Rigsy we are all in control of ourselves, I would not let the goverment microchip me or mine, would you?
Are the goverment really in control of technology though? I mean how much control does it have over the open source movement for example? On Sep 21, 3:12 am, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
