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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> 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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> 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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> 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 <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> 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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@gmail.com> 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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> 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
>
> >> >> >> >> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> 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 <rigs...@gmail.com> 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 -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário