legally piggily is probably one of the most efficient pieces of writing describing the overhanded, underhanded working of the industrial complex. especially with regards to the economic policies of LAWCAP . . .

it's interesting, and important, to see how different people approach this issue. . . .

i feel, one of the most important issues of the new millennium, and something that will probably go unquestioned for the most part, is: copyrights, protection laws, patents, laws that uphold business in specious order . . .

patents should be questioned, but also the fact that companies often take many stupid risks in the market that are insured by welfare capitalism . . . basically, these companies cannot lose. [and they are not in it to lose]. . . the government likes them so much, they will take the risk for them - often, with our money, but it is often called "their money" since they pay such high taxes themselves [thats the catch, and probably the argument the lawyers dole out]. . . such measures were soundly put in place [some time ago] under the assumption that to pay it forward to these companies, that you are essentially "creating jobs" - whenever a presidential candidate uses such talking points with regards to workers, he is usually speaking from the perspective of big business . . . to create jobs, means to create corporate welfare. . . at least if he is lazy. . .

Guess which book is recommended reading in "Oprah" Magazine this month!?

http://www.oprah.com/obc/omag/bookshelf/omag_books_ltaylor_b.jhtml

I think you're right. What you were talking about with the sort of
bluffing and the global poker game is at the heart of Fuller's concept
of the World Game. He felt strongly that in order to transform the system,
you have to understand the global game rules that are operating and
then posit an alternative set of rules.

That's used to generate fear because if you're ignorant of these things you have no idea who or what to trust and can be taken advantage of very easily.

I was reading an article in the Economist that discussed this
on a smaller scale. It talked about how "know-how" can be used to generate huge profits. For example, when you take your car to a mechanic, he can tell you that you need new brakes when actually you only need brake pads. Unless you know something about cars, you have to take his word for it and acquiesce to his knowledge. People who have this knowledge can use it to the advantage of those who don't. It's interesting to see how this functions in our daily lives. It does point to the idea that those in power have some sort of metaphysical advantage that is unquantifiable, unknowable, and therefore, unable to be challenged effectively by most people.

I think its still, obviously, in play now. There's an essential
understanding that in order to retain your power you must spread fear.
It's like what Tom Miller was talking about last night at the class
[Nature's Design], that nothing in nature exists independently, there are always pairs. I think what Fuller is speaking of here is that the core partner of power is fear, they always and only coexist. Look
what has happened in the last 7 to 8 years, how the Bush administration has, in a masterful way, changed the whole dynamic of the global system and the relationships between nations using fear and the prospect of a clash of civilizations. Of course one could argue that nothing has really changed, only our understanding of these power dynamics brought ablout in large part by greater and greater amounts of information more widely available.

What I found interesting was the whole idea of all the bluffing
that's constantly going on. It makes a lot of sense. Before the New Deal
banks and the rich just bluffed their wealth, it was all a game; most of
the rich actually didn't have any physical resources. He goes into talking
about the arms race and the Cold War and much earlier about the riders on
horseback that conned shepherds into paying for protection. It was
interesting how these strategies have been so effective even though there
was never any proof that protection was necessary; it was the riders on
horseback who were doing the stealing that they claimed the shepherds
needed protection from. With sheer force they convinced the shepherds of
this.

Yeah, with all of the corporate logos in place of the 50 stars. I
just thought it was so fitting because ever since then corporations have controlled nearly all operations of American life, at least in an economic and political sense. What a fitting start for our country. There's this romanticized story of Betsy Ross in her rocking chair sewing the American flag but it turns out to be not so accurate.

"Either war is obsolete, or men are" - R. Buckminster Fuller

Have you ever seen the Adbusters American Flag?

I thought one of the most interesting things was the section in which he talks about corporations as always existing as behind the scenes power structures, even before the formation of nation-states. He talks a lot about the British East India Company and how even though the British lost the Revolutionary War, the British East India Company was able to continue economic operations in the colonies and even strengthen their operations unhindered by the defeat of their host country. It was fascinating how he talks about how the corporation's flag, which was being used as early as 1600 and how it was nearly identical to the U.S. flag that would be developed over a hundred years later. Small changes such as the stars were added in place of the British East India Company's corporate seal, but the red and white stripes and blue square remained unchanged.

"Either war is obsolete, or men are" - R. Buckminster Fuller

That speaks to the curiosity of a child that Fuller was able to maintain throughout his lifetime. He wasn't hindered by the same biases others may have been.

I think when you read with burning questions you are devoting your life to finding the answers to - as Fuller did - connections between ideas mikght become more readily transparent.

He must have had an amazing ability to recall information that he gathered.

Apparently he slept very little, literally. He worked on a 24-hour cycle rather than a 16-hour cycle and took frequent naps rather than 8 hours of sleep. He was also a voracious reader.