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 <rigs...@gmail.com> 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 <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> 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 <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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário