networks which will ultimately provide those precious, rare, presitigous job opportunities via the old boys network/ nepotism.

so you have a situation where the top bankers, lawyers, journalistsm, politicians, etc etc, are overwhelmingly privately educated *and much more so than 20 years ago- this is getting worse*. Those schools are literally little factories for perpetuating inequality, and yet, when they made them pay VAT *just like any other business*, of course these privileged scumbags were up in arms. They will trumpet the values of the free market, but apply those values to their own privilege in a way that affects them, they are furious.

so, stuff like making sure privately-educated politicians don't stack the deck in favour of future privately-educated, *already-privileged* kids, yeah, that is very important to me.

cheers

Great points, hard to disagree. We'd have some good convo over pints no doubt!

 

[IanEdwards]

Like markets, hierarchies tend to naturally appear.

but when those already at the top of the hierarchy rig the deck, in favour of future generations of the already-privileged (see my private school EG above) that is bullshit and should be mediated wherever possible

 

[IanEdwards]

Great points, hard to disagree. We'd have some good convo over pints no doubt!

 

[Sinister]

This is exactly correct. Like markets, hierarchies tend to naturally appear. Take a look at the great apes for example. It’s more about how we hold accountability. In the US accountability on both political sides is laughable. Just wave your damn flag, red hat, blue sticker, and shut the fuck up.

Sort of. Some versions of heirarchies appear, however they're also upset all the time. And humans found out we were entirely wrong about the social structure of wolves, something men virally based our personas off of. I remember watching a documentary about orangutans and there was one female who had been raised by humans and returned to the wild. She was almost autistic to them. She tended to isolate, didnt understand them, expected to be fed, and did weird sh*t like made a makeshift bed to sleep on the ground because she always slept in a crib. Of course, she was picked on..

Now according to human understanding ofnheirarchy she is essentially useless and should be killed or rejected. She literally contributed nothing to the troop, or whatever the larger group is called. She was dead weight. A corporate seminar video would show her rejection as a reason for executives to fore workers lol.

But that's not what happened. The "alpha" orangutan started beating up the ones that picked on her, and leaving food for her near her bedding. He accepted her differences, defended them, and helped her. Theoretically that could have gotten him killed.

I see temporary heirarchies as merely a tool to get things done. For right now that guy is the best at what we need to do, or that woman is. Follow them. Only those who want my money and time would ever try to convince me that my natural place is beneath them.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

It's a tough conversation to have when the top 5% already pay for 60% of all income tax.....

except the top 5% aren't the top 5% because of their salaries, which is all that income tax covers. it's their assets and accumulated wealth. stocks, bonds, valuation of ownership, properties, crypto, etc.

cool they paid 28% in tax on their $12 million salary, but what about the $500M they have in assets?

 

[Sinister]

Slightly off topic but what happened to the FairTax Republicans of the late 2000's and early 2010's? They just faded into the background. That being said, it's wild to me that after seeing what society is like now (and even in this thread) there are still people making arguments for millionaires and billionaires. The idea of defending someone that owns a yacht while you budget to pay for a mortgage is insane thinking to me.

Speaking of millionaires and billionaires I was thinking should Board of Directors be abolished across the board? In many cases, especially companies on the stock market, Board of Directors are often in high level positions at other companies making a lot of money and somehow they go to another company and make additional money. That shouldn't happen, should it? I would also argue it is not fair for a competitive market. For example, if a member of J.P. Morgan Chase is on the board of another financial firm that should be a conflict of interest and not be allowed.

What happened to them? The Tea Party movement happened to them. You know I heard a theory the other day that Matt Gaetz was kind of allowed to be taken down. The GOP didnt crusade over him the way they are with Charlie Kirk, not because he was a sexual degenerate, they're protecting those right now, but because he is genuine about his adoration of Lena Khan. He still Simpson for privatization, but genuinely thinks capitalism got too big and was in favor of her hard-checking of it. Thus, now it's as if he never existed. MTG is speaking out rignt now as if we live in some weird alternate timeline. Let's see if she's next.

Your second paragraph I fully agree with.

 

[Natural Order]

except the top 5% aren't the top 5% because of their salaries, which is all that income tax covers. it's their assets and accumulated wealth. stocks, bonds, valuation of ownership, properties, crypto, etc.

cool they paid 28% in tax on their $12 million salary, but what about the $500M they have in assets?

And as you progress into the thread you can tackle the same question I posed to others of your sentiment (not saying wrong): Where is the line and how do you fairly tax unrealized gains, or rationalize taxing items in perpetuity?

 

[Sinister]

I don’t think you realize the difference between a naturally occurring system and the conglomeration of resources and assets. Yes, what you described is capitalism but it’s not THE definition of capitalism. All resources will be worked in the world regardless of affiliation. Sure, capitalism speeds this up but you can thank all your modern conveniences to it.

What I mean by capitalism is small ‘c’ if you wanna call it that, not large ‘C’. Capitalism can be as easily applied to a farmer trying to provide not just for himself but his generational offspring.

Edited to just throw here: does communism not produce the same inherent hierarchies of abuse waste and neglect? If there’s a fairer game to. E played in all for it, don’t take me wrong.

Capitalism definition:

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."

When searching "capitalism in simple terms:"

"In simple terms, capitalism is an economic system where individuals and private companies own the means of production, and the main goal is to make a profit."

Profit is the goal, not service or utility. Look what wonders that has done for health care, housing. I think a good statement about capitalism and nature was made in Meet Joe Black because this is subtly about the profit motive, starting at 2:05:



Hence the notion that capitalism never actually creates, only replicates. Innovators are almost never solely motivated by profit as opposed to filling a need or a service, or making an expression (art). Capitalists fly in and either try to buy up the artist themselves, or buy up all the rights. Billy Corgan did a very good job explaining this to Brogan:



I don't know if communism produces the exact same kinds of heirarchies because again, Imperialism has almost always interfered with communism with regards to economic systems of Countries. But I'm not trying to Champion communism, just criticize capitalism. I think heirarchy is defeated by democracy, even if it seems that democracy installs a heirarchy, the point is it can be dismantled in one cycle. And capitalists have hated this notion just as much as any authoritarian socialist or communist. Hence all this "so and so shouldnt be allowed to vote" talk that keeps getting louder and with a wider scope among rightists here.

 

[Bballfan123]

Yeah, nah. That's not what I was saying at all and you're probably aware of that.

If I was criticizing options this thread would be about Atlantic City and not Vegas, because that City failed almost entirely due to options and your beloved President was one of the many blinded capitalists engulfed in the sinking of that ship. I'm not criticizing a thing that happened that's allowing people to gamble in their own States, or on their own sofas. What I'm criticizing, is how many times this has happened in multiple industries because of common American practices of economics which milk a specific area for all it's worth and then leaves it in ruins, and how the people we trust with our economic development fail to foresee these trends, or even just dont care because they have the means to endure them and have no regard for the people left in the wake of the abandonment.

Gambling is part of why Vegas was popular, which if you took the time to look at the videos I linked youd understand that wider available gambling is only part of the problem. But I could see how someone like you could come into this thread and declare economic decimation of entire cities, increased poverty, and places becoming ghost towns a success of capitalism just because it will make me look dumb. Its par for the course for your brand. You probably think Faith Healers arent actually scamming people with their claims they can cure ailments with their divine powers as well.

But he does have a point a big part of Vegas economy and why there’s so many casinos is there cause they had an actual monopoly on gambling. For example in 1988 it. Was illegal to gamble in Indiana so if you live in Indiana and you want to the only place in the continental US, you gamble was Vegas so you went to Vegas for the purpose of gambling sure there’s entertainment other stuff but the reason going to Vegas is for that gambling there’s entertainment Indiana. The one thing that Vegas had was gambling could go to gamble. It was completely legal. Now I mean, the bubble burst it’s legal. The guy from Indiana does not have to get on a plane rent a hotel room and go to Vegas. He doesn’t have to, and he shouldn’t have to because the only reason that existed was because of a completely artificial monopoly. There’s no reason you can only gamble in a desert. It was completely made up by the government so that Vegas could exist.

Vegas should still be a popular place to go though as it used to have big events, popular shows, cheap buffets and other stuff that you could enjoy even if you did not gamble. All that stuff is overpriced now as well. Plus, where are all the staple shows that Vegas used to be known for? I don't hear about that at all anymore. Wayne Newton, Siegfried and Roy and consistent names like that don't exist anymore or have the name recognition they used to in previous decades.

Yeah, but Joe average is not gonna get on a plane to go to the desert to watch a three hour performance. It’s just weird. No one would do that. The reason people went to Vegas was the gamble. The reason is now gone.

If anything, Vegas is smart to make these pivots cause this hit was coming one way or another. There’s just nothing you can do about it and gambling is legal in places like Des Moines, Iowa or Indianapolis. Those people are not gonna go through the trouble blowing their only vacation week a year to go to Vegas to watch some concert inside a casino that they don’t need to go to. They can just go on their phone to do the thing that they were going to Vegas to do- gamble. Might as well make it for the super rich cause the sports betting apps took 50% of the market and the casino app took the other 50%. There’s just no reason to go to Vegas if the casino is closer!

 

[Sinister]

But he does have a point a big part of Vegas economy and why there’s so many casinos is there cause they had an actual monopoly on gambling. For example in 1988 it. Was illegal to gamble in Indiana so if you live in Indiana and you want to the only place in the continental US, you gamble was Vegas so you went to Vegas for the purpose of gambling sure there’s entertainment other stuff but the reason going to Vegas is for that gambling there’s entertainment Indiana. The one thing that Vegas had was gambling could go to gamble. It was completely legal. Now I mean, the bubble burst it’s legal. The guy from Indiana does not have to get on a plane rent a hotel room and go to Vegas. He doesn’t have to, and he shouldn’t have to because the only reason that existed was because of a completely artificial monopoly. There’s no reason you can only gamble in a desert. It was completely made up by the government so that Vegas could exist.

Yeah, but Joe average is not gonna get on a plane to go to the desert to watch a three hour performance. It’s just weird. No one would do that. The reason people went to Vegas was the gamble. The reason is now gone.

If anything, Vegas is smart to make these pivots cause this hit was coming one way or another. There’s just nothing you can do about it and gambling is legal in places like Des Moines, Iowa or Indianapolis. Those people are not gonna go through the trouble blowing their only vacation week a year to go to Vegas to watch some concert inside a casino that they don’t need to go to. They can just go on their phone to do the thing that they were going to Vegas to do- gamble. Might as well make it for the super rich cause the sports betting apps took 50% of the market and the casino app took the other 50%. There’s just no reason to go to Vegas if the casino is closer!

It's not working though. In fact its failing spectacularly.

And like @Crazy Source pointed out, betting revenue hasnt quite as sharply declined as everything else has. People would still love to come to Vegas for the deals and entertainment and gambling and quick marriages. What dried up the traffic was a combination of removing the deals and hostile foreign policy rhetoric. The Canadians arent coming, and theyve made very clear why. The Chinese are also low on Vegas right now. We used to have a lot of traffic from Mexico especially during big fight weekends. People would drive from TJ to watch guys like Erik Morales fight at the MGM Grand. Think they're risking that now? Lol

 

[Natural Order]

This is exactly correct. Like markets, hierarchies tend to naturally appear. Take a look at the great apes for example. It’s more about how we hold accountability. In the US accountability on both political sides is laughable. Just wave your damn flag, red hat, blue sticker, and shut the fuck up.

The food chain itself is a hierarchy. Nature BAD!

 

[Sinister]

The food chain itself is a hierarchy. Nature BAD!

Thars because you've been taught that it's a food "chain"...its a food web. My wife's degree is in Environmental Biology and this is something we've discussed a lot. What happens to the Apex predator if the prey animals are gone? Are prey animals subservient to the predators?

Balance is needed. There arent really any animal kings dictating the lives of other animals.