ConTheStonerLin

Capitalism hurts the poor. This is commonly understood and expressed, mainly by communists, socialists, and other anti-capitalists. Now I would agree with this. But I would also go further. Capitalism is toxic and it destroys everything that it touches. The poor of-course, but also the rich, the capitalists the entrepreneurs and the proprietors. To me communism is not anti-rich it is anti-capitalism. The economic philosophy centered around individual accumulation and distribution of wealth (capitalism), is countered by the economic philosophy centered around the collective accumulation and distribution of wealth (communism). And it should be obvious that an economy for a society (which is a collective) based on individual accumulation and distribution of wealth is deeply flawed, unstable, and a very bad idea. But for who? The working class? The proletariat? The laborers? The proprietors? The entrepreneurs? Well yes, to all. Now maybe your a capitalist or neoliberal, and you don’t t

                                                    Is it moral to eat meat? Is “factory farming" moral? Are those the same questions? Yes, no, and no. In which order am I answering these questions? In which order do you think I am? Many people would disagree with my answers regardless of the order. When it comes to eating meat, factory farming is always mentioned, as if the same thing. The means of production though are different than the product. “factory farming” is the modern means of production for meat, the product. Lets rethink my first questions. Is it moral to wear Adidas? Is child slavery moral? And, are those the same questions? Veganism is a diet, and lifestyle philosophy. Originally it was about not exploiting animals. Today that means eat no animal products, and use none either. So what’s wrong with this? Nothing as long as you take supplements, being that if you don’t, then serious health problems become a serious risk. If you want to be able to be healthy witho

Violence never solves anything. That old cliche. Of-course it’s not entirely accurate. History alone should prove that. The revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the civil war, just to name a few. So why is this said and what does it really mean? Violence never solves anything. I like to say it a different more accurate way; If there is a non-violent solution, that’s always your best one. At-least always better than the violent one. Now how is that different? Because I’m not saying there always is or will be, sometimes the violent solution may be your best bet, but it will never EVER be if there is a non-violent option. In other words if violence is not used as an ABSOLUTE last resort, it is bad. Hatred on the other hand is always bad, although natural and inevitable. Though it is always, and inherently bad, because it actually never solves anything, EVER. Hatred hurts everybody, the hateful, the hated, and even the non-hated/hateful indifferent folk. This emotion can however be