> 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 "miles"/countries to go, as Frost put it.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> On Aug 27, 2:12 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Banks are lying about money laundering - seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
>> >> >> >> >> > - as an example. They are also hiding losses illegally through
>> >> >> >> >> > massive false accounting that has been 'made legal'. The basic scam
>> >> >> >> >> > is similar to the alleged 'rogue trading' that brought down Barings -
>> >> >> >> >> > losses are being moved around through subsidiaries and the ability to
>> >> >> >> >> > 'mark to model' (instead of market) on assets - hence Bank of America
>> >> >> >> >> > is claiming to be worth $325 billion but is only trading at £65
>> >> >> >> >> > billion on the exchanges.
>> >> >> >> >> > What we probably have is the near certainty of bank collapses. We are
>> >> >> >> >> > currently funding these bent operations instead of going to full
>> >> >> >> >> > employment and wealth redistribution to prevent recession.
>> >> >> >> >> > Banks have sprung up all around the European drug routes for no other
>> >> >> >> >> > explicable reason (just like Miami in the past).
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > There is no reason for a global recession, but that's different from
>> >> >> >> >> > whether one is being engineered. The Greeks are currently being
>> >> >> >> >> > pilloried as having
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário