On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > Heh okay I can see you didn't get my point. > > I only mention the C word (Communisim) as an example of my words > privious to uttering it. Thanks for keeping true to it then Lee, I'll try to dig deeper. :) I take it you don't mean that Communism is the best example of a society geared toward the objectives I am proposing, nor that it is the only means to those ends. Should I take your meaning to be that Communism is a system undertaken to such social ends and proves people would rather sponge? I could agree with that perhaps, but I do not agree that people who are raised and a society that is built around effective means to promote those ends would necessarily look anything like what Communism has over the last 70 years. I may still be missing your point, if so please hit me with the blunt end of it. :D
> > On Sep 19, 4:39 pm, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Heh James it is not hard to imagine what you see as unreasonable to be >> > the reality of the situation. As I said in my last post, let us look >> > at how Communisim has worked or not for us over the last 70 years or >> > so. >> >> Political ideology may be convenient for discourse on political theory >> but when it comes to solving social challenges I think it is ill >> equipped compared to, say, child psychology. Sure, communism sounds >> great on paper, but I think it is especially prone to corruption- who >> can be trusted with such power, it might be workable under a strong >> anarcho-syndicalistic population to keep it in check but then it >> wouldn't be Communism and lacking a large scale defense >> command&control infrastructure would be vulnerable to corruption and >> conquest from within and out. Sounds kinda pie-in-the-sky for today's >> world. >> >> > The problem is that we are all differant, what may seem sensable to >> > some will not seem so to others. >> >> Granted, this does not establish whichever negative effects are the >> result of social systems that encourage the 'sponging' behavior. What >> I am trying to identify is the context of humanity, the variables that >> encourage beneficial and desirable behaviors and also under what >> circumstances the negatives emerge so that they can be minimized. >> >> > What is you stance on the dealth penalty, as a view to an example of >> > how differantly we all think? >> >> Hm, too expensive to pursue proper justice, ineffective deterrent, >> provides little gain to society at large. Bout sums it up for me. >> >> For example one could argue beating kids and following the Bible >> examples is the only way to produce 'properly' behaved children, that >> doesn't fit with scientific knowledge on the subject of child rearing. >> I think there is helpful scientific knowledge on all these subjects >> you bring up and would like to see more of that in public discourse. >> As it stands progress is held to the beck and call of reaction-terms >> tossed at the public to produce reliable results (for the same people >> that aren't fixing things) rather than encouraging people to develop >> productive and intelligent discourse. >> >> Considering the level of ignorance promulgated in our political >> debates I find it amazing our (US) democracy works to the degree it >> has. >> >> >> >> > On Sep 16, 11:37 pm, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Well the more I think about this the less it sounds reasonable to >> >> assume that given the viable choice and reason to believe it wasn't a >> >> catch 22 that anyone capable of doing anything would choose a life of >> >> scraps over anything productive. In that case chronic welfare should >> >> come hitched with therapy, mandatory, to identify those who could >> >> really use some more psychological attention and keep people from >> >> falling between the cracks. Some may, and that is one's right, but a >> >> goal of societal health should be to facilitate productive lives my >> >> any means possible. The costs to society are too great otherwise and >> >> there is a huge amount of work to be done. >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I do not belive all people would work for these things make sacrifices >> >> > and be likely to be happy at all. >> >> >> > We can see that so far Communism has not really worked. >> >> >> > I agree that we must as a society look after those less abelt o look >> >> > after themselves, but we need to be very carefull indeed that we do >> >> > not create a sociaty of spongers. >> >> >> > On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I believe in cradle to the grave social securities, and that is >> >> >> something that should be on offer. People will work for these things, >> >> >> make sacrifices, and likely be happy about it if they have a sense of >> >> >> it helping to strengthen society. I think many people would work >> >> >> harder and even be willing to work smarter if there were tangible >> >> >> results, if that work pays into the social securities and societal >> >> >> infrastructure and benefits the individual at the same time- what more >> >> >> could one ask for? Of course one could ask for more, and that is why I >> >> >> think we should have a dual economy- we obviously cannot trust the >> >> >> politicians, lobbyists, and corporate interests to factor human beings >> >> >> and the well being of society into their bottom line we need something >> >> >> to compensate for this. We need a progressive social plan that >> >> >> tenaciously pursues social stability, security, sustainability, and >> >> >> excellence from the bottom to the top and across the board for near >> >> >> and long term objectives. It should be an option. >> >> >> >> I am playing out hundreds of scenarios trying to solve the hard >> >> >> questions like the one you have raised Rigsy and there is no easy way >> >> >> out. I'm not omniscient either, actually battling with mental tumult >> >> >> and exhaustion in the process. It brings up the inconvenient truths >> >> >> such as who makes the decisions, who benefits and who is at a loss- it >> >> >> boils down to representation- should it? Even by pursuing a principled >> >> >> hierarchial weighting system to benefit the maximum number to the >> >> >> maximum degree over a temporal timeline some will be disadvantaged >> >> >> (lest we throw everything we have at each person in line)- it is >> >> >> obvious any workable system would account for need and availability, >> >> >> after identifying those ends part of the second task would be >> >> >> identifying where the current system lies in those terms and creating >> >> >> a context shift. It may turn out that everyone could live a longer and >> >> >> more fulfilling life consuming half of the current resources (or less) >> >> >> but it will take some intelligence to identify how to make it a >> >> >> reality and the systems required to secure this future and eliminate >> >> >> the implicit wastes that siphon off our collective human potential. >> >> >> Though everything isn't clear to me, I've developed a strong belief >> >> >> that we can achieve these ends and that we must if we wish to survive >> >> >> the challenges in our indefinite future. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:51 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > So- are you for "death panels"? Some day you will wake up and not be >> >> >> > so "new" anymore. >> >> >> >> > On Sep 16, 1:40 am, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> My mother in law went to school with Mike, said he was a jerk or >> >> >> >> something like that. I thought it was a riot the way he showed our >> >> >> >> hometown, a highschooler then. >> >> >> >> >> Elsewhere, Archytas mentions this being the only game in town and I >> >> >> >> wonder facing the situational characterizations Moore lists what >> >> >> >> options does one have? I mean we either play their game or lose, >> >> >> >> period. Sure regions can begin to resist by conserving resources >> >> >> >> through internal trade and services but in the end everybody has to >> >> >> >> pay the tax man, tuition, fuel, etc. It makes me think we are all >> >> >> >> under the spell of a mass narcotic. I would like to see the rise of >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> dual economy come out of this disaster, one independent (the current >> >> >> >> model) and one social (remove gov't assistance from the old and >> >> >> >> apply >> >> >> >> to the new). The purpose of the social will be to fuel the >> >> >> >> improvement >> >> >> >> of society as a whole through massive public works projects like >> >> >> >> education, mentorship, health and care of those in need, removal of >> >> >> >> poverty and mitigation of its effects through quality individualized >> >> >> >> social reeducation programs beginning with relocation, therapeutic >> >> >> >> exercise (learning/gaining skills) and exposure to positive >> >> >> >> reinforcement. Sounds scary? >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM, ornamentalmind >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Yes rigsy, the short lived US middle class is all but gone...and >> >> >> >> > it is >> >> >> >> > no accident. >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/06 >> >> >> >> >> > Hyperbole, perhaps. Directly applicable?... absolutely! >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 27, 6:29 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> The middle class is shrinking- the class that drives an economy. >> >> >> >> >> >> Greece is not a good example. Libya is a wealthy country- sweet >> >> >> >> >> crude, >> >> >> >> >> investments around the world=cash. Now the clean up crew will >> >> >> >> >> clean up >> >> >> >> >> with new oil contracts and rebuilding a ruined infrastructure >> >> >> >> >> all in >> >> >> >> >> the name of liberty and freedom as per the examples of Iraq and >> >> >> >> >> Afghanistan plus we have "miles"/countries to go, as Frost put >> >> >> >> >> it. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 27, 2:12 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Banks are lying about money laundering - >> >> >> >> >> > seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs >> >> >> >> >> > - as an example. They are also hiding losses illegally through >> >> >> >> >> > massive false accounting that has been 'made legal'. The >> >> >> >> >> > basic scam >> >> >> >> >> > is similar to the alleged 'rogue trading' that brought down >> >> >> >> >> > Barings - >> >> >> >> >> > losses are being moved around through subsidiaries and the >> >> >> >> >> > ability to >> >> >> >> >> > 'mark to model' (instead of market) on assets - hence Bank of >> >> >> >> >> > America >> >> >> >> >> > is claiming to be worth $325 billion but is only trading at £65 >> >> >> >> >> > billion on the exchanges. >> >> >> >> >> > What we probably have is the near certainty of bank collapses. >> >> >> >> >> > We are >> >> >> >> >> > currently funding these bent operations instead of going to >> >> >> >> >> > full >> >> >> >> >> > employment and wealth redistribution to prevent recession. >> >> >> >> >> > Banks have sprung up all around the European drug routes for >> >> >> >> >> > no other >> >> >> >> >> > explicable reason (just like Miami in the past). >> >> >> >> >> >> > There is no reason for a global recession, but that's >> >> >> >> >> > different from >> >> >> >> >> > whether one is being engineered. The Greeks are currently >> >> >> >> >> > being >> >> >> >> >> > pilloried as having >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
