Republicanism vs Utopianism

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 54 discussions (996 posts)
  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 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 image47
      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Do you really think average voters think of this?

    2. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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 image78
        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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 image78
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin 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 image67
                Marquisposted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin 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. profile image54
                    Education Answerposted 11 years agoin 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 image47
            Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin 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 image58
          Ewentposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image54
            Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

          2. Marquis profile image67
            Marquisposted 11 years agoin 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 image77
              Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              \,,/(°'¿'°)\,,/

            2. Rod Rainey profile image77
              Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin 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 image71
          rhamsonposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
            retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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 image65
              Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
                retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

            2. rhamson profile image71
              rhamsonposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
                retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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 image71
                  rhamsonposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
        retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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 image82
          Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
            retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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 image82
              Credence2posted 11 years agoin 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 image67
            Marquisposted 11 years agoin 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 image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin 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 image83
          Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image52
            David Laserson2posted 11 years agoin 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 image78
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image52
                David Laserson2posted 11 years agoin 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 image65
                Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
                  Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What scientific progress have Americans stopped then?

                  1. wilderness profile image78
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                    1. profile image0
                      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image58
          Ewentposted 11 years agoin 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 image67
            Marquisposted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin reply to this

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

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                ...designed BY WHO?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  By the capitalists.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image64
                    psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Who by your definition is not a capitalist?

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                2. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "Them"...wink

          2. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
              retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, we are a republic.

      4. wba108@yahoo.com profile image80
        wba108@yahoo.composted 11 years agoin 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 image61
        Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
          wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
            Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image77
              Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

            2. wilderness profile image78
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
                Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
                    Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image83
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image83
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
                      Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image77
                Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image77
                    Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                    2. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image77
                    Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  +1

          2. Ewent profile image58
            Ewentposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
          Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Sadly true.

          1. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes...it is.

      7. Mr. Happy profile image70
        Mr. Happyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I have not yet met anyone preaching Utopianism.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
          Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You don't know anyone advocating Social Democracy?

          1. Mr. Happy profile image70
            Mr. Happyposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
            Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image83
              Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
                Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image84
                  GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin 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 image61
                    Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Absolutely.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image59
                    squeeknomoreposted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                    1. profile image0
                      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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 image80
                      wba108@yahoo.composted 11 years agoin 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 image61
                    Josakposted 11 years agoin 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 image83
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

      8. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
          retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin reply to this

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

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

              1. profile image58
                retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What about your toll free roads and bridges?

                  Certainly not capitalism, much more socialism.

                  1. wilderness profile image78
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin reply to this

                      See, socialism really works.

                  2. profile image58
                    retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Why is an assistant to commerce not socially good?

                2. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image58
              retief2000posted 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
                mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Whatever.

        2. Rod Rainey profile image77
          Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin 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 image78
          wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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 image58
        Ewentposted 11 years agoin 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.

        1. profile image54
          Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If by the "hinterlands' you mean rural areas, please let me assure you that we hicks from them thar sticks gotta work too.  Our states might not be as progressive, but we gots plenty of them taxes to go round.  "Most adults with any level of maturity know that."

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      It is one thing to provide proactive measures through our legal and governmental systems against our weaknesses, it is quite another thing to nurture human weakness through universal welfare programs. I believe we all comprehend this truth and generally agree on a common sense level.
      What we don't know is that we are being manipulated to forget what introspection and common sense tells us. We hope life will be fairer for the downtrodden, for each other, for ourselves. But, we must know when to stop listening to nonsense, when to let love be tough, and when to think for ourselves.
      TWISI

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Hmmm, I believe I am thinking for myself when I look at the massive amounts of money we spend invading other countries and killing people and then scoff when others suggest cutting programs that work quite well, like Social Security and Medicare.  My values say that if we decreased funding for programs that hurt people, we would have plenty of money to fund existing programs that help people.

        1. wilderness profile image78
          wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No you won't - it is a self evident fact that if we come up with double the money to give the politicians and far left liberals will demand triple.  As long as the goal is to make people dependent on government for their support (and it is) there will never be enough money.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Funny, no mention of the money spent trying to make the people of other countries dependent on the USA!

            1. wilderness profile image78
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Yep - we don't learn very well.  Or maybe it's the goal - not sure. 

              I just know that watching people become dependent on our government when we support them here is  a giant clue it will happen overseas when we support them there.

              Don't give them rice; teach them to grow rice instead.  But the socialists are far more interested in fomenting that dependency and keep giving rice.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Oh yes, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you have thousands of men walking around the desert saying where are the f***ing fish?

                1. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  That the best you can do?  Complain that a specific food isn't available at every location throughout the world?  Or that every location will not support 10,000 people per sq. mile? 

                  As if it is better to shovel money at those thousands than to teach them to support themselves.  Well, I disagree, and highly so.  Making slaves out of people just to maintain the socialist power is not the answer.

          2. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            LOL, "a self evident fact."  That's a new one.

            I notice you ignore defense spending, as though every dollar is necessary and required.  You worry about families receiving money for food and ignore the massive waste of money spent on killing, spying, and building weapons.

            1. wilderness profile image78
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              *shrug* you can deny that govt. spending on a per capita basis has not climbed steadily or you can ignore it, but neither action makes it untrue.  We have spent more nearly every year of our existence than the previous year, and one of the major culprits is the ever expanding welfare system.

              The war machine is another reason, and right now spending is up.  When the wars end the spending will go down until the next war - again, we can see this in history.  Military spending fell after WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.  What we don't ever seem to see, however, is a drop in the welfare "needs" of the country even though we know we are creating dependency.

              The topic was welfare and what it is doing to our people, not defense.  It is the propensity of some to entice others into near total dependency on government in the guise of it being a utopia.  We could teach the poor to become more self sufficient, but the effort and monies put into that endeavor are pitiful indeed.  Instead we teach the poor that govt. (particularly the democrats in government) are their source of sustenance and support - we provide life long streams of support, a security blanket that lasts forever and is funded on the backs of the producers in the country.

              So yes, I worry about families receiving money for food.  You worry about the need for self protection in this violent world and ignore the question of why families need ever more food (and everything else) in this land of plenty.  You pretend you can end hunger and despair by playing Robin Hood, but you have to know better.  It's a short term solution only and in the long run hurts everyone, from the receiving family to the giving public.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                No,  corporate profits and profit margins are at an all time high.  It is funded on the backs of you and you and you. You are keeping people in poverty to maintain short term company profits.

                1. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "*shrug* you can deny that govt. spending on a per capita basis has not climbed steadily or you can ignore it, but neither action makes it untrue."

                  Changing the topic to business profits and profit margins does not hide govt. spending.  A wasted effort, then, to deflect the subject.

                  Neither I nor business are keeping people in poverty.  Observed from a nationwide viewpoint, not a specific individual one, the root of poverty is government plans to subject them.  To create a dependency on govt. for their every need.

                  100 years ago I would have agreed with your statement, but this isn't 100 years ago.  It is now, when the welfare programs help support half the nation; a figure that is almost beyond belief and definitely beyond any reason except to create a nation of willing slaves.

                  1. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Do you really think that the FACT that real wages have declined in the US due to the loss of manufacturing jobs that once paid a living wage has nothing to do with the increased rate of poverty in the US and nothing to do with the fact that more and more Americans are dependent on government programs?

                    Do you really think that the fact that some American cities have lost almost ALL of their manufacturing base with NOTHING replacing that base  has done nothing to contribute to an increase in poverty?

                    If you do, then you must have ZERO knowledge of the experience of Americans who lived, and now live, along the shores of the eastern Great Lakes---particularly Michigan, Erie, and Ontario.

                    And stop with the slave analogy. It is entirely meaningless and utterly offensive.

                    1. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Wages have indeed decreased, but it is not due to a change in what labor is being done.  It is rooted in public policies trying to give houses to people that can't afford them, causing a financial meltdown wherein only those at the top of the command structure are keeping all their income. 

                      The cities along the great lakes, dependent primarily on the auto business, mostly drove themselves out of business.  Or more precisely the unions did - it wasn't outsourcing that did in those vast factories, it was that wages in those industries got so far beyond what could be maintained that it collapsed upon them.  Which is what almost always happens when greed overtakes common sense or cooperation and doubly so when there is competition waiting in the wings to step in.

                      If the slave analogy is offensive, good.  It is meant to be; perhaps it will open an eye here or there as a few people recognize what their well intentioned plans are doing to the poor and think about eliminating or helping the causes of poverty instead of simply throwing money at it.

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    But I do not deny. I just point out the reason which is not to support government dependency to but to support short term profits of companies.

                    It is not changing the topic but focusing on the cause of the problem.

                    What benefit can it be to any government to build total dependency?

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      That is my question too!

                         What benefit can it be to any government to build total dependency ! ?

                    2. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Companies that take the short view are indeed putting people into poverty, but it is minor compared to what the socialist leaders in our government is doing.

                      Personal power and income to those in charge of that government.  What else?

                      I know you don't believe our illustrious leaders are there to do good for YOU...

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  ...are you accusing wilderness, himself with the use of the word" you?" Cuz I really do not think he is making slaves out of any workers just to make a quick buck. That would be unethical and bad Karma. And it would make him sad to do so.  What kind of person would treat his workers as though they were slaves? An unethical evil person. What is the check on evil people?  Have nothing to do with them.  And as for slaves? *Others* turn people into slaves by enslaving them... we never make *ourselves* into slaves! Unless, of course, we see some benefit in being a slave. At which point we can no longer be considered a slave, just stupid
                  …or temporarily really really desperate.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    No, I'm saying that it is the likes of you and wilderness who are supporting the unemployed, not as wilderness claimed, businesses.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      we are supporting the unemployed by paying taxes into an agreed upon universal welfare/assistance program of some sort. But businesses are not taxed?

            2. Rod Rainey profile image77
              Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              "The Pentagon is largely incapable of keeping track of its vast stores of weapons, ammunition and other supplies; thus it continues to spend money on new supplies it doesn’t need and on storing others long out of date. It has amassed a backlog of more than half a trillion dollars in unaudited contracts with outside vendors. And it repeatedly falls prey to fraud and theft that can go undiscovered for years."
              http://www.reuters.com/investigates/pen … icle/part2

    4. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

      I don't understand the question. Why is it Republicanism OR Utopianism?

      Why is it that some people think that regulation is a Democrat/liberal thing? Or that Democrats/liberals want money and government support?

      After all, Republicans/conservatives are all about regulation: Regulating marriage; regulating sexuality; regulating women's reproductive rights; regulating curricula, etc. And, Republicans/conservatives want money---and government support.

      It's not Democrats/liberals want regulation and Republicans/conservatives don't want regulation. It's Democrats/liberals want to regulate X and Republicans/conservatives want to regulate Y; Democrats/liberals want money for X and Republicans/conservatives want money for Y.

      To suggest anything else is intellectually dishonest and lacking in any sense of the reality of politics in America.

      1. wilderness profile image78
        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Applause, couldn't agree more.  There is nothing magical or "progressive" in being Democrat or liberal; there is nothing godly or superior in being Republican or conservative.

        Not when either side interferes in our private lives to the maximum extent possible.  How did we ever come to the point that govt. demands half our income, where every tiny thing in our lives (think size of a soft drink) is regulated by some faceless bureaucrat that knows better than we do what decisions we should make.

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I have to agree.

          I live in New York State (western far away from NYC---I've never even been there) and between Mr Bloomberg and regulation of how big a drink people can get and Mr Cuomo with whether or not we can have x, y, or z gun that he defines as an "assault" weapon...we're all just about done.

        2. mynationalvelvet profile image62
          mynationalvelvetposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I Agree! Well said..

    5. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

      So which is more "unethical"?

      Using tax money to support public education OR using tax money to promote private schools?

      Using tax money to secure the civil rights and liberties of all Americans OR using tax money to work to deny some Americans civil rights and liberties.

      Give me a break with the liberals and "unethical" rhetoric. It was worn out a long time ago and is now entirely broken.

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      Most of us can agree with all view points above.

      We would not agree to a monarchy-take over of some sort.  Not suprizingly we are all on the same page when it comes to our form of government: a democratic republic with representation. If we found out that the American system was under attack we would rally together to fight the enemy.
      Right?

      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. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "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, and imagined societies portrayed in fiction."

        "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."
        Dictionary and wikipedia

      2. wilderness profile image78
        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Our system IS under attack; attack by career politicians that make a life out of growing their power base and controlling others. 

        Should we fail to stop that attack our govt. will fall.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
          Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          How, wilderness?
          Do you see a domino affect occurring... can you speculate on how / when the demise will occur?

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes it is a domino.  As more and more politicians gain more power it begins to grow off of each other, with the plebes (us) paying the price.

            How and when?  No idea.  I would expect it to last my lifetime, not my grandkids if nothing is done.  The country will be nearly unrecognizable in 50 years if we continue to allow our servants to be our masters.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
              Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Rome became a democracy originally because there was a need for the plebeians, the common have-not folk, to have a say in the affairs of the king. (The situation today seems to be de-evolving into the halves vs. the have nots, again!) In early Rome, to balance the king's power and wealth, the plebeians were allowed a say…resulting in democracy.
              And yet we we still have a say!!!!
              I guess its what we are saying that is now the problem. I wonder if the opinions expressed on the internet is contributing greatly to that say….
              (as witnessed here in these very forums ! ?)

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                But we are losing that say.  Voluntarily, no less, or at least out of our own stupidity. 

                The internet may actually help maintain what little say we have left as it gives the common man a very loud, far reaching voice.  Of course, it also allows the politician a window into every home for their advertising.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Q.1.) What is our stupidity based on?

                  It seems we are voting away our power, voting for universal welfare/healthcare, but  Q.2.) how are we "losing our say?"

                  Maybe we are learning, becoming smarter through what we are experiencing.  We may figure out where we went wrong and when we do, it will help us stand strong as a nation.

                  1. wilderness profile image78
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Guessing, the forums are liberal.  Which is surprising because it doesn't fit with what I see either HP as (older people, high percentage of retirees) or the age demographic (the older the more conservative).  Of course, the numbers are low enough that actually participate here that it is very easily skewed one way or another.  In no way is it a statistical universe.

                    Of course we have a relatively high percentage of hubbers from outside the US as well, and in the free world the US may be the least liberal.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I edited out my question which was "are there more on the right or left here on HP." Thank you for your answer. I didn't think you would want to surmise about that, as it is pretty hard to fathom one way or the other. I just wonder if there is a lot of political influencing toward the left in/on the internet in general. I would say yes.

                  2. Rod Rainey profile image77
                    Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    America has only ever been free within the parameters set forth by warmongers and shrewd businessmen. Our consent has always been manufactured, coerced or assumed. We choose the “lesser of evils” from a very limited pool of people who are actively seeking power and then petition and appeal to them to give us the power. It’s insane to think the power hungry individual who aggressively pursues authority does so with the intention of relinquishing it. This charade is being exposed like never before in human history.  It will fall. I just hope it doesn’t take us all down with it.

                  3. wilderness profile image78
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    1) Mostly our stupidity is based on greed.  Free money?  Sure!  While ignoring that most everything we have is worth only what we paid for it.

                    2)By electing politicians that make all decisions FOR us, taking away individual choice and responsibility.

    7. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      Republicanism in this forum does not refer to republicans as a party. It is refers to republicanism as a form of government.

      I believe we are ignorantly voting ourselves into a system of social democracy (as many are encouraged by the Europeans.)  However, we are a nation intended for a better way. It is our destiny to live according to our own self-determination and not government-determination. It is common sense to understand, realize, comprehend that we must be careful not to vote away our power and our rights. But we could, if we do not value the nature of our particular extended republic. Our Constitution is based on actual human nature...
      and not on hoped-for human nature.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        And this explanation defines what is happening with PPACA and why it is not working. Those who drew up the bill really thought we... (we being the majority: and it could only work if the majority did actually agree,) would WANT government-run health care? REALLY? And furthermore, it actually thought it could run such a program? REALLY? (unless this all smoke and mirrors behind a larger farce...)

    8. Neil Sperling profile image61
      Neil Sperlingposted 11 years ago

      What makes one Liberal or Conservative.... Democrat or Republilcan?

      My answer - "Simply choose an outside master to follow and ignore listening to your own ethereal awareness. Avoid marching to your own drum beat."

      Do that and you can be either Liberal or Conservative with ease. Just join the divide and conquered flock of sheep..... either way you'll be able to Ba Ba Ba all you want.

      http://soundjax.com/reddo/45679%5ESHEEPBAA.mp3

      the whole system is out of date.... a movement is happening to change that... and it wont be a phony utopian society - but no doubt the time for a whole new system is upon mankind. How it will unfold is the question.... the lucky thing for mankind is that, it is a question with hope.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        How is it going to be?  What is your vision for our civilization here in this land of America?  Could you let us in on the movement and what it it will be based on? Even just a clue would be great.
        iPhone direct voting? no party affiliation? even a hint would be tremendous!
        Please!

        (BTW Don't forget the infrastructure for internet/computer based technologies could be wiped out by an x flare or other counties' interference/destruction of it. In which case it would be back to the 1900's!)

        1. Neil Sperling profile image61
          Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Check out the "Thrive" movement - and "The Venus Project" for starters.... ... also .freeworldcharter.org .. there are many more of this type of organizations in the grass roots now. Just what the change will be is uncertain - but change is inevitable. Progress

          1. Neil Sperling profile image61
            Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Also - I speak of it in my hub "Back To Zero"

        2. Rod Rainey profile image77
          Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I would say there is no magic bullet, Kathryn Hill. We have to pull what really works for all of Earths inhabitants from all the isms and sciences.

          I personally love the idea of an online direct democracy with strict adherences to science and ethics, but as you were saying (with the x flares) our technology is vulnerable.   Where would we be if this happened now, though?  What if a massive solar flare knocked out everything for months? Or what if there was a coordinated e-bomb attack on the entire planet?  What would happen to us all as individualistic specialists (pretty much domesticated animals) with the dog eat dog/ everyone for themselves mindset, dependent on the modern world?

          The word utopia is one those stigmatized words that shut down the mind to our collective potential. We can't let it get in our way.

        3. Rod Rainey profile image77
          Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Also, our technology is heavily dependent on the mining of finite materials. Unless there are major breakthroughs or we find other heavenly bodies to mine, this will all inevitably end someday anyway. Won't it? I mean, we could maybe prolong this for a very long time if we were more conservative with our resources and stopped building obsolescence into our gadgets, but eventually these things will be gone.     Shouldn't we be thinking about that?

      2. Rod Rainey profile image77
        Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Bravo, Mr. Sperling! or +1 or whatever. Any time we identify ourselves or someone else as anything other than human we perpetuate arbitrary, outdated divisions in our species. There is SO much that most everyone can agree on; we should be focusing on those things I think.

        1. Neil Sperling profile image61
          Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Rod - 118% agree.
          The occupy movement was not effective - however it did show that there is "Global" support behind a new world change.... and with every country on the planet involved in the occupy movement it was clearly evident change "IS" happening.

    9. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      Now, we are getting somewhere as far as isolating the difficulty!
      Thanks, you two!

      1. Neil Sperling profile image61
        Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Kathryn - the shift in  consciousness "IS" taking place on the globe. The power of the masses vs the power of the few who now control economies, wars and governments.... the power of the masses is greater by far. The emerging changes ARE happening... just the destination of where we progress too is unclear. |
        Have you seen the you tube series "the pale blue dot?"
        Also there is a great youtube video that shares how the astronauts view of earth from space lab, shuttles etc.... All point to the awareness of a conscious shift taking place. Troubled times we appear to live in - while in actuality they are FASCINATING times.

        Progress IS happening.......

    10. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      Human nature as revealed in ancient history:

      Civilization:
      Complex society consisting of cities, organized government, religion, art and different classes.

      Classes:
      Upper class: Kings, priests and government officials.     
      Middle class: Fishermen, merchants, artisans, farmers.
      Lower class: Enslaved people

      Wars:
      The desire to increase size or gain territory, power or glory caused actions of offense. The Desire to protect territory caused actions of Defense
      Offense - to gain
      Defense - to protect

      The first kings were probably war heroes who had a taste for power, glory, resources, wealth and land.

      Q. How can we deal with the threat of those who love conquest, whether individuals, groups of individuals, or corporate conglomerations
      now or in the future?

      1. Rod Rainey profile image77
        Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "The drive that keeps civilizations rising after they fall is the drive for social complexity and expansion of consciousness. Domination and exploitation are not drives in the same way. They're more like mistakes, which have been common so far and might remain common for a long time, but are not logically necessary at any scale."~ Ran Prieur

        I don't think the love of conquest is all that prevalent. Sure, it exists, but consider yourself and those you know. Don't you think you and yours are nice people? I think most of us really want what is best for everybody so we have those who don't outnumbered. The power hungry must manipulate hoards of nice people for a proper conquest. I think we must learn to recognize this tendency and ignore it. History does not have to repeat itself.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
          Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I don't know about that… I really don't.

      2. Neil Sperling profile image61
        Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        As for your comment on dealing with those who love power (conquest) .... the building of character of each and every individual will be the conquest of the future..... the seeds of change lie in this fundamental idea..... together we can change the world by first and foremost changing ourselves. :-)

        Progress

      3. Neil Sperling profile image61
        Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        ps - the past does not necessarily become the future..... again is the the bottom up changes - the back to zero.... that will make the future something new...

        Oh - one more GREAT video to watch (youtube has it)
        "What the bleep do we know" ... takes a look through  quantum physics

    11. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      Its always a good thing to sweep what is bothersome under the carpet. No one but you will know it is there anyway...
      right?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        - what have we done with the big pesky boulder that rolled into our house during a very severe storm? (We left the door open by accident)  Even though there are so many people in our family to help get rid of the boulder, we just let it sit there obstructing the traffic of the house hold...We just let it sit there, pretending it is part of the decor. We don't even try to move it over. We just keep stepping over it and working around it. Until one night, some of the family members trip over it.
        Then, they'll wish like crazy they had tried to remove it.
        It is called deep regret. That's the result of ignoring big boulders.

        And yes, the door should have been shut in the first place.
        Thats how you protect what is in your home.
        In the real world.

        1. Neil Sperling profile image61
          Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I like your analogy - but sweeping it under the carpet is at times the best solution as some problems really do disappear on their own.... while other boulders need dynamite LOL

    12. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      I am not opposed to thinking that the storm could be NWO. Am I crazy?
      Or is it the Left in this country who really want socialism?  Why would they want socialism???? Are they merely at war with the Right who (they say) are after unjust financial conquest?

          Conquest for Financial Power and Glory To the Point of Taking Away   Liberty for All
                                                       vs.

         Donations to the Down Trodden with Humanitarian Concerns To the Point of Taking Away Liberty for All

      Q. How do the Youth think this problem will be addressed in the future?
      and what is the meaning of Liberty for All.

      ( Yes, I missed my calling as a Jr. High Social Studies teacher.)

      1. Neil Sperling profile image61
        Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The paradigm shift has NOTHING to do with left vs right, Socialism vs Capitalism etc etc etc.
        It really is a "NEW" way of living that is evolving. Fascinating

        1. Neil Sperling profile image61
          Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I posted a few more comments in the threads above....

          I think you'll enjoy "what the bleep do we know"

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            My stance is to value the Constitution. We need to understand it. We need to follow it. No matter how much technological advancements or how savvy the human race gets, the nature of being human will never change. NEVER.

            We were given by our Creator, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Our government was instituted to secure these rights and it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. There are those who want to change this direction but only in the name of farce. Don't be fooled.
            Farce:
            "...a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations." Dictionary
            "Farce is also characterized by physical humor, the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense…"
            Wikipedia

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Yes because the founding fathers were also behavioral psychologists *face palm*.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Ever read: Hume, David |hyo͞om|
                (1711–76), Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian. He rejected the possibility of certainty in knowledge. Notable works: A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40) and History of England (1754–62)?
                They did. They also knew history and were determined to avoid the mistakes of the past.

    13. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      here is a sample of the Federalist Papers: To the People of the State of New York:
      A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.

      From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

    14. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      And more:
      "The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the enlargement of the orbit within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place." Paper No. 9

    15. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      And more:
      "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government." Paper No. 10

    16. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      I just wanted to give you a tiny sample of the depth of thought, wisdom and character of the founding fathers. Any one who lives here should pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers and try to fathom what the framers had in mind in forming a one of a kind government. It was the opportunity of a life time. Shame on any one for thinking it should be altered, disregarded or disrespected! We need a resurgence of love for our homeland!

    17. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      And more:
      "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

      The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

      In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

      In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters." Paper No 10

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Ahhhh more behavioral psychologists! Wait no... Damn.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        John Adams:
        "There may be little solidity in an ancient idea that congregations of men into cities and nations are the most pleasing objects in the sight of superior intelligences, but this is very certain, that to a benevolent human mind there can be no spectacle presented by any nation more pleasing, more noble, majestic, or august, than an assembly like that which has so often been seen in this and the other Chamber of Congress, of a Government in which the Executive authority, as well as that of all the branches of the Legislature, are exercised by citizens selected at regular periods by their neighbors to make and execute laws for the general good. Can anything essential, anything more than mere ornament and decoration, be added to this by robes and diamonds? Can authority be more amiable and respectable when it descends from accidents or institutions established in remote antiquity than when it springs fresh from the hearts and judgments of an honest and enlightened people? For it is the people only that are represented. It is their power and majesty that is reflected, and only for their good, in every legitimate government, under whatever form it may appear. The existence of such a government as ours for any length of time is a full proof of a general dissemination of knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the people. And what object or consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to the human mind? If national pride is ever justifiable or excusable it is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence."John Adams

        Inaugural address 1797

      3. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        "There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty; and if they miss their aim, resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve to perish."
        Alexis De Tocqueville

        By: Richard L Williams on June 27, 2013:
        "The classic and still the best description of soft despotism (tyranny) appears in volume II; book 4, chapter 6 of Alexis DeTocqueville’s 1835-1840 Democracy in America."

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          “I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.

          ― Alexis de Tocqueville

      4. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        "Soft despotism" equals *social democracy*.  I believe social democracy is the enemy we face. It is a creeping force and we must stop this black ooze in its tracks, NOW!

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Nope soft despotism is the tyranny of poverty, of the lack of education, of being chronically ill without treatment.

          All of those things are a greater impediment to freedom than slightly higher taxes (and I do mean slightly most social democratic nations have similar tax rates just spend the money differently).

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Nope nope nope. You are not comprehending the problem of tyranny at all. why? why are you gung ho for tyranny? Just to cyber bully? I will not take part. I will not.
            The real problem is keeping ones pants zipped up and the nickel between the knees until circumstances are favorable for raising a child.

            Stop the Black Ooze of Social Democracy:
                                  No more taxes for universal health care or welfare!

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Nope you are gung ho for tyranny. In practical terms one system creates freedom people feel the other creates a meaningless abstraction of freedom that ends up oppressing the majority of the population.

              You'll notice that places like Norway and Sweden have higher freedom rankings than the US.

              Indeed top three are Finland, Netherlands and Norway.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Stop the creeping Black Ooze of Social Democracy!


                                   Increasingly high taxes will be the consequence,
                                                             if we do not stop it
                                                                   in its tracks
                                                                      today!! 

                It is sticky and smelly like black tar and we will all be tar babies, if we don't.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes those taxes will get to high that you will be freer! OH NO!

                  And also actually not get higher since social democratic nations have similar tax rates as we do just spend the differently.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    "freer" is not being forced to give up YOUR money for the sake of OTHERS!

                    1. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      But he's right!  Just think - you will no longer have to write all those zeros in the check  register.  You won't have to decide how to spend it.  You will no longer feel guilty for being paid as a productive member of society.  Your purse will be much lighter and easier to carry.  You will no longer be getting fat from too much eating out. 

                      The benefits are tremendous!  Especially the love and appreciation from those on the receiving end of all your money as they get their entitlements each month while watching you trundle off to earn them more.

                      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        yaeh, if you like the life of a tar victim.  sad

                    2. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Cool, I recommend Somalia NO TAXES AT ALL.

                      But of course that isn't what you want you absolutely want taxation and government protection paid for by all just only for things that affect you. Police, military, roads fire department etc. but helping others? Nooooooo that's just not acceptable.

                      Greed wrapped up in false ideology.

                      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        How about

                        Ignorance wrapped up in no love for liberty.

      5. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        What is wrong with keeping taxes low, stoping government over-regulation in the private sector, and working for a living? In a free society, people have the opportunity choose their profession/career/work, according to their aptitudes, interests, and talents, (depending on availability.) Whats wrong with making work available?
             Whats wrong with having a child when the parents are ready to tutor, mentor, teach, help their own offspring attain survival capabilities? What's wrong with saying no to drugs? to premarital sex? We don't need a utopian system… we have what works. We must understand the value of what is already in place and agree to keep it.

        Bottom Line: Men must *step away from the eggs* until they are ready to help a child survive and thrive in a free society where one must be capable, knowledgeable and hearty enough for the challenges of independence.


                             No more taxes for universal healthcare or welfare!!

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I strongly suggest, when you command "No more taxes for universal healthcare or welfare" that you read the Preamble to the US Constitution.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Promote the general welfare!
            1 well-being, health, comfort, security, safety, protection, prosperity, success, fortune; interest, good.


            2 social security, social assistance, benefit, public assistance; pension, credit, support; sick pay, unemployment benefit; the dole.


            I really really hope that you as a professor do not teach that the general welfare reference in the preamble refers to definition No. 2

            Because it doesn't.
            It refers to definition No, 1! Do you, mbuggieh have any response to the article by Richard Williams, also a professor?
            http://mypoliticalsolutions.com/discuss … Vs+Freedom

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Health= public healthcare, security= unemployment benefits, safety= social security and pensions.

              Etc.

              They are the same list #2 is #1 in action.

            2. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I think that deTocqueville was a continental European observing a place he could not possibly understand.

              And after reading Williams' article several times---almost all of which is quotation from deTocqueville, I have no idea what his point really is other than to apparently take yet another uninformed swipe at what he inaccurately perceives as some either/or choice: Either freedom OR equality.

              This is a straw man and utterly meaningless.

              We can be free and equal---read the "Declaration of Independence". Review the 14th Amendment.

              There is no either/or in terms of freedom and equality in America. To presume so near engagement with un-Americanism at its very worst.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We are all motivated in different directions with different strengths. Equality of outcome cannot not be guaranteed. It is up to every individual to make the best of freedom and opportunity.
                Why should everyone have health insurance, why?  It depends on one's ability to pay for it or get a job which offers it.

                (Maybe we should have worked a little harder to make health insurance more affordable for all. Like regulating the amount people have to pay. Charge by the year, similar to AAA car insurance.  But, limit insurance policies to $3,600 a year for adults or $300.00 a month. Every adult would pay $300.00 a month, cut and dry. Every hospital could serve the patient and handle the insurance, similar to Kaiser. Cut out government as the middle man, outlaw private insurance, cap the yearly insurance amount for adults and let each hospital handle the business of insurance. No?)

      6. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        Definition:
        Tar Victim:
        Someone stuck in the black ooze of Social Democracy.

      7. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        - governing a society or state as a *republic* recognizing the need to preserve human rights, based on the truths of human nature.
                                                            vs.
        - establishing an *ideal society* or that which can never exist, because it does not take into account the realities of human nature.

        In short form:
                                           realistic society (realizable) 
                                                             vs.
                                         idealized society (unrealizable)

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Yes and one time a society of gender and racial equality under the law was considered unrealizable.

          You have zero way of knowing what is and what is not which makes your whole argument invalid.

          1. profile image59
            squeeknomoreposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            They knew it was realizable because of laws that were passed that stated no more slave states could enter the union. The law was created early on that  any new territories that were to become states were not to become slave states and were to become free states, instead.

        2. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          As a historian of the US my sense is that your "realistic"/"idealistic" divide is artificial and misses the fact that the revolutionary generation and the founding generation each was a composite of realism and idealism; each was an amalgam of the world which they hoped for  and the world which they presumed could be.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            ...thats why checks and balances were so important, because of their idealism. NO. The rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not idealistic. It is reality.
            The divide must be artificial to the left. it must be, because it pulls the rug right out from under them.
            ...oops sorry about that.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Utterly idealistic.

              That all peoples should have the right to make themselves happy as they see fit is complete idealism, and that is a good thing.

              We live in a country founded on radical idealism and you seek to destroy just that in the name of preserving that country, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Thankfully it won't happen.

            2. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Uhh that divide is the one we created... it is a leftist divide.

              Montesquieu a known leftist in his time created the doctrine of separation of powers AND separation of church and state.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Says you who wants social democracy….completely deviating away from a system that works. WHY Josak?

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Social democracies use the separation of powers doctrine... Christ you don't even know what you are arguing against.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    what am I arguing against, then? pray tell???? See below. I dare you to answer.

                    1. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      You want me to spell out an entire system of governance to your rather than educating yourself? I am not your parents.

                      What it is not is a system that changes the separation of powers doctrine or the separation of church and state.

                      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        good start. I am not convinced yet, however.

            3. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Why would idealists be driven by such cynacism as to impose a "system" of checks and balances?

              That makes no sense.

              Are we confusing idealism with liberalism?

      8. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        Josak explained:
        "... most socialists I have met believe in extending personal freedoms further and allowing people to make their own choices more than the present establishment

        Just within a different framework."


        ..what is that framework, Josak?

      9. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        Thank you for joining the discussion wba108. We need all we can get on our side.
        and it is a side. The real side.

      10. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        @Josak:
        What is the framework you propose?

                    ..and why do you advocate a system different that the one we have
                                                   as established by the Constitution?
                                                     Do you want to change it? How.
                                                                Ya got any thing???
                                                                          at all?

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The system I propose does not violate the Constitution at all...

          Having said that I will also add this: "“Every constitution, then, and every law, natural expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.” - Thomas Jefferson.

          SO this idea that the constitution should not be changed and followed continuously is abhorrent to it's writer.

          1. profile image59
            squeeknomoreposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And what do you not like about the Constitution and why? 
            Human rights are universal and they don't expire.
            We hold these truths to be self evident and these truths hold up and sustain the world as it is.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I actually have no problem with the Constitution as it is except that I think the separation of church and state should be more clearly spelled out.
              There are perhaps things I would add something like "All persons have the right to equal protection under the law regardless of race, faith, political beliefs, gender or sexuality."
              Such a section would have avoided the greatest tragedies and injustices of our history.

              What I reject is the notion that the constitution is unchangeable and infallible just on the basis of being the constitution, that is not what it's writer believed and it is a ridiculous and illogical belief.

      11. Ericdierker profile image47
        Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago

        Our right and goal under our nation is real. It is not just yesterday's paradox nor our children's burden.
        If we are not brought to our knees by the gravity of a situation now finding us ill prepared we are oblivious to the course and conduct of human affairs.

        