jump to last post 1-50 of 54 discussions (996 posts)

Republicanism vs Utopianism

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Utopianism is the real crux of the problem: the insistence of attempting to establish that which can never exist. We are a society which is driven by hope. We are fed hope by every commercial, billboard and salesperson! We live for hope, thinking there is a magic fix for every ill. Government can offer hope to a certain extent, but we must realize the basis for government and how policies must be based on the truth of human nature. After all, as stated in the Federalist papers, If all men were angels, we would not need government.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you really think average voters think of this?

    2. Credence2 profile image88
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with your statement which acknowledges that Government is necessary not so much a straight jacket to deny tendencies of human nature, but not allow human nature to reach a point of detriment to others. So why do conservatives hate Government?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because liberals use it as a tool to steal with and to institute unnecessary and unethical control with.

        1. Credence2 profile image88
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Because conservatives interpret taxes and the necessity of same as theft, of course there are limits. Because conservatives would leave corporate America without proper regulations turning our world and environment into a toilet that they insulate themselves from.
          So what would conservatives do with the Government except to allow those that exploit others to continue to do so with impunity? But, the right is ok with that, am I right?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But there don't seem to be any limits to the taxation by a liberal.  Just whatever they can grab, and it goes up every year.

            Ahh..."proper" regulations according to the liberal, who knows how everyone should behave and who will make the rules themselves without input from others. 

            Shrink it back to the size necessary to provide for the country.  The nation, not the nanny state caring for each individual from cradle to grave; that was never the intent of those that formed this nation.  Only those that desire great power over everyone around them intend that; the liberals of the world, doing good as they see it by instituting their brand of controls over everyone else.  That and the far right radical Christians doing the same thing.

            Crudely put, and with extreme spin, but yes.  At the bottom of it all we are each and everyone of us responsible for ourselves.  And "exploit" of course, references every action between any two people whether by agreement or by force.  One or both will always "exploit" the other, and in the business world it is always both doing the "exploiting".  Really, it's only the liberal spin that makes business transactions seem so evil; if people didn't want them they would do them.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ah yes, the liberal insists on taxes being spent bailing out the bankers and other big corporations.
              They insist on huge taxes to kill people of other countries.

              Wait, but those are good taxes. The only evil taxes are those used to counter the deprivations caused by corporate greed.

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                What corporate greed are we talking about? I just hear more excuses as to why corporations should be robbed.

                Try work sometimes -

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Corporate greed?
                  The bankers who stiff us all but get massive bonuses after we've bailed them out. for example.

                  You try work sometime, I've done about forty years of it

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You speak of corporate greed.  Why don't you speak of government greed?  You speak of corporate abuse of power.  Why don't you speak of government abuse of power?  Both exist.  Are you failing to recognize that reality?  Power and influence corrupts, and both are readily available in corporations and in government.

                    You speak about greedy bankers.  Why don't you ever mention the politician who enters his career poor and leaves wealthy?  Shall we talk about the insider trading that occurs in Congress?  Does anybody believe that our politicians are not profiting from their positions of power? 

                    John, can you name a single leader in a socialist country who lived an average life, one without wealth?  Socialism aims to even the playing field, yet how often have we seen the leaders within these socialized countries live like kings?  Can you name a single instance when this didn't occur?

                    Again, who runs the media in a socialist country?  Who do you consider the "people" to be?

          2. Ericdierker profile image81
            Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That just cracks me up. I applaud you for such a statement. It is totally without foundation but a great rant. I am happy there are cool radical folks out there.

            ?But the position is totally ignorant of reality and the notion of social responsibility. And even that is good. So we pay attention which is more than these folks pay for life.

        2. Ewent profile image83
          Ewentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It always make me laugh when the freeloading conservatives go for the socialism BS. So let's look at which states have the highest rates of unemployment, lack of healthcare and comprehensive education...conservative states who love to brag how "conservatively low" their taxes are. Sure they are low...when you live off the federal tax revenues other states pay, why not? Conservatives in red states all ship their unemployed onto SSDI like in AL where the number of unemployed are now enrolled in SSDI for things people up north go to work with every day: high cholesterol, Type II Diabetes and high blood pressure. But in conservative states, these things preclude holding down a job. Take a good look at the welfare numbers in FL, TN, KY and the biggest federal trough feeder of welfare: MS...all conservative states. Meanwhile, people in the so-called liberal, moderate and progressive states are all out of bed every day at 5 AM and off to their jobs to pay for these freeloaders. Does TX need that $14 billion next year for its only major industry, Big Oil? You bet it doesn't. But they'll bash solar energy just so the rest of us can try to feed the insatiable greed of the Big Oil Bois. Sorry but you lose this one. If you can't learn to share fairly, that speaks volumes about who you really are and what you are not.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm happy to hear that you might believe that there are some non-freeloading conservatives.  lol

          2. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You would be well here in Ann Arbor. We have a lot of misguided socialists here who attend the University of Michigan. Especially the 18 year old freshmen snot nose kids who think they have the answers to everything.

            1. Rod Rainey profile image82
              Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              \,,/(°'¿'°)\,,/

            2. Rod Rainey profile image82
              Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "Who could feel more betrayed in the desert of late capitalist nothingness than those most immersed in its recent worsening, and more desperately in need of diversion from its horrors?"

              "Taking account of regressive features among some of the young, one has to recognize in these features at least a somewhat justified strategy, on whatever level it could be said to be such. The world that youth are expected to enter and reproduce is bankrupt, fearsome, and without prospects.

              In fact, it is far more infantile in its workings and categories than in the defenses against it that youth erect for their own integrity. Not only, as a foundation of modern life, does the encroaching high-tech principle render us all daily more dependent; the institutions of society--and media is only the most glaring example--are themselves infantile and infantilizing. Who would legitimately feel anything but the need to "regress" in the opposite direction of such a non-future?"~ John Zerzan

        3. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Why always with the "Us" and "Them" argument. The more you ask for a division of thinking the more you will separate the two from a compromise. Do you think that a liberal is one day going to wake up and say "I have been terribly wrong in my assumptions and must throw them away to appeal to the conservative way of thinking and therefore make some progress" and vice versa. Most governance comes from the middle and they are the ones who have to cut through all the chatter the two sides throw out there to try and make an informed decision. That is even if they care enough to vote. There are valid points on both sides of most issues. So instead of getting something done both can live with, throw the whole thing into a ditch and get nothing done is the result. You have a lot of good ideas but your constant ranting on conservative/liberal rhetoric is most annoying and counter productive.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Most governance comes from compromising the future of the nation.  The divide is between reason and emotion; reality and fantasy; conservative and liberal.  What is the reasonable argument of the left with which conservatives should compromise for the benefit of the nation?  When the Political Parties compromise the people suffer, as proof one need only look at the national debt.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              And I suppose you're about to tell us that superstitious religious zealots are on the side of "reason" and "reality"?

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Your testimony has been entered into evidence, thank you, you may step down.

            2. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Your statement is duplicitous at best. Your comparisons of the extremes as having no middle is misleading because it happens none the less. The elections usually come out with some sort of compromise and when there is no compromise the election reflects a balance of nothing getting done. Once again the middle is realized. When political parties compromise the people suffer is something in which I can see a little truth. The national debt is a whole other thing as politicians are looking for money from donations to proxy their votes and that is the thrust and not a compromise for good between parties. This is also what drives political parties to compromise if only as a bachground influence.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Lefties see conservatives as evil, one need merely read the forums here or listen to the actual language used by elected Democrats to describe Republicans.  Conservatives see lefties as misinformed and damaged, at best, part of a Marxist/Socialist conspiracy, at worst.  Where is compromise possible?  Who would choose to compromise with evil?  What conservative would choose to compromise with a Marxist?  Compromise is by politicians who sole purpose is to remain in elective office, why?  "It's good to be the king" or Senator or President or Governor, etc....

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I am sorry you conscribe to the continued dribble about the "Us and Them" divisional thinking perpetrated by people who neither want and even abhor progress. Yes they want you to feel this way and bust their butts to make sure you continue this way. They remain in charge while you wallow in it. In your response you hold the keys to the answer although your attitude precludes you from ever getting there. "Compromise is by politicians who sole purpose is to remain in elective office, why?" The reason why they have to pay attention to this is because they wish to stay in office. If we practice derision and placate their proxies we can expect them to get nothing done. The "sheeple" must hold them accountable. But who are the sheeple? Ones that do nothing or one's who are mislead by the dribble?

