Socialism is also a complete failure for similar reasons to Communism. Democracy- and the reasons for its experiment in America- has been highjacked. It is inextricably tied to capitalism and individualism, rule of law and wise justice, various freedoms and a moderate society. The '60's changed a great deal in the national character- spitting on troops, calling cops "pigs", drugs, sex and rock and roll. Just think- soon we will influence the entire planet to take this course of development and call it "liberty"!
On Sep 19, 2:05 pm, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
