this is really just a one-off ramble or something..

everyone talks about the greater freedom capitalism has incorporated with respect to the lower and middle/labor classes.  but has anyone evaluated the greater degree to which one can become indebted?  i dont know...there are surely a lot of coincident social freedoms going along with capitalism, the free market, but what about economic freedom?  surely, there are two ways to look at economic freedom, the freedom to become wealthy and the freedom to become shackled and poor?  more people across all classes can rise up to the upper class


this of course ignores the inherent unethical nature of capitalism in the false sense of competition, pitting human on human..where i may not succeed without your failure, your exploitation.  further, its a false sense of competition bc the main conveyor is not ingenuity but money.  and possession of money is oe of the most arbitrary things in the world, in the view of hereditary inheritance.  also, it's problematic because it causes stagnation.  the rich write the rules to their advantage through lobbyists and campaign contributions.  obviously this is nothing new.  just a rant.  but this is all at the heart of my critique of society and what i think is wrong with the way we're living.  we're allowing them to define the rules of the game as money and pleasure collection.  this has been a problem with humans for millenia.  plato and aristotle both wrote about these as false, fleeting happiness'.  but i just feel like the people with the 'true freedom' of wealth have bought off the rest of us with the freedom to consume the drugs of our particular pleasures.  we're concerned with having, possessing pleasure in the moment, not who we are when the moment stops and the traffic jam of our past honks a thousand horns.

regrouping

the attempt thus far...to sit in rumination on the human lobby's definition, or towards constructing a manifesto of sorts, is completely against the spirit of the human lobby.

i could write it out..what it means to me..the particular causes i support. but that would just be my own opinion and in its solitary state useless. granted, it could be useful as a jumping off point for discussion, a first perspective. but i already know what i think. the attempt to put it into words just seems unnecessary, a put-on, aesthetics of the worst kind, trying to fit some cookie cutter movie plot , trying to fulfill some egomaniacal fantasy. it seems more important to gather, make a general pitch, and see how it goes from there. not limit their own conception to a response to mine and a comparison of difference. give the basic idea and get their pure riff of it.