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Conservatives do not hate government, at all.  Conservatives see government for what it is, a dangerous animal that must be contained or it will run wild and devour everything.  I wonder sometimes why lefties cannot learn that exact lesson from recent history.  How many millions of people have died in the last hundred years because governments ran wild?  Why do lefties always turn to government for solutions to problems of human character rather than keep that monster chained?  It is because lefties have a fantasy world in which they wish to dwell and will gladly use the vast powers of government to compel everyone to accept and dwell in their personal fantasy.

        It goes far beyond a mere Utopian view.  Utopia is an absolute impossibility, yet lefties seek its fulfillment.  The ultimate outcome of leftist Utopian fantasies is horror and death.  This has been demonstrated time and again, yet lefties still believe in Utopia.

        What I wonder is, will American leftists ever see government as anything but a perfect solution even when America is finally bankrupt.  TOO LATE.

        1. Credence2 profile image88
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Government is not a sole solution, but the concept of a government is held by most civilized nations, last time I check. Why do you rightwingers prefer anarchy? Well, I don't buy it, if there is something wrong with government, it is the corrupting influence of big money, (greedy private sector business interests)  keeping it from being truly representative of the people that it is supposed to serve.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            To paraphrase a great leftist government leader of the past century, how many divisions does Walmart have?  Vast, powerful avaricious government dwarfs the perceived greed of business and distorts all economic decisions to satisfy the will of the government. 

            "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
            George Washington

            No conservative cries out for anarchy, but why do lefties crave government so vast as to order you how large a reservoir your flush toilet can have and what light bulbs you can buy.  It is the lefty who yearns for the tyrant who will make everything clean, neat, orderly, fair and equal no matter how much force is required.

            1. Credence2 profile image88
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, you do use exaggerated examples of 'nanny government' that we all oppose. But the rightwinger complains about everything from the need for TSA to environmental regulators. Your big buddy business interests have nothing but the desire for the destruction of society and its people, in the pursuit of profit. They cannot be reigned in, at least I have some control over government through the democratic process.

          2. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I think members of the Left are more dangerous than anybody. They want control, control and control and will use the government as an ends to get it.

      3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Republicanism:republican |riˈpəblikən| adjective
        (of a form of government, constitution, etc.) belonging to, or characteristic of a republic. Republicanism existed as an identifiable movement in the Roman Republic, where the founder of the Republic, Lucius Junius Brutus, denounced the former Roman Kingdom and had the Roman people declare a solemn oath to never allow a monarchy to return again.
        Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by means other than heredity, often through elections.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Utopianism
          "utopian |yo͞oˈtōpēən| adjective
          Modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic." Dictionary
          "A utopia /juːˈtoʊpiə/ is a community or society possessing highly desirable or perfect qualities. The word was coined in Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society…" Wikipedia

          1. 60
            David Laserson2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Inherent in the above and below is a rather distasteful vein of anger and resentment. One wields heavy labels, lefty or righty, liberal or conservative, completely dismissing the blatant fact that we, all of us, have this forum to whine within in the first place. In that one can take a shovel and start digging and become anything he  or she wants, provided the passion and the intelligence is there, the overriding reality is that Utopia, for lack of a better word, is there for the taking. Will some be better at exploiting it than others? Clearly. But lest we forget that in much of the world this overarching concept we take for granted, Free Speech, disallows the have nots from enunciating their emotional pain and so called abuses of power. That we have a voice at all, each of us, should be celebrated and utilized to craft a balance between all people, regardless of their affiliation, rank, and attitude. Family Guiy defines government as electing officials to vote and solve our problems against taking some dough once and awhile to get the job done. Everyone in the Family Guy rabble applauded and there was no sneering division between folks. Kudos to Family Guy for  breaking it down for the little people with the undying will to complain.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Disagree.

              I have zero interest in hearing the "have nots" (or at least those that perceive themselves as being a "have not", which includes every person) enunciate their emotional pain.  The only use for such is to attract more of the the same, filling the world with people crying their lot in life but doing nothing about it.  I prefer to live in a positive world, not a negative one, and feel that the large majority of people are better off in a positive atmosphere as well.

              So yes, enjoy and embrace that we have a voice, but then USE that voice for good, not to drive disappointment, despair and disillusionment in others.

              1. 60
                David Laserson2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                How is a call to celebrate our voices and the freedom to do so negative? The world is our oyster and it's a positive oyster and happy new year miss positive.

              2. Zelkiiro profile image84
                Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                But when more than half of the country clings to primitive religion and actively halts scientific progress at every turn (with either their vote or their dollar), how can there be anything but disappointment, despair, and disillusionment?

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What scientific progress have Americans stopped then?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Wasting money in futile space excursions.  Especially the fake ones to the moon.

                    1. 0
                      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Do you have any idea how much knowledge and information---not to mention "things" used in our lives every day from communication to medicine, are derived from what you mock as "futile space excursions"?

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It's tough, yes, but if we work at being positive and improving, we CAN do so.  In spite of the naysayers and those that hold back knowledge for myth.

        2. Ewent profile image83
          Ewentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This US is not a Republican country. DUH ...Republicanism is a political party. Not the entire country. No matter how much you slugs of the right try to impose your Republicanism on the rest of us, you might as well try to push an 800 lb. gorilla across the room. Sorry...but democracy is a form of government. A republic is a noun for the formation of a state. Nice try at your double talk though.

          1. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I hope you keep that in mind when you leftist slugs try to create more government programs to push down other people's throats who don't want that.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The government programmes I see are capitalist in nature and designed to benefit only capitalists.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                ...designed BY WHO?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  By the capitalists.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Who by your definition is not a capitalist?

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      About 99% of the population. The rest just say they are because they don't know the difference.

                2. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "Them"...wink

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Actually "republicanism" is a belief system related to the belief in representative government and should not be confused with the Republican Party.

            There is no "Republicanism" Party in the United States.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, we are a republic.

      4. wba108@yahoo.com profile image86
        wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I see utopianism to be a symptom of a spiritual problem in America. As America has left its Christian foundations, it looks to the state to fix whatever ails it.

      5. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah they called the founding fathers Utopian too. The small minded always call progress Utopian.

        Hell the book where we get the phrase "American Exceptionalism" from is basically a long treatise on how the US is an attempt at a Utopia.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So do the dreamers without a clue as to what reality will do to their fairy tale dreams.  Call their version of "progress" utopia, that is.

          Is it just that everyone with a goal of utopia is a small minded dreamer, living in their private fantasy and unable to comprehend the real world?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As I said, always happens, the vision of the US was Utopian as hell. Everything about our modern world was considered Utopian at one point. If it wasn't for those "small minded dreamers" (derided in much the same way in their own time) we would still live under segregation, or gender inequality, or monarchy etc.

            That process continues to this day, does the change always work? Nope, but not trying is much much worse.

            It's better to try and fail than to never try at all, nothing is worse than stagnation. Basically the scientific process demands experimentation for precisely that reason.

            Never, ever in human history have the people advocating stagnation been right in the long term, you are wrong just like them.

            So many of your comments have this central theme of stagnation, it's an appeal to tradition fallacy and it's apparent all the time, the other day you said we should keep doing something because things might be worse if we don't, that is the path of complete death for any civilization, nation or culture.

            1. Rod Rainey profile image82
              Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A puddle that no one splashes in grows stagnant and hosts mosquito larvae.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Continuing the analogy, would it be a good idea to sink a few trillion into a cannon big enough to shoot a man to the moon?  Knowing that the man will not survive the trip even to the end of the cannon barrel?

              No.  Trying some things are a waste of resources from the start - better to have never tried at all and to use those resources to build a new swimming pool or something.

              Fifty years of shoveling money into the maws of the poverty stricken have just made more poor people, for example.  Yet people still advocate for the expansion of the same programs that have failed miserably - another boondoggle cannon to reach the moon.  Let's do something different, can we?

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ah now we are no longer discussing the ideological abstraction but completely imaginary examples you created...t hat's pointless.

                Of course what you say is also false if we measured poverty in the same way we did when welfare programs begun int his country (under FDR) then we would be taking about something like 0.7% of the population instead of the 30+% when they were instituted.

                (Recommending "Development as Freedom" by Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen)

                The truth of course is we aren't even experimenting on that issue, we know properly handed welfare and development can basically get rid of poverty.

                Measured in American poverty definitions Norway has basically no poor people for example, same for Sweden, Denmark etc.

                The right wing in Norway ran the last election on one of their premises being that some families in Norway can't afford to take holidays (no joke).

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  *shrug* you were the one brought up scientific exploration as an analogy to social experimentation, not I.  Sorry, if the analogy offends you - was it too similar to the failed policies of socialism?

                  "we know properly handed welfare and development can basically get rid of poverty."

                  Not sure we actually do "know" that for every society as they are all different, but I do think it's a very good guess.  What we do NOT know, for the US, is what "properly" is.  For sure, shoveling money at people is not "properly handled" as it only creates dependency and more poverty.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not offensive it's pointless and off the actual topic.

                    "Like if we could spend one cent and cure cancer forever that would be a great change thus proving my point!" See? it really is pointless.

                    Well we actually agree there #1 shoveling money at it is not the way to fix it, we know that but in America at least are often left with no option, (see the hubbub created when we dared to suggest free tertiary education was a good idea).

                    #2 Correct in American we have not quite learned the right way yet, so we need to do two things #1 look at other countries that have succeeded #2 EXPERIMENT. It's the only other effective way to learn.

                    "Those who learn by watching and those who learn by doing"and all that.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      LOL - yes look at the hubub when we suggested that shoveling more money by giving away more education was a good idea.  Did you catch the sarcasm here?  The giggle at your suggestion that paying people to educate themselves is not shoveling money?

                      How about we teach them to pay for it themselves instead of begging it from somebody else?  How about a little self sufficiency, with some production that will benefit society along the way?

                      How about we "experiment" by forcing people to be responsible for themselves instead of living with their hand out for charity?

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So why are you not living in your home country of Socialist Venezuela, again?

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    #1 Not born in Venezuela #2 Left because it had a capitalist dictatorship #3 Have a business here #4 Have a family here #5 I actually spend a lot of time in Argentina (which is where I was born btw)

                    Satisfied?

                    Now why don't you live in Somalia? their government is incredibly libertarian on the basis of not existing, all the freedom you could want.

                    No taxes! No socialism! You should go for it.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ...my stance is to preserve the Constitution and country. Follow the Constitution. See the logic of it and continue to allow it to work. America is not broken. America is the only country which has realistically addressed the nature of the human and his ability to thrive and survive in liberty, which fosters self guidance, self mastery and self-advancement. In turn we help others willingly.

                    1. Josak profile image60
                      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Based on your extensive knowledge and education of behavioral psychology I am sure.


                      Well I recommend BF Skinner, the most respected behavioral psychologist in history, specifically I recommend Walden 2, his book in which in which he specifically says that the exact opposite is human nature.

                      But you know he actually knows the topic.

              2. Rod Rainey profile image82
                Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                A growing number (myself included) are advocating something radically different, but simple.

                •The reclamation of vast tracts outside of cities

                •The restoration of free, natural, self perpetuating abundance through permaculture and polyculture in these areas. These practices sequester carbon, reduce emissions purifying the air, reduce erosion, build healthy soil, purify water, promote bio-diversity, reduce human workload, can work almost anywhere and have the potential to outperform annual monoculture with a fraction of the time and effort.
                     
                •Relax the building codes in these areas the same way many peripheral communities do now for farms. This would open the door to experimentation and alternative building methods like earthships, cob, straw bale, waddle and dab, adobe, earth bag, dry stone, longhouse etc. ect. These methods often use local materials that would cut down on what’s needed to be imported, trucked and trained in from everywhere and in turn reduce emissions produced in the process. This would also reduce the material needed to build trucks, trains and ships. Furthermore, materials used in these methods are often recycled like the earthships for example are mostly erected out of old, discarded, rammed earth tires stacked like bricks and coated with stucco, adobe, cement. Moreover, some of these techniques insulate better than traditional methods translating into less heat needed in winter and less AC in the summer/less emissions. Build sustainable communities.
                               
                •“Teach them to fish”. Educate the inhabitants/stewards (those who can’t cut it or would rather not participate in the rat race) of these swaths to live in and maintain them for the sustenance of those living and the common heritage of those to come.  Pre-colonized people were proficient in every skill necessary to their ways of life. Stewards could be de-specialized, de-colonized and taught to be interdependent with each other and nature. People should have a clear and realistic alternative to the current system. And what better system is there to fall back on than the one that supported our species for the longest time? Nature!  Once these seeds take root they will perpetuate themselves just as they did for thousands of years before the rise of civilization.
                           
                The biggest obstacle I can see in the fruition of this vision is that in our sick, backward culture there is little to no money in ventures that are actually beneficial in the long term to our species and the planet. We can’t count on governments or corporations to back ideas that have the potential to undermine their control over the populous. Common people must organize, mobilize, acquire land, learn, share, work, collaborate and cooperate for it to happen.

                And again, there are no magic bullets. This is just one idea that could contribute to a healthier and happier world.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Stripped of the fine sounding words, what I got out of that is that you want to steal thousands of square miles of top farm land and move the welfare recipients onto the area where they will be given substandard housing to live in and forced to become gatherers of food for everyone else while also using ancient farming techniques on a small portion of the land that require ten times the labor that modern ones do to produce 1/10 the food.  No real word on who will have the backbreaking labor of burying the millions that will starve.

                  Or did I miss something?

                  1. Rod Rainey profile image82
                    Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You got what you wanted to get. I never said or implied "steal" or "force". How rude. Substandard? What do you base this on? What ever it is, it beats being homeless.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      So does living in a cave.  Not sure I would appreciate such, though.

                    2. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Sorry, "reclaim" sounds like politico speak for "steal".

                      How did you intend to finance the purchase of thousands upon thousands of acres of prime farmland?

                      And those that "can't cut it" in the city are seldom going to be happy becoming a hardworking farmer.  Force is almost certainly the only way you're going to get them out there, living in a mud hut.

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow, just wow.

                    This deserves a copy and paste of one of my previous posts:

                    "Some people are incapable of seeing the potential for a solution, and see only futility in any effort.  Those people hold the rest of us back, because they never want to move forward with anything.  Not every idea will work.  Some will soar and others will die a miserable death.  But those who criticize and nitpick the doers while reaping the rewards of those who took risks and succeeded might as well be ignored, because they believe nothing is ever good enough to attempt, much less spend money on.  Once we figure out who they are, we might as well stop listening to them because they don't offer anything positive and only serve to impede progress."

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      !!??  I DO see potential.
                      "natural, self perpetuating abundance" means plants that will support a small fraction of what is done now.  So does "And what better system is there to fall back on than the one that supported our species for the longest time?" - don't forget that this "longest time" thing refers to a time with 1/10th the population now inhabiting the area.

                      "Stewards could be de-specialized, de-colonized and taught to be interdependent with each other and nature. " Sounds like going back to Pilgrim days or before, when death rates were high and people died young. 

                      "Common people must organize, mobilize, acquire land, learn, share, work, collaborate and cooperate for it to happen."  In other words, a commune.  Something that has never worked for anything but very small communities.

                      All of which adds up to what I said; savages dying because they can't feed themselves on the technology they will be allowed.  I don't think I wish to reap the "rewards" of that new society.

                      Now you want to try building a mile square building, complete with 10,000 residences, stores and hydroponic gardens for food, I'd say go for it.  While I doubt it would work, and I wouldn't want to live there if it did, it might actually give people a life. 

                      Reducing our technology to that of hundreds of years ago will only reduce the population to what was living then, too.  Not a pleasant concept to me, and certainly not something to dream about.

                  3. Rod Rainey profile image82
                    Rod Raineyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What is substandard about earthships, straw-bale, cob?
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cob_%28material%29
                    These homes are energy efficient, cheap to build, can feature any amenity you can imagine and are aesthetically pleasing. I just don't get it.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Yes, straw bale and cob are both useful.  Quite a short lifespan compared to modern materials, but useful if you're willing to spend lots of time in repairs and live in an arid climate.  They don't work so well in wetter locations, where farming is more popular.

                2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

          2. Ewent profile image83
            Ewentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It's pretty obvious what the agenda of the narrow minded right wing is: Doom, Gloom, War, Poverty and Controlling everyone but themselves. If you listen to their rabble rousing long enough, you'd need mental help for manic depression. These are people who suffer from such massive sociopathy. They can't function without making others feel as hopeless as they do. If there is one thing a narrow minded rightie hates and they always breed everything in their hateful little minds upon hate, it's a happy person. They will do whatever they can to tear apart any happiness they find. These brown shirts hate themselves more than anything. They don't want to be all alone in their hatefulness. So they invite anyone in sight to their hate parties. No thanks. I'm a happy person and intend to remain that way.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              lol  For sure, all conservatives are sociopaths that can't stand for anyone to be happy.  Happy as you are happy, within your delusional world of doom and blackness.

              Perhaps we should discuss the meaning of the word "happy"?

      6. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can only say this:

        Until recently...

        I never knew how utterly incapable of understanding that there IS something beyond themselves most people are.

        And, I never really knew how utterly lacking in empathy and sympathy most people are.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sadly true.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes...it is.

      7. Mr. Happy profile image82
        Mr. Happyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have not yet met anyone preaching Utopianism.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You don't know anyone advocating Social Democracy?

          1. Mr. Happy profile image82
            Mr. Happyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            From Wikipedia: "Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods."

            Also from Wikipedia: "A utopia /juːˈtoʊpiə/ is a community or society possessing highly desirable or perfect qualities." - I did not find utopianism but I suppose it would mean a practice by which we can arrive at a "highly desirable or perfect qualities."

            So Social Democracy is different than a Utopian System.

            Which one are You thinking about? (Just trying to clear-up some confusions.)

            Thank You for the conversation. All the best!

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Social democracy isn't Utopian, as I have said I think the best system s one we have not developed yet, it just evidentially clear that social democracy is the best one we have so far, we should also continue to try things that we have not tried to discover a still better system.

            The Utopianism exists entirely inside your head.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What if the hope for *unrealizable ideals* is actually the enemy we must fight in order to preserve the *proactive system of functional procedures and systems* we currently have in place?

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What if people had said the same of the widely considered Utopian views of the founding fathers?

                Or segregation, or slavery, or the female vote...

                The thing is you don't actually know what is achievable and what is not, no one does until it's tried.

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good points that illustrate why the left and right need each other - they keep each other out of the big ditches on both sides of the road.

                  GA

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Absolutely.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  - there is noting utopian about the founding fathers who said that it is human nature to become corrupted once in office. And that is why they set up two year term limits.

                  1. 61
                    squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The left would rather the right go by the wayside. The right wants to allow the people to work for themselves and work for something, build something and be creative in a certain amount of liberty, which the left will have us vote away for universal welfare. The right stands for self-suffiency as opposed to dependency.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      No, the right wants the people to be good little wage slaves and to make loads of money for the capitalists.
                      The right does not want people who can think for themselves, not people who ask "why are we wage slaves and why aren't we free".
                      The right is selective about who succeeds, those who are not chosen to succeed don't even have a right to live but instead are forced to exist on a pittance paid to them by the government and paid with one intention only and that is to keep them quiet.

                3. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  For the record: The Founders were not Utopian thinkers. Utopianism is NEVER used to describe the Founders.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    On the contrary, utopianism is frequently used in discussion about the founders and the constitution.

                    1. 0
                      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      I am sorry, but I must---as a professional historian of American history, disagree. There is essentially no academic/professional historical discourse about the Founders which refers to them in whole or in part as "Utopian".

                      There is nothing in their writings which suggests a Utopian vision; nothing in the governments which they form which suggests a Utopian vision.

                      In fact, most of entirely pragmatic; entirely dedicated to creating a "Commercial Republic" that works to reify the principles of The Enlightenment. And there is nothing about The Enlightenment which speaks to Utopianism.

                    2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image86
                      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Based of the success of the founders form of government and the fact that the American Constitutional government has been successfully implemented worldwide, I think to call it a Utopian would be somewhat inaccurate. Although I do not believe that The America republican form of government works in every culture because it requires a certain moral base and certain societal moors for it to work.

                      The founders were certainly realists, in that they experience of living under the oppression  of a despotic British government and observing the mistakes of allowing power to be concentrated in an unaccountable government. The founders sought to correct those errors by creating a government of limited powers thereby avoiding the abuses that they had experienced.

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    SOOOOOO wrong, hell even the book that Kathryn is quoting "Democracy in America" says as much.

                    You have to understand that modern democracy was widely considered impossible and Utopian by most thinkers of the time, they thought giving that much power to the uneducated masses would surely lead to destruction.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      ...thats why democracy is tempered in an extended republic. 
                      REPUBLIC!
                      Otherwise democracy is mob rule!
                      Federalist Papers!!!!

      8. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I must say, the lack of any sense of history and historical fact and basic economics/monetary policy and value amuses me.

        Land for $3/acre was exceedingly expensive when incomes were about $150/year. As such, if anyone wanted more than the very small number of acres granted by the government (free of charge) one would have to purchase the land. The land was purchased with BANK LOANS---very similar to modern mortgages.

        Nineteenth-century land grants to private citizens represent the ultimate moment of socialism in the US, but they didn't call it that because there was no word for it; no ideological nonsense to divide people in "conservative" and "liberal" camps. They called it fiscal policy aimed at continental expansion (manifest destiny) and economic development.

        I strongly suggest that some of us try to find a fact-driven way out of our ideological prisons and in the process learn a little factual US history.

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hilarious - Socialism is a 19th Century word - the comedy never stops. (1837) Manifest Destiny (1845)

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately most Americans still don't understand what socialism is.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No, they do not---even when they benefit from it.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You mean the dubious "benefits" of ersatzes socialism?  What benefit is socialism of any kind?  Perhaps an example rather than an assertion would be helpful to  someone.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What about your toll free roads and bridges?

                  Certainly not capitalism, much more socialism.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't know about that - the interstate highway system here is widely credited to playing a major part in the affluence of America today.  Capitalism thrives with good transportation, in other words.

                    I believe you would also find that the money paid to build it also contributed greatly to the country; charity (or socialism, take your pick) but with a twist; the people receiving it actually produced something of value.  Great value, in fact.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      See, socialism really works.

                  2. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Built not as some social good but rather as an assistance to commerce.  The national highway system was a defense project and there are still a substantial and increasing number of toll roads.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Why is an assistant to commerce not socially good?

                2. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope...anything I say no matter how deeply factual will be demeaned.

                  You are fully aware of the many social projects in, for example, the US which make our way of life---including capitalism, possible.

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What is hilarious, relief2000, is your lack of understanding of the vernacular uses of words and the temperal-spatial nature of the vernacular.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It gets even funnier when someone's fur is rubbed the wrong way.  Perhaps you should look into the many failed socialist communities that sprouted all over the US during the 19th century or perhaps the typical workman's daily wage of $1 - a rate that didn't vary by much for several decades or that liberal and conservative in the 19th century were different things than today.  Regardless, few things entertain more than lefties.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Whatever.

        2. Rod Rainey profile image82
          Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen. And this tax, levied upon him by the State, the capitalist, the lord of the manor, and the middleman, is always increasing; it rarely leaves him the power to improve his system of culture. If he turns to industry, he is allowed to work — though not always even that — only on condition that he yield a half or two-thirds of the product to him whom the land recognizes as the owner of the machine.

          We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We call those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger.

          The result of this state of things is that all our production tends in a wrong direction. Enterprise takes no thought for the needs of the community. Its only aim is to increase the gains of the speculator. Hence the constant fluctuations of trade, the periodical industrial crises, each of which throws scores of thousands of workers on the streets."~ Peter Kropotkin

      9. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Again...I find myself amused; amused by those posting to this page who no doubt  consider themselves to be "Christians" and who yet disclaim the natural collectivism of human beings, the spirit of sharing as a means of survival.

        And if you don't appreciate the Christian reference, perhaps read Hobbs and Locke; read something of the "social contract"---what it is, how it evolved, why it is sustained.

        And then, read the Preamble to the US Constitution.

        You might get it---you might understand that the social contract which underwrites the US is the cornerstone of what is called "the natural law".

      10. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And as for children:

        Not all children are the competitive and self-serving creatures some of you are describing. In fact, not all children are raised in environments that dehumanize them from birth.

        And, in fact, some children are caring and giving; some children are born sharing while others are taught its value by their parents.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ALL the children I have been associated with have been loving and caring.  After being taught that by their parents.

          Not a single child in my experience has come out of the womb wanting to share.  Once in a while they will give something up voluntarily, but the next minute want it back - if that's your idea of "sharing" I guess you might have a point, but it's not mine.

      11. Ewent profile image83
        Ewentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh really? And just how many parents do you know today who are not both working outside the home? Maybe in the hinterlands both parents are home all day long and have nothing better to do than parent. In progressive states and those that are the most heavily taxed, both parents work and at day's end are deadly tired from just trying to keep a roof over their kids heads and food on the table. All that nicey nicey BS narrow minds love to spout is just that BS. Today's parents have it tough and it's a result of a tiny minority of too selfish ingrates all freeloading from the working class. Your ideas of sharing isn't sharing. If it hurts for you to share, it's not sharing. Most adults with any level of maturity know that.