What to do in the mad, mad world?

Politic is shrewdness, tact, or cunning. A politician has an instinct for self interest. Too bad they don't tend to identify with us.

 

since most wars are fought over resources, can you please explain how an apolitical world will divide them without resorting to war?

 

Like 'Children of Corn' meet 'Road Warrior'. If society crashes I hope its in the spring and we can get the garden out.

 

Indie

Nice rhetoric but it doesn’t answer the question.
Would you please then explain why you said that people should ‘adapt’ seemingly to a political system?
*
I mean imagine a system where through no fault of their own a person was born into slavery - you would seem to be implying that the slave should ‘adapt’ to being a slave, just learn to live with it.

Evasion of the question. We all use examples, even you so stop being silly and actually debate honestly please.

This doesn’t address the issue.
I mean I’m arguing that government should work in the interests of all in society but you seem to want to allow a group to become so powerful that it could control government in its own interests and you have never been able to address that major flaw in your ideas.

But who’s ‘facts’?

One of the first things that a good education should teach is that many things that some would declare as a ‘fact’ are only interpretations or theories some of which stand up to scrutiny and some that do not.

To me education is about thinking for ones self and questioning it is not simply learning by rote a list of ‘facts’.

But your whole philosophy is based on the idea of division, on competition - between different ideas, methods, products etc – so this statement would seem to be more about point scoring than what you actually think.

And you also support the pseudo-science of Social Darwinism a right wing philosophy, which is based on the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ and of their being superior and inferior groups a set of beliefs that has lead to many bad things including war.

This doesn’t address the issue, its seems like evasion I mean as you well know since it has been pointed out to you many, many, many, many times now in many different discussions - being a republic does not preclude that state from being democratic.

I mean in its basic form a republic just means that there is no monarch.

I mean you seem to favour a more oligarchic form of government, were power rests with a few rather than the majority - similar to most of the states of the US at the ratification of the constitution.

And just as you can have a democratic republic you can also have an oligarchical republic, they would both be republics.

So can you actually address what was raised or not?

Fine words - but unfortunately they seem to be contrary to you stated views. I mean all you ideas would seem to involve making wealth more wealthy and powerful and so putting a few in control not the ‘people’, this is a flaw in your argument that you seem unwilling or unable to address.

(and before you claim you have addressed it I’d say I’ve never seen it and although asked for many times you are unable to point out where you’ve supposedly done so).

*

Also as I see it one of the major problems with the US political landscape is the limitation of having only two parties that are in many ways just two branches of the right wing.

In what way?

We come back to that ‘fact’ thing – what you mean is - your interpretation of what you think it says in the US Constitution.

Also why wouldn’t it matter what party was in power?

 

A free market is all that is required. Supply and demand adjusts the price, and politics need not enter the picture.

 

I said people shouldn't have to adapt to a political system, its purpose should not be that of redistributing from one portion of society to another.

I'm unaware of anyone, in the U.S. at least, who is born into slavery. The 13th amendment of the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1865 clearly was intended to end slavery, and remains the law.

The larger the government and the more power it wields is what attracts those with money and allows them to wield greater control than the larger number of society.

Facts are bits of knowledge that can be proven.

I agree we should separate facts from theory, and subjects like math and science provide us many useful facts, while politics is a subject that should be discussed like religion.

Competition in a free market brings forth the best results, and often results in making available similar products which appeal to those with different tastes. I don't like MS Windows so I use Linux as an example, while I have friends who prefer Apple.

That may appear so.

There happens to be 50 states, 50 unique and sovereign democracies which together comprise a single republic. Within each of the 50 states are local governments who each exercise a degree of sovereignty, and are inhabited by many sovereign individuals. Sovereignty begins with the individual.

The greatest power should rest with the people who should then decide what power to allow their government over them, not the government making the decisions for the people. Reducing government to a small size reduces the areas of direct control over the people, and reduces the impact of wealth in creating laws that benefit those with wealth.

I have no desire to make the wealthy more wealthy, but would reduce government to a size and power that wealth would have little use in bringing about changes while the voters in general and the states would once again regain their sovereignty and ability to experiment in ways that benefit them based upon their uniqueness.

How many parties should there be? While there are 2 major parties, there are candidates representing a number of other parties, several Socialist, Communist, and others that often produce candidates, but only appeal to a very small number of the population. Beginning with the 20th century the U.S. has seen the implementation of many social programs which can only be seen as left leaning, social security, medicare, medicaid, and many welfare redistribution programs. Where's the right wing?

Look at the writings of those who wrote the Constitution, I try to stay with their original interpretation.

If the federal government was constrained to just the powers enumerated in the Constitution, much of what it has been doing and continues to do would have to first be approved by the voting population and the states.

 

*magical thinking*

again . . .

 

It's not magic, it's more like a little, or even a lots of effort and hard work in order to produce desired results. While all of us consume, it is those who also produce that provide our wants and needs and result in real progress. Each of us has a choice, we can just be a member of society or we can try and be of some value to society. Obviously you can read and write, and I have a British friend who can do neither, yet he started his own business and is quite wealthy now. Perhaps a redirection of effort might pay off?

 

Indie

Can you produce any examples from history I mean it would seem to me that having a smaller weaker government just makes it easier and cheaper for wealth to manipulate?

The problem here is that you have suggested many ideas that would increase the power and influence of wealth, making it more likely to successfully manipulate any political system in their favour.

Can you produce any examples from history I mean it would seem to me that having a smaller weaker government just makes it easier and cheaper for wealth to manipulate?

The problem here is that you have suggested many ideas that would increase the power and influence of wealth, making it more likely to successfully manipulate any political system in their favour.

 

The point is to not create a single source of government that absolute authority over every aspect of life.

How much easier can it get? Federal laws take precedence over state and local laws therefore the political system is currently easily manipulated through a single point of access.

What is it that wealth is trying to manipulate?

I'm unaware of any such ideas that I have suggested.

 

So real progress is providing ample materials to consume? Is that what our noblest thrust amounts to, that we should feed our faces in style?

Are you going to decide who is of value to society and what criteria would you use? You have no idea of the real effects on the whole of anyone's life.
There are some people who identify with larger groups and larger issues and some do not and really have enough difficulty managing their own space and as they try to, are gainfully oriented all the same. The relative evaluation of human beings is a totally subjective exercise taken by an individual, both in the judgment of an individual as well as the societal ideal, to which that individual is compared to.

That your friend is wealthy, I don't think represents progress nor even a guarantee of talent. There are always winners and losers in a competitive system.

 

You do have the option to forage for food if you wish, just stay out of my garden.

I think we each decide who is of value to us, and rightfully so.

It represents the fact that a person born into a poor family and lacking a formal education can prosper and succeed in life. What's wrong with competition? I always found it motivating.

 

That doesn't answer the question. Do you think getting yours is the bottom line?

I don't think that speaks to evaluating whether or not someone is valuable to society at large. A person who may not seem valuable to you could be precious to someone else.

Nothing at all if you are a winner. But you should note that all winners eventually lose, so your perspective is a guarantee of your ultimate failure personally, and as well to society at large. If your desire, on the other hand, is to contribute to the best of your ability to the wellness of society, then you cannot fail.

 

Originally Posted by thedope
So real progress is providing ample materials to consume?

In a world with growing population the production of ample materials to be consumed is a necessity.

Getting mine, I would say is the first order of the day, with the bottom line being if you cannot provide for your own needs first, you are unlikely to be able to provide for any others, and family should come first.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that societies are not built on the decisions of a single person but on the collective decisions of all persons. Someone I value greatly may be of no value at all to you. Should my choices be forced upon you or others?

Should we not all strive to become winners?
All winners eventually lose? Is that statement based upon the fact that we all eventually die? Societies begin to fail when the number of dependents grows beyond the capacity of the providers to maintain.
Wasn't it Marx who wrote "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his contribution"? which I take as the first step from democracy in achieving socialism with the ultimate goal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" after the subordination of all individuals has been accomplished enslaving them under a communist form of government.

Freedom does not eliminate failure, but neither does socialism or communism. Socialist or communist forms of governments can only guarantee that no one aside from those who govern can achieve much more than any other member of society, eventually leading to a minimal existence or worse.

 

What to do in the mad, mad world, get sane. Is over and growing population a necessity? What constitutes ample materials? Is that minimum daily requirement or as much as you can get your hands on at any moment

I agree that if you yourself cannot function you can't help any one else in their functioning. Family coming first is a moral distinction. As a practical matter there will be people you spend more time with than others, but who we identify with is not always a biological imperative.

Why do you think I miss that point? All society is precisely equal to your relationship to the person standing next to you, no matter who that person is.

To win what?

That is one way to look at it but no. Everyone slips at some point. Someone always comes who is stronger or faster than you were on that occasion.

I think that may hold true of government social welfare systems combined with aging populations, but the care of the elderly is best left to younger relatives or friendships.

I don't know if it was Marx but I don't agree with the formula because it is arbitrary. The ultimate goal you allude to is no less arbitrary.

 

Is it really a mad, mad world? Or would it be more appropriate to say it is a world filled with many angry, angry people, some who are sane and some who are not?
Nothing is a necessity other than what you wish to call a necessity. The universe can exist without necessity of any life form, although we humans and various other life forms just happen to exist. Your questions have no single acceptable answer.

Then we agree we should be free to choose who we identify with?

The relationship between myself and another standing next to me has but a minute relationship to society as a whole. It is the accumulation of various relationships with other individuals that societies are more precisely built upon.

Success in life as we each individually may wish to define it, a larger house, greater income, more expensive car, early retirement. My definition of success could be much greater or even much less than yours or any others.

Unless you're talking about contests requiring physical strength and/or dexterity I find it difficult to accept that "everyone" slips at some point. Some persons have achieved success throughout their lives only unable to escape death, which concludes the existence of each of us.

That sounds like a Conservative view, but I tend to agree.

What ultimate goal do you see me alluding to?

 

I thought this thread is meant to be about what we can each do personally. So why is everyone is telling everyone else what they should do?

Oh. That must be rather difficult, what with 27 amendments to disregard.

 

Indie

Yes, yes another slogan, but you still haven’t answered the question I asked and produced any examples from history to back up your idea that a smaller weaker government is harder rather than easier and cheaper for wealth to manipulate.

Oh hells bells Indie we’ve been through this - you ideas on society and politics don’t seem to change with size.

And again come on pleeeese, have you the attention span of a goldfish or something, no, you just seem to want to pretend you have to evade answering questions -
Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

Oh Yes LOL, thank you - I bet with someone that you would give just such a reply.

Indie this is me, I’ve read your posts I know your views and although you might try an con others about what you are that innocent blank ‘not me’ look doesn’t work with me (although I think most people on the forum have got your number by now).

I mean virtually everything you’ve proposed would increase the power and influence of wealth. From your small government rather than good government stance to your oligarchical ideas right up to you brutal Social Darwinist standpoint.

(PS : I’ve got something running on how you will reply to this – please don’t disappoint me.)

 

Walsh

I though it was about what ‘we’ collective should do

I set out some ideas in post 89-90.