Any government biggest enough to give you everything you want, will take everything you have...
(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/2401/90681635824131428265872.jpg)
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. With no apologies whatsoever to Jack Kennedy. Fuck that guy. If my country can do next to nothing for me then it is of next to no value to me.
Quote from: RighteousDude on April 10, 2013, 09:13:54 PM
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. With no apologies whatsoever to Jack Kennedy. Fuck that guy. If my country can do next to nothing for me then it is of next to no value to me.
Well, yeah, that's just like your opinion, man. But, it's like one dude said........
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, will take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
That's just like my opinion, man.
T. Jefferson also was a supporter of "citizenship" and a proponent of public education. Just a couple of reasons that Tea Party Texans are trying to exorcise him from the history books.
Progressives don't want a government that would give you everything you want, just one that allows everyone to pursue what they want. Imagine an iron floor and no ceiling. In 21st century USA it should be impossible to go hungry, homeless or un-educated, but it should be possible to follow what ever dreams of achievement you have that do not impinge on the liberties of others.
In the absence of civilization/government only barbarism is possible, it is the collective advantages of society that make individual advancement possible. As Benjamin Franklin put it-
Quote"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his match-coat, and other little acquisitions absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention . . . All the property that is necessay to a man for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of; but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who by their laws have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such a disposition".
(Letter to Robert Morris, Dec. 25th 1783; cf. Bigelow, John, ed.,The Works of Benjamin Franklin, New York, 1904)
That said, the amount by which the government is involved in social progress is a matter of opinion, but pegging out a position to the extreme right or left is untenable and illogical. The answer is not anarchy or oppression, it something in the middle of the two.
Quote from: revgms on April 11, 2013, 06:37:23 AM
T. Jefferson also was a supporter of "citizenship" and a proponent of public education. Just a couple of reasons that Tea Party Texans are trying to exorcise him from the history books.
Progressives don't want a government that would give you everything you want, just one that allows everyone to pursue what they want. Imagine an iron floor and no ceiling. In 21st century USA it should be impossible to go hungry, homeless or un-educated, but it should be possible to follow what ever dreams of achievement you have that do not impinge on the liberties of others.
In the absence of civilization/government only barbarism is possible, it is the collective advantages of society that make individual advancement possible. As Benjamin Franklin put it-
Quote"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his match-coat, and other little acquisitions absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention . . . All the property that is necessay to a man for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of; but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who by their laws have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such a disposition".
(Letter to Robert Morris, Dec. 25th 1783; cf. Bigelow, John, ed.,The Works of Benjamin Franklin, New York, 1904)
That said, the amount by which the government is involved in social progress is a matter of opinion, but pegging out a position to the extreme right or left is untenable and illogical. The answer is not anarchy or oppression, it something in the middle of the two.
Key word "public convention" which doesn't mean "owned by" as in socialism, but rather provided by. From reading Franklin's other papers, it is clear that he believed that society as a whole was a blessing to the common man in that it provided many types of conveniences, services, material goods and wealth in a free enterprise economy that a person was free to avail themselves of as desired. Goods such as a home one could buy built by members of your community, clothing, food, medical care, furniture, transportation, etc., all provided, upon a fair exchange (paying for it), to the common man, which would otherwise be unavailable without the creative economic efforts of a productive society. Franklin was by no means a socialist. Though Franklin did understand that certain assets were "owned" by the public such as roads, government building (ie. post offices), the military, institutions of government, etc. All collectively owned by the public and for public use.
The problem is once someone achieves a lot, so many want them to be forced to hand it over to those who don't. Makes it difficult to want to get ahead in fear you'll get it taken away.
Quote from: Masked Dude on April 11, 2013, 05:47:50 PM
The problem is once someone achieves a lot, so many want them to be forced to hand it over to those who don't. Makes it difficult to want to get ahead in fear you'll get it taken away.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on April 11, 2013, 05:59:07 PM
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
The thing is, it's also fellow citizens who feel it's OK to penalize those who make it. It's almost like they want to bring others down to their level. You make it, and someone wants to drag you back down.
Quote from: Masked Dude on April 11, 2013, 05:47:50 PM
Makes it difficult to want to get ahead in fear you'll get it taken away.
Ain't one fucking guy ever honestly said "I don't want to get rich because my taxes might go up after I do". I've been self employed for most of my adult life and have dealt with richies and entrepreneurs all along, and though they tend to be an unforgivably whiny lot for folks who are so well off, I've never heard anything even remotely similar to that.
Self-employed here, too. OK, not quite a good way to put what I was thinking. :)
The rich have more to lose if civilization collapses, what do the poor lose, they lose the barriers that keep them from eating the rich. Anarchy breaks out and every lawyer and banker is dead in a week. Sounds like a pretty good reason to chip in to maintain stability.
That and no body is suggesting a pure socialism.
Also, Libertarianism has major flaws, first it does not account for sociopaths, a libertarian system would be like handing them the keys to their own personal fiefdoms, anarchy and feudalism would end up ruling the day. That and it presumes that we all start from equal footing, this is not Monopoly, we don't all start at go with a $1,000, some start life owing the Community chest and others start life owning Boardwalk. For Libertarianism to work would require banning inheritance and no private schools.
We have plenty of money to house, feed and educate every American to their fullest potential, instead we bought a few F-35s with it.
And like Bill Clinton said on The Colbert Report, selflessly improving society is the most selfish act, you get to live in a better world and you are a hero at the same time.
After arguing on facebook about the virtues and vices of capitalism one of my anti-capitalist friends turned me on to this piece on NPR. http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/10/capitalism (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/10/capitalism)
It's an interesting listen. I think it nicely balances both sides of the arguments, though of course it leans left (as NPR does).
Also, read the comments on that page - some of the more interesting discussions on the subject than you usually see on a web page.
Two words; Buddhist Economics
Developed by E F Shomacher in the 50-60s it has been adopted by the nation of Bhutan, the happiest nation on Earth, based around the concept of 'right livelihood'. Two of its main features are, calculating actual costs to society, when you add up all the periphery costs what we pay at the point of service is only a fraction of some true costs. Take fossil fuels as an example, tax subsidies, navies to protect transport, clean ups, inspectors and a myriad of other expenses that get paid other than directly. And measuring economic sucess not by GDP but by GNH, Gross National Happiness, USA has a huge GDP but we are miserable fucking assholes, no one likes us, not even our selves.
http://centerforneweconomics.org/ (http://centerforneweconomics.org/)
It's funny you mention Bhutan.
Only the week before Chantelle had her accident, we had quite literally opened an atlas and stuck a pin in the map to decide where we were going together on holiday that year.
http://www.gadventures.com/trips/bhutan/ (ftp://www.gadventures.com/trips/bhutan/)
They are the only country in the world who grow everything organically.
It is extremely difficult to reach with one of the most "interesting" flights in the world...the landing has to be one of the most demanding for commercial pilots in the world!
They don't encourage tourists but do welcome them: A criteria is that you have to spend at least $200 per day and the maximum stay is 14 days! :) Obviously most of that money is spent on your hotel room.
It looks fabulous but I guess I won't be going there now!
This is how I see our current economic model. The Earth and her inhabitants simply will not survive laissez faire capitalism. Humans are too stupid, greedy and fearful.
http://youtu.be/dsYVHZFukzc (http://youtu.be/dsYVHZFukzc)
And that is too sad CD, my heart to you mang.
Well I had something incredibly insightful to share, but Maddow is on, an I don't want to miss it. ;D
Quote from: revgms on April 11, 2013, 09:05:05 PM
Well I had something incredibly insightful to share, but Maddow is on, an I don't want to miss it. ;D
Separate incidences? ;D
I say get rid of the state. We don't need it. The state attracts the worst kind of people, and they rule over us. We are all people, all equal. We don't need it.
Yeah cuz Neo-Nazis, KKK and biker gangs wont fill that vacuum. Most people who want to take down the state because they have something else in mind to replace it, and most of those are way uglier than what we have now. If the state fell, Ted Nugent would have a gun in your face demanding you bow to him and his Jesus.
Ideologies are not all equal.
Quote from: revgms on April 16, 2013, 11:35:53 AM
Ideologies are not all equal.
Except that they all suck.
Those who do their own thinking do not require ideology to guide them.
What ever you think becomes your ideology, they don't all suck.
How does Humanism suck as badly as Nazism?
Dudeism is an ideology, a really tough one to define, but I don't think it sucks.
Quote from: revgms on April 16, 2013, 11:54:33 AM
What ever you think becomes your ideology, they don't all suck.
How does Humanism suck as badly as Nazism?
Dudeism is an ideology, a really tough one to define, but I don't think it sucks.
I could be wrong but I think RD is talking about the tightly framed ideologies that sort of do your thinking for you. Dudeism is very open and relaxed.
In the sense that an anti-hero is still a hero I think dudeism is an anti-ideology.
It does get tricky, one has to be able to use and entertain an idea without getting lost in it. It all always comes back to being skillful, not clinging to ideology as you use it to the best advantages you can find within it. And abandoning ideas that are clearly destructive.
I think where people go wrong is elevating ideology above themselves instead of keeping it below, they are part of an ideology instead of making the ideology part of them. Then when it comes time to toss the ideology you don't feel as though you have to toss your self first.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 16, 2013, 12:24:28 PM
I could be wrong but I think RD is talking about the tightly framed ideologies that sort of do your thinking for you.
You're spot-on correct, my dudely brother.
I not against tossing myself once in a while.
(Sorry, had to be done)
Quote from: milnie on April 16, 2013, 04:09:24 PM
I not against tossing myself once in a while.
(Sorry, had to be done)
Just because it has to be done doesn't mean it has to be called to everyone's attention! ;D
Quote from: revgms on April 16, 2013, 12:37:13 PM
It does get tricky, one has to be able to use and entertain an idea without getting lost in it. It all always comes back to being skillful, not clinging to ideology as you use it to the best advantages you can find within it. And abandoning ideas that are clearly destructive.
I think where people go wrong is elevating ideology above themselves instead of keeping it below, they are part of an ideology instead of making the ideology part of them. Then when it comes time to toss the ideology you don't feel as though you have to toss your self first.
Right on, man. Ideologies are tools, like glasses. If the prescription blurs your vision or gives you a headache, then you should change your lenses. The value of the tool is its benefit to you -- does it help you live peacefully or bring you happiness? -- the tool has no inherent value (good or bad) outside of that.
That's just, like, my opinion, dudes.