Alternative to capitalism?

[Tgace]

Because we all live in this country and, to a certain extent, we all sink or swim together. You do not exist as a microcosm onto yourself. You are connected in ways you cannot even dream to people you don't even know. Therefore people who are unsuccessful in the current system DRAG YOU DOWN. You cannot escape this, short of killing those people. In this country, you need to have the freedom to choose your own destiny, but you also need to understand that this country provided you the opportunity for that destiny. How much do you owe for that opportunity? Well, that is what you pay in taxes. It's called social responsability.

The problem with capitalism is that it emphasizes personal responsibility over everything else, and I believe that we have talked enough about the things that this causes. The problem with Communism is that it stresses social responsibility over everything else and I believe we have covered the problems that this causes.

So, in my opinion, if we could find a system that combines the two, we would have a better system then we have now. Not perfect, but better.

Good points...where then do you draw the line between what you owe and what is owed you? If the nation decides to draft you, do you now conveniently say "Im a free individual American and I dont "Owe" anybody $%#^"?? If you think the government owes you an education, health care, etc. do you now say "As an American the system "owes" me these things"?? I suppose thats a fundamental question for us Americans. We pride ourselves with our upholding of individual freedoms. How do we "socialize" and not change that cornerstone??

 

[Don Roley]

Because we all live in this country and, to a certain extent, we all sink or swim together.

In other words someone has decided that I am born into this world as a slave to others. Who determines what my responsibilities are if not myself? Where was the contract I signed to get these responsibilities?

You want to tell me that I can't give money to my kid because I owe the greater world something. Who determines what I owe?

Capitalism is the only system so far that tells me that my kids are not born slaves, owned by obligation to people like you. It is the only system that allows me to do everything I can to make sure they are as well prepared and cared for to meet the world.

Either we have a dictator telling us our responsibilites that we must do as slaves to the greater good (who chooses?) or we let the masses control us, and let the human spirit of greed, envy, etc rule all.

I owe the world nothing. The world owes me nothing. And get your damn hands off of my kid's future unless you can prove that they have built up a debt. This whole line of global consciouness is just a very thin excuse for people to get their mits on what they did not earn.

You are quite free to help the world. Go ahead. Just don't tell me I am a slave to the greater good that you have determined.

 

[Don Roley]

Please feel free to read this document.

http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/mar01/

We've discussed this topic on this forum already.

Kindly highight the section where it says that a corporation can technically park a tank on my front lawn and not be subject to the laws here.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Good lord, where does one even begin.

One is free to stamp one's little foot and declare that the clear, open facts of capitalism are not the clear, open facts of capitalism all one likes. But neither wishing, nor stomping, makes it so.

The hilarious assertion that value comes from nowhere is it complete contradiction to reality, but hey. Why not. Complete contradiction of human reality is what capitalism runs on anyway.

Why can't one say that making money is bad? After all, radix malorum est cupiditas is an old proverb--if you're going to demand that everybody believe that Making Money Is Good, why can't we say the opposite?

To quote Joanna Russ--how nice to be an expert on things that never happened. As starry-eyed as one cares to be, the historical facts are that capitalism has involved exploitation, child labor, ruthless colonialism, and--no doubt about it for anyone who will look--the constant invocation of military and police power to preserve, protect and defend the Almighty Dollar. These hallucinatory assertions that no capitalists never hurt nobody...that if they did, the cure is purer capitalism...and anyway Stalin killed people (I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back last week, and anyway it had a hole in it when you loaned it to me...)..as long as we're on the topic of evasions, never DID get a response to questions about Bhopal, United Fruit, ITT and Chile, Bechtel Corp in Iraq...and on and on.

Why not tell you that you have a responsibility to other human beings (and when the hell did THAT become a bad thing? You know...Hemingway, John Donne, "For every dust clod washed away, England is the lesse...and therefore, never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for THEE and all that? fundamentals of morality 101? Intro to Christian Thought? sheesh, like nobody never heard of Mrs. Be-Done-By-As-You-Did)? After all, you're insisting that everybody should be a slave to the Almighty Dollar.

What never fails to amaze me is the radically anti-American character of all this love of money and pure capitalism. This crap's new: it is NOT part of traditional American values.

Oh, and here's your answer, Sparky. Nobody hated, nobody demonized: that is your fantasy, not mine, and you are perfectly welcome to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and try to block out historical reality. Nobody tried to take nothin' from your kids--what one wants is more for your kids, a better education, better places to live, a better set of aspirations, and a world in which they do not have to live with having taken more than they deserve or have earned from others who have far less than they, a world in which they do not have to struggle to be blind to the realities of the ways far too many people suffer. A world, in fact, in which they can live up to the best in humanity--not the crappy little chasing after little green pieces of paper, shopping to plug up the holes in their lives, working primarily to stick it to the next guy, fighting to paper over the contradictions between the moral values their parents have tried to teach them and the realities of their daily lives.

I'm real sorry that you appear to find such goals laughable, or unattainable.

I recommend a serious course of that great un-American, Henry David Thoreau: you are arguing radically un-American values and goals, and might wanna get back in touch with what this country was all about.

The problem is, of course, that you were raised in times after the decline of real values--which were not, whatever Professor Sowell might try to claim, all about the pursuit of wealth.

 

[Don Roley]

Why not tell you that you have a responsibility to other human beings (and when the hell did THAT become a bad thing? You know...Hemingway, John Donne, "For every dust clod washed away, England is the lesse...and therefore, never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for THEE and all that? fundamentals of morality 101? Intro to Christian Thought? sheesh, like nobody never heard of Mrs. Be-Done-By-As-You-Did)? After all, you're insisting that everybody should be a slave to the Almighty Dollar.

No, I am not saying that everyone should be a slave to the dollar. I am saying that my children and I are no slave to you or anyone else. Your screaming can not change that fact.

When you boil all it down, you come to that unescapable fact that in other systems, you are born a slave. You are born with a debt that you can never repay. Dress it up as much as you want, that is the message. It is not a new one. It has had several manifestations throughout history. Among them are these,

"Since you were put on this Earth by God, you owe him. And as the representative of God, you are hereby ordered to send your daughter to the Pharoh's bedchambers tonight."

"We gave them civilization. They would be starving in the forest if it were not for us. The least they can do is work a little harder and stop complaining."

Get the picture?

You can call it God, Gaia or the, "ways you cannot even dream to people you don't even know." It comes down to some obscure, unseeable power that we all are born to and must bow down forever. This is what you would have us be slaves to.

I owe my life to antibiotics. Do I have to bend down to the corporation that made them possible? Damn if that is not going to set some livers quivering. My debt ended to them when I paid their fee. That is what we all say, but the debt I pay to the modern high priests will never end.

Evil, sheer evil.

What never fails to amaze me is the radically anti-American character of all this love of money and pure capitalism. This crap's new: it is NOT part of traditional American values.

This is almost funny considering how you are the one complaining how people who disagree with you are questioning your patriotism. It is kind of like how you talk about how the rich have screwed us over and then turn around and say there is no hate or demonization. You can treat an entire class like that and try to say that anyone who supports capitalism has to be a greedy money grubber and then try to say you are not a bigot? You can tell us that we are unAmerican, and should follow the doctrine of Henry David Thoreau, for he is the only true vision of what American values are and should be. And then you tell us to free our minds.

How can you keep so many inconsitencies in the same skull?

Nobody tried to take nothin' from your kids

Stop right there with your pontificating about how you want to make their lives better. You have contridicted yourself again. You have openly questioned why one person should be born with more wealth and advantage than another. Now you are saying that you would not prevent me giving my kids my wealth- you are trying to say that by taking away from my kids you can make a better life for them. That is why you have to take away my money from them.

For their own good. For the greater good.

Bovine Feces.

 

[Makalakumu]

Kindly highight the section where it says that a corporation can technically park a tank on my front lawn and not be subject to the laws here.

Sorry, that would be enabling. You, rugged individualist, should be able to find that for yourself. :asian:

 

[loki09789]

Stop right there with your pontificating about how you want to make their lives better. You have contridicted yourself again. You have openly questioned why one person should be born with more wealth and advantage than another. Now you are saying that you would not prevent me giving my kids my wealth- you are trying to say that by taking away from my kids you can make a better life for them. That is why you have to take away my money from them.

For their own good. For the greater good.

Bovine Feces.

Don,

You are relatively new to the "McRobertson experience", but the idea that he throws around his 'intellectual currency' (can you say scholar gentry?) as frivolously as a newly wealthy Rap Star 'flashing his bling bling' lends a little inconsistency to his 'capitolistic corruption' argument and LOADS of credibility to our 'people are people' argument....

If he was truly the marxist poster child, he wouldn't be lecturing and pontificating

(from the keyboard of his corruptly funded educational institution computer that is connected by a high speed internet connection that he isn't paying for, but is being paid to have access to)

as much as educating and sharing his obviously inequitable, unevenly distributed educational opportunities

(according to his own theories, but I think we all had the choice to go or not go to higher levels that he has hinted at completing)

...but then he is promoting more of the communistic/Leninistic view that lead to the assassination of Ivan Trotsky -by his own state enforced equal brothers of the communisit revolution.

But hey, if his directive

(Read this, read that!)

tone and his sneering commentary

(your idea is laughable...)

are completely in keeping with his Orwellian, 1984 image of the world that he accuses the USA to be moving toward....then I am relieved that when the workers of the world unite, he

(along with the rest of the Intellectual Elite)

will be ousted from a position of power and put behind a shovel to labor with the rest of 'us."

Even with him on my ignore list, his quotes come through to haunt me.

Education does not automatically indicate intelligence. It might indicate opportunity and TONS of college loan debt though . Intelligence is not the only piece in the "respect your elders" puzzle either. There is bearing and conduct, there is respectful behavior and a demonstrative sensitivity to the people around you (which doesn't mean that you have to be nicey nice all the time, but you should pick your battles instead of just picking on people).

I feel like I have had educational sand kicked in my face by an academiac bully....

 

[Makalakumu]

Who is the government, Don? Who are they? Are they us? Or are they suppose to be us? The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us. YOU have a point of view that you are allowed to share when it comes to the greater good. You can participate in this democracy and make that point of view alone. You keep ranting about being a slave to what I think and I find that frightening as if you wouldn't have any power to disagree, as if we ALL aren't Americans...

I have a question for you, do you think the giveaway of your freedoms is so close at hand?

It is my friend. It is.

The Bush administration is just another group of the ultra-rich who, with their ubercon realpolitik, have decided to take over the government and make it work for their benifit. When Robert decries a decline in traditional american values, he is absolutely right. People used to work together. People used to WANT to help each other and use the government as their tool to do it. To illustrate this, I want to quote a republican president who presided over our country when my parents were born, which is, incidently around the time period that I believe that rmcrobertson grew up.

President Eisenhower said, "a country that spends half of its annual budget on the military rather then its people is a tragedy to humanity." Consider that statement. Think about the changes that have come since then. Think about how much farther to the right the republicans, the champions of capitalism, have moved. Fascism is just around the corner. Its peeking its head right now with people like John Ashcroft and Don Rumsfeld. The things they say, the things they do. They have increased the size of government but in a different way. They have increased it so it benifits their hands. The hands of the few, very wealthy.

And that, in my opinion, is wrong.

I don't need to tell you anything about the greater good. You know what it is. I have children too. I want to give them a better life then what I have and I don't want to deny anyone the right to do that. Guess what, the people who run this country they DO want to deny you that right. With their massive deficits and gigantic government, they are going to take what we have wrought to pay for their war machines, their corporate welfare, their uberpolice and control of their wealth. You cannot imagine the piles of energy (money) that they have amassed and, in a very natural sense according the second law of thermodynamics, they need to expend a lot of money (energy) to keep those piles. It won't be there money. It will be our money and it will be spent just like its being spent in Iraq. If the Bush Administration did not have bussiness interests there, we would not be there. Saddam was a purely evil dictator, but there were plenty of others to chose from.

Look, I don't want to kill all the rich. I just want to reduce their power over my life. I don't want my tax money to be used to benifit them. I want it to benifit my family and my fellow brethren. What I'm talking about is a step back from capitalism. A step back toward the middle of the paradigm to a place where democracy works best. A place where all votes are counted and people have representation that is based not on how much money the raised, but on how they can best serve this country. A place where the government is US again.

upnorthkyosa

 

[loki09789]

Who is the government, Don? Who are they? Are they us? Or are they suppose to be us? The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us. YOU have a point of view that you are allowed to share when it comes to the greater good. You can participate in this democracy and make that point of view alone. You keep ranting about being a slave to what I think and I find that frightening as if you wouldn't have any power to disagree, as if we ALL aren't Americans...

I have a question for you, do you think the giveaway of your freedoms is so close at hand?

It is my friend. It is.

The Bush administration is just another group of the ultra-rich who, with their ubercon realpolitik, have decided to take over the government and make it work for their benifit. When Robert decries a decline in traditional american values, he is absolutely right. People used to work together. People used to WANT to help each other and use the government as their tool to do it. To illustrate this, I want to quote a republican president who presided over our country when my parents were born, which is, incidently around the time period that I believe that rmcrobertson grew up.

President Eisenhower said, "a country that spends half of its annual budget on the military rather then its people is a tragedy to humanity." Consider that statement. Think about the changes that have come since then. Think about how much farther to the right the republicans, the champions of capitalism, have moved. Fascism is just around the corner. Its peeking its head right now with people like John Ashcroft and Don Rumsfeld. The things they say, the things they do. They have increased the size of government but in a different way. They have increased it so it benifits their hands. The hands of the few, very wealthy.

And that, in my opinion, is wrong.

I don't need to tell you anything about the greater good. You know what it is. I have children too. I want to give them a better life then what I have and I don't want to deny anyone the right to do that. Guess what, the people who run this country they DO want to deny you that right. With their massive deficits and gigantic government, they are going to take what we have wrought to pay for their war machines, their corporate welfare, their uberpolice and control of their wealth. You cannot imagine the piles of energy (money) that they have amassed and, in a very natural sense according the second law of thermodynamics, they need to expend a lot of money (energy) to keep those piles. It won't be there money. It will be our money and it will be spent just like its being spent in Iraq. If the Bush Administration did not have bussiness interests there, we would not be there. Saddam was a purely evil dictator, but there were plenty of others to chose from.

Look, I don't want to kill all the rich. I just want to reduce their power over my life. I don't want my tax money to be used to benifit them. I want it to benifit my family and my fellow brethren. What I'm talking about is a step back from capitalism. A step back toward the middle of the paradigm to a place where democracy works best. A place where all votes are counted and people have representation that is based not on how much money the raised, but on how they can best serve this country. A place where the government is US again.

upnorthkyosa

So, are we talking alternatives to capitolism or political corruption? How can we have realistic implimentation of more socially minded reforms without further infringement/regulation on civil liberties? Lot's of bluster and debate,not a lot of resolution....

 

[heretic888]

The problem with capitalism is that it emphasizes personal responsibility over everything else, and I believe that we have talked enough about the things that this causes. The problem with Communism is that it stresses social responsibility over everything else and I believe we have covered the problems that this causes.

So, in my opinion, if we could find a system that combines the two, we would have a better system then we have now. Not perfect, but better.

Well said. I agree entirely. :asian:

 

[loki09789]

Herrytech

I liked your points about meritism. Is there an actual school of thought or literature that explores this -ism? Meritism sounds very similar to Materialism where the 'thing' becomes the goal (in this case the 'thing' could be either an object or status).

The 'people' point about all of this is -whether culture (nurture) or personal make up (nature) - I think there will always be some standard measure of success. Way back in the 'primitive days' it was probably something to do with hunting prowess and survivability.... and as life became more metaphorical and less literal (we talk about 'getting the axe' for firing and such when there was a time when it was a real thing being described). The problem with any '-ism' is that all the elements that are taken into consideration and discussed, including people, become abstractions and generalizations. That ability of the human mind, like any other tool, can be used for good or ill, regardless of the '-ism'.

What already in modern, real applications of capitolism (with all of it's blending with other -isms) has been a step toward better human consideration? What further changes need to be made? How do we make those changes and balance civil liberties with regulation? I still say that governmental regulation is the only realistic vehicle for any possible changes, but are there other ways that someone else can think of?

 

[heretic888]

Herrytech

Oooh, I get my own nickname. Cute.

I liked your points about meritism. Is there an actual school of thought or literature that explores this -ism? Meritism sounds very similar to Materialism where the 'thing' becomes the goal (in this case the 'thing' could be either an object or status).

Actually, it was "meritocracy".

Basically, it is a more recent (since about the early 1800's on) form of subtle artistocracies in which people aren't judged based on their station by birth, but on their level of material wealth and success (some of which, of course, is inherited). That's generally why people like rock stars, star athletes, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and hollywood celebrities are revered in circles of Western (yes, its not just an "American" thing) culture --- even when these individuals often end up OD'ing, committing suicide, or transmitting venereal diseases through blatant and unhealthy hedonism (another manifestation of that nasty materialism). That's also why shows like American Idol, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and the umpteenth reality TV shows are so popular nowadays. And, need I mention how the death of Princess Di completely overshadowed the death of Mother Theresa --- apparently for no other reason than she was "prettier"??

Many writers have commented on this stuff --- from Wilber to Whitehead to Habermas to Weber to Marcuse to Foucald. Hell, even Marx complained about this kind of stuff in his time (although he manifested another version of materialism himself). T.S Eliot called it "the wasteland" in some of his works.

Really, though, its just one symptom of a much deeper problem --- which has socioeconomic, cultural, and individual repercussions.

The 'people' point about all of this is -whether culture (nurture) or personal make up (nature) - I think there will always be some standard measure of success. Way back in the 'primitive days' it was probably something to do with hunting prowess and survivability.... and as life became more metaphorical and less literal (we talk about 'getting the axe' for firing and such when there was a time when it was a real thing being described). The problem with any '-ism' is that all the elements that are taken into consideration and discussed, including people, become abstractions and generalizations. That ability of the human mind, like any other tool, can be used for good or ill, regardless of the '-ism'.

Well, one of the points that Beck and Cowan make in their discussion of Spiral Dynamics is that all cultural epochs have a hierarchy of some sort. In premodern times, there were literal hiearchies and aristocracies. With the coming of modernity, we see meritocracies increasingly replace these. Even subtler hiearchies are being erected as we speak --- the current "relativists" have thier hiearchy: they think relative (and/or "politically correct") thinking is better than absolutism.

It seems to be in human nature to make value judgments.

What already in modern, real applications of capitolism (with all of it's blending with other -isms) has been a step toward better human consideration? What further changes need to be made? How do we make those changes and balance civil liberties with regulation? I still say that governmental regulation is the only realistic vehicle for any possible changes, but are there other ways that someone else can think of?

My ideas are stuff that others have already mentioned: universal healthcare, less spending on the military, more spending on education, a more equitable distribution of tax rates, limitations imposed on private funding of political campaigns, and so on.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Not-Nearly-So-Tricksy:

Yah sure, but at least I write using my own name. I apologize for having read books, and for having said what I have to say with sufficient clarity that it can be understood. And ooh, that point (which I've never, never heard of or considered before, never ever) about participating in the economic and cultural realities of daily life...why, that just STUNG! Do feel free to keep a-distortin' and a-projectin'--so much easier than discussion.

And Dear Don:

Still waiting to find out exactly where I did all the expropriating and the hatred--still suspecting that these fantasies aren't even yours (talk about expropriation!) but the same old same old libertarian/rightist attempt to continue those manly dreams of a state of Nature by other means.


And to both of y'all

Sorry you feel academically-bullied (he...he...USED BOOKS AND ARGUMENTS AND DISAGREED WITH ME!!!)...and sorry, too, that you have such a distorted, stereotypic view of what Must Have Been my background. You couldn't possibly have things more wrong, but wotthehell. Explanations would be useless, especially since I've made them several times before and they merely drew more claims that I must be lying. Suffice it to say that I worked my way through school, that I am perfectly well aware (and have been since 1978) that that was a privilege, and...oh, what's the use?

Personally, I call it bullying when people launch personal attacks, distort arguments, and find insults more interesting than ideas, but hey, not my burden.

It's more interesting to consider the extent to which such nonsense represents part of the ideological armor around reality, anyway.

Incidentally, Marx's argument is that capitalism will evolve because of its own internal, self-produced, contradictions. Like the ones that revolve around the absolute contradiction between economic life (which like it or not, rests in our case upon dog-eat-dog, with the proviso that some dogs start out with extra status, money, connections and education) and human decency (some grounded in religion, some in history, some in books, some in a vague sense of shared responsibility)...

