[Savagelight]

The big eats the little every time.

This isn't just human nature, it's animal nature. The big family eats the little family. The big corporation eats the little corporation. The big church eats the little church. The big government eats the little government.


This is a power law of nature. I challenge anybody to dispute that the big eat the little. You see it in the school yard, if when as a kid you were small didn't that big kid try and pick on you? Until you and the other small kids decide to use strength of numbers to pummel the bully?

This is what seems to be happening. Look at anonymous and you see this is the new cyber mob. The mob typically are the collective of small families that gang up on the big families that will without social programs, bully the small families into extinction.

I am not endorsing the activities of Anonymous. And I'm not endorsing the activities of the mercenaries hired by the big families to control the small families and neutralize them. The big families have the unfair advantage over the small families in that they are spread out mathematically speaking, so their networks are in more organizations. On corporate boards, in governments, heads of churches, in law enforcement from the informant, to the cop, to the judge, in some cases, so that big families literally can use the law as a weapon. As a result the small families learned not to trust informants, law enforcement, including the cop, and the judge, but the small families also cannot trust the corporation, the church, or the government itself, because all of these different institutations at some time or in some instances have been turned against small families.

Now it's the banks too. So basically when you understand the big small dynamic, you can understand every political dynamic in any country anywhere because it's always about big and small families. When big families fight other big families, it becomes a war. When big families fight small families it's just a gang problem, or a crime problem, but it's still a situation where the big families look out for the big families, and the small families look out for the small families, and this is not to say that class has anything to do with it, or that all big families protect other big families. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying if you're in a big family, you can usually expect to be protected in a big f'ing way. If you are in a small family, you can expect to be bullied and not protected at all.

So this dynamic should be further explored. Now onto the meat of the substance, what does this dynamic produce when under a capitalist system? In order to survive the small families are going to have to fight other small families for resources. These are the left over crumbs on the pie. The big families always get first dibs so they take what they want, securing their portions in advance according to the rules of capitalism via mean such as patents, and other manifestations of big business or collective private property ownership. The problem is that the resources are finite, so once the oil companies are established then the small families cannot get into the oil industry, and once the computer industry is locked up then small families cannot get into that, and eventually all the legimitate industries get locked up, leading to the small families getting rich through criminal enterprises. This is typically when big families stomp of the threat in whack a mole fashion, where the small families typically wind up getting even smaller in some cases, or they get bigger but poorer.

The bigger poor families once again eventually have size in their advantage and these families typically are better off. So what could be done to help the small families to survive in an economy with limited jobs?

This is where social spending comes in, and socialism, that everybody complains about. Socialism protects small families from extinction. It also protects the criminally oriented families small and big from having to deal with the increase or flood of competitors which could actually threaten their markets. In the end each family is out to survive and grow (profit). Each corporation is out to grow and profit. Each government is out to grow and profit. Each church is out to grow and profit. And because of this you can expect all groups to be selfish and to look out for their own.

Families do combine or join into bigger groups called tribes, we call these groups guilds, brotherhoods, unions, but in some cases the church fits into this function, or in some cases secret societies, fraternities, or whatever. These typically consist of friends, or extended family, or of interconnected bloodlines, or of professional alliances, political alliances, etc. This is as close as we have to international groups. Criminal organizations have mafia groups. These groups all function to secure the financial interests and survival of the membership of the group of families contained within. And from these brotherhood or guild type groups, it expands outward into national and international type alliances between various governments.

But ultimately it always boils down to families, and from families ultimately to the physical, financial, and psychological security of you the individual. Your body is the primary body, and all other bodies either help protect your primary body, or not. If you have no physical safety, nothing else really matters. So my conclusion is that human nature is about forming groups, organizations, families, instistutions and protecting them, and this process is entirely selfish and so most political motivatons are also selfish.

[donkeybals]

Pretty much true. But I can't complain. We've made a lot of advances the past couple of centuries with racism, prejudices, etc. We've done a great job I think. I agree it's a lot more difficult for a poor family to become wealthy, but nonetheless possible. I think if we had a time machine and ported ourselves to hundreds of years ago, we'd see some had it way worse than us. Anyway, I think degrees of socialism are great. As to why I'm democratic by nature. I understand the concept of being a republican though, it would make sense if everyone started from 0 right now, then it'd be completely fair, but families, like you say, inherit wealth. So things need to be socialized (to degrees) so a good amount of people aren't 100% f*cked. Still, if you are poor, and a scholar, you can get into college, go to a decent school, and bring home a nice salary.

[Pika]

Try your theory out on organisms such as bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and viruses. When you die, you will be thoroughly eaten by organisms that are too small to see. Or, how about organisms that don't wait for you to die such as the Black Plague of medieval times; the plague (germs) won that round killing over a third of all living at the time. Tuberculosis, yellow fever, typhoid, cholera and their friends have gotten in some pretty good licks as well. And, our friend the malaria plasmodium is always happy to make a visit. I'm sure that tapeworms, filaria worms, liver flukes and trypanosomes would have a good chuckle at your opinion were they capable of reading it.

I'll give you credit for trying but you remain: "often in error but never in doubt".

[Autumnleaf]

Big things tend to make good carcases as Pika pointed out. That goes for countries, empires and corporations too. Enron, the Roman Empire and Elvis are no more.

[blueback]

There is nothing as dangerous as a simple idea. Here's a good BS detector: if your philosophy fits on a bumpersticker, it's leaving something out.

Where did your weird obsession with "families" come from?

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is nothing as dangerous as a simple idea. Here's a good BS detector: if your philosophy fits on a bumpersticker, it's leaving something out. Where did your weird obsession with "families" come from?

You mean "Shit happens." doesn't cover everything?

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by Pika To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Try your theory out on organisms such as bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and viruses. When you die, you will be thoroughly eaten by organisms that are too small to see. Or, how about organisms that don't wait for you to die such as the Black Plague of medieval times; the plague (germs) won that round killing over a third of all living at the time. Tuberculosis, yellow fever, typhoid, cholera and their friends have gotten in some pretty good licks as well. And, our friend the malaria plasmodium is always happy to make a visit. I'm sure that tapeworms, filaria worms, liver flukes and trypanosomes would have a good chuckle at your opinion were they capable of reading it. I'll give you credit for trying but you remain: "often in error but never in doubt".

Big vs small mainly applies to mammals, and usually is a dynamic seen within mammals of the same species. Cats, dogs, wolves, apes, all battle for dominance and usually the biggest ape or biggest pack wins the battle for dominance.

This is just what happens. Sure bacteria, viruses and the like may put all these species into extinction but thats beside the point.

[Pika]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Big vs small mainly applies to mammals, and usually is a dynamic seen within mammals of the same species. Cats, dogs, wolves, apes, all battle for dominance and usually the biggest ape or biggest pack wins the battle for dominance. This is just what happens. Sure bacteria, viruses and the like may put all these species into extinction but thats beside the point.

It is not at all beside the point. In your OP, you made a sweeping generalization about the role of size in the "food chain". I simply falsified your generalization. You made no distinction regarding species to modify your assertion. For sure, a good big guy will beat an equally good little guy; it is the way I would bet at least. People have known that for thousands of years. Still, David whupped Goliath.

Incidentally, a 40 pound dog can easily kill a 150 pound sheep and 90 pound wolves routinely bring down and eat moose that weigh over a thousand pounds. If what you assert were correct, then the reverse would be true.

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by Pika To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is not at all beside the point. In your OP, you made a sweeping generalization about the role of size in the "food chain". I simply falsified your generalization. You made no distinction regarding species to modify your assertion. For sure, a good big guy will beat an equally good little guy; it is the way I would bet at least. People have known that for thousands of years. Still, David whupped Goliath. Incidentally, a 40 pound dog can easily kill a 150 pound sheep and 90 pound wolves routinely bring down and eat moose that weigh over a thousand pounds. If what you assert were correct, then the reverse would be true.

It only applies to mammals of the same species. A big human typically will bully a little human. It's the predatory instinct in us all. It is the impetus behind gangs, and social group formation.