I envision people passing their kids back and forth a few times over the powerful magnet at the supermarket checkout counter. Or have the clerk cycle it a few times in rapid succession. :p lol
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:12 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > But if government has control of technology, healthcare and education > why do you trust it will use those things properly? We are at the dawn > of technology's invasion of personal liberty. For all we know, > microchips will be implanted at birth to track each citizen. > > On Sep 20, 3:25 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Not even that James, merely an example of how people differ and how >> ideas differ and even how peoples perception of the same ideas differ. >> >> Let us take it right back. >> >> You said: >> >> '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?' >> >> My reply was saying no I do not belive that people will work for these >> things, make sacrifices or likely be happy about it. I meantion our >> history of how communisim has worked or failed to over the last 70 odd >> years as an example of both the priciples you mention, and the way in >> which humanity approaches them. >> >> It is clear that many people will not work harder or make sacrifices >> even for the betterment of the whole of humanity. >> >> You go on to say: >> >> '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' >> >> While this is I guess a reasonable assumption to make, again the >> reality of our history of Communism shows that people can, will and >> do, if not choose scraps, at least be quite content with them rather >> than help out their fellow man. >> >> Ultimatly we are and odd species, rather more sheep like than wolf >> like. From my British eyes I can only look on astunded at the >> shenanigans of the Conservative Christians in the USA. Stuff that >> really shouldn't be happening or that perhaps would have ellicted a >> vaster outcry from the public 20 years ago. I can see how modern >> history has brought us to such a place, and I sorta understand how >> people are so easily lead on what to think and who to blame. Stronger >> leadership, strong moral ideas are what we need, but we can't expect >> the whole of humanity to help or even agree, and this exactly the >> thing. >> >> On Sep 19, 8:05 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 >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