Tell me again: when exactly did the fundamental American dream about individuality and freedom and shared work and fairness become less important than money and consumer goods? Was it I heard Daniel Schorr point out, last summer, that Roosevelt asked us to sacrifice when the war started...Bush asked us to go out and buy stuff.

I guess I was just brought up in the older, traditional country--and I liked that one better. The one in which people like my dad did not think it needful to kiss the *** of rich folks, and help them justify their status.

Seems to me that some folks don't want fairness and decent treatment for all. They want to be on top, and they dream that this pure capitalism will get them there.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. So, are we talking alternatives to capitolism or political corruption?

2. How can we have realistic implimentation of more socially minded reforms without further infringement/regulation on civil liberties?

3. Lot's of bluster and debate, not a lot of resolution....

You have three very important questions/points here. I'll attempt to address them the best that I can.

1. Some here wish to defend capitalism rather then suggest alternatives. They claim that capitalism is the best system and that others pale in comparison because they lead to totalitarianism. Others say that pure capitalism leads to totalitarianism. The alternative to capitalism being discussed now is a mix of capitalism and socialism.

2. The answer to this question is simple. Democracy. Real democracy will lead to a mix of personal responsibility and social responsibility because that is who we are as a species. A society cannot exist where people do not have personal responsibility - they are never accountable for their decisions. Likewise, a society cannot exist where people do not cooperatively help people succeed. There HAS to be a mix of the two.

3. Paul, that is not fair. I have been giving solutions for problems throughout this discussion. The rest is just an effort to explain the philosophical justification for the changes. This last comment offends me, because it shows a lack of patience on your part. It shows me that you are not willing to take the time to let a discussion play out. It shows me that you would rather jump right to a solution without examining the details of the problem. All I have to say is read LOTR and listen to the Ents. They have a tad bit of wisdom concerning this. Real solutions take time and anyone who has actually worked with the legislative process knows this. Democracy takes a lot of energy because all viewpoints are taken into consideration and debated. And that takes time and patience.

So, I guess I am just going to have to fire right back with this...are you subverting the democratic process with your insistence that we ignore the details by jumping to conclusion? How American is that?

For your information, I have advocated a system that allows people the structure of their society based on a consensus of votes cast by equal individuals. I define equality as one vote = one person. And I have defined a problem the amount of money a person has throws the above into disequalibrium. My tentative solution is...

1. Publicly fund all elections.
2. Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
3. Cap private donations at 1000 bucks.
4. Institute Instant run off voting.

The reason that I would advocate this in this discussion is because I want to stop the march to the Right of our society. The end of that path is totalitarianism just as much as a march to the extreme left would be.

I hope that helps.

 

[loki09789]

The lots of bluster comment was not directed specifically at you but at the general "this is right, that is wrong" tone all around that has taken away from the clarity of 'alternatives' and 'suggestions'

As Tgace as commented, the screaming is so loud I can't hear to point... or something like that .

The problem with the blending is that it already exists in some degree, one of the Canadian posters commented on Socialistic Capitolism and how it doesn't seem to be productive in his opinion. All you end up doing is creating a new -ism...

Capitolism goes hand in hand with Democracy as far as I am concerned because both promote the free mobility of its members to participate at what ever level they are motivated to rise of fall to.

Real Democracy is going to be hard to come by when so many other cultural -isms create perception issues for the members. Not to mention that 'one man (as in human), one vote (regardless of lifestyle, color, religion, age.....)' has NEVER existed in any culture. There has always been some percieved line or range of what is or is not legitimate/'good'. Even the grand model of democracy in Grecian history (usually Athens) had slaves and waged city state war... and consider that within the day of the Greek's that Sparta was the hallmark/ideal of Grecian culture. Modern democrats all love to invoke the Golden Age of Grecian Democracy and therefore corrupt historical accuracy with their perceptions.

There are socialistic elements in our US democracy already. There are already regulations on businesses to 'level the playing field' in areas of finance, environment, working conditions, wages.... so what do we do more or less/different in reality? How do we get anything along these lines done when we can't even agree that security procedures around a presidential motorcade is just procedure and not quarrenting dissent?

Just look at the 'image' of the wealthy that has been presented here, or politicians or anyone who can be percieved as having influence over someone else....even teachers of martial arts.

 

[heretic888]

Even the grand model of democracy in Grecian history (usually Athens) had slaves and waged city state war... and consider that within the day of the Greek's that Sparta was the hallmark/ideal of Grecian culture. Modern democrats all love to invoke the Golden Age of Grecian Democracy and therefore corrupt historical accuracy with their perceptions.

It could also be mentioned that all the truly great philosophical giants from this point in history (y'know --- Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Xenophanes, etc.) all at least flirted with communist-style ideas to one degree or another.

Hell, Pythagoras actually created socialistic, self-reliant "philosopher communes" himself. The State response?? Burn them down. Hrmmm.....

 

[loki09789]

Even the grand model of democracy in Grecian history (usually Athens) had slaves and waged city state war... and consider that within the day of the Greek's that Sparta was the hallmark/ideal of Grecian culture. Modern democrats all love to invoke the Golden Age of Grecian Democracy and therefore corrupt historical accuracy with their perceptions.

It could also be mentioned that all the truly great philosophical giants from this point in history (y'know --- Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Xenophanes, etc.) all at least flirted with communist-style ideas to one degree or another.

Hell, Pythagoras actually created socialistic, self-reliant "philosopher communes" himself. The State response?? Burn them down. Hrmmm.....

I can't remember the Greek inventor's name who did it, but just imagine what these ancient people could have done if they had used his steam engine invention as more than just a party favor.....

Everything old is new again. I have said it before about Zen/Tao/Buddhism relative to Existentialism and such.... rediscovery, reinvention, recycling.... thus my point about the silly little line of human civilization being a loopy squiggling line that loops back over itself time and time again....

I must say that, for as heated and polarized as this discussion as been, it has been fairly mature (excluding my McRobertson Jab of course...)

 

[heretic888]

I have said it before about Zen/Tao/Buddhism relative to Existentialism and such.... rediscovery, reinvention, recycling.... thus my point about the silly little line of human civilization being a loopy squiggling line that loops back over itself time and time again....

Errr.... well, in one sense, things are circular. In another, linear.

You have to understand that the people that originally made these claims were what you could call the "cultural elite" --- the ones far ahead of thier times, as guys like Pythagoras and the American Founding Fathers clearly were.

Thus, it is only centuries later that a larger portion of humanity collectively "catches up" to what was once relegated to a few.

Buddhism flirted with existentialism, structuralism, and contextualism for centuries. It has only been within the last few decades that these have all become widely-accepted, mainstream philosophies in our universities.

*shrugs* Then again, whadda I know??

 

[Don Roley]

And Dear Don:

Still waiting to find out exactly where I did all the expropriating and the hatred--still suspecting that these fantasies aren't even yours (talk about expropriation!) but the same old same old libertarian/rightist attempt to continue those manly dreams of a state of Nature by other means.

Here is just one example from as early as page three,

Second off--what's with the cuddle-the-rich theory? Ya know, when I was a kid growing up in far more-traditional America, the wealthy were indeed viewed with considerable scorn--as they should be.

And don't try to say you have not tried to portray an entire social class in a bad light. You have not been saying treat people as individuals, you have been talking about "the wealthy" as an entire class. And talking about how you scorn them. (Example is right there for you to see.)

Others of us have been saying that we do not hold the rich up as greater than us, but we don't believe they are automatically the subject of scorn. To you, this is cuddling the rich.

This is bigotry. This is the justification you need to grab others wealth and do with it as you please.

 

[Don Roley]

Who is the government, Don? Who are they? Are they us? Or are they suppose to be us? The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us.

Here is the crux of your aurgument; four people in a room. Three men, one female. The majority vote to have sex and the female has to sacrifice for the greater good.

Democracy is great. But one of the first things the framers did was to add on certain amendments saying, "congrass shall pass no law." So no matter how many people dislike a particular religion, the goverment can not shut them down.

Without this type of check on the goverment, democracy is mob rule and gang rape given legitimacy.

Without the assurance that everyone is born free without any obligation to another, we are just a page away from the Taliban with self proclaimed high priests for some mysterious force that can't be shown, measured and proven to exist.

A can feel gratitude if I like. I resent and will fight the statement that I must feel gratitude and show it because someone else has determined what I owe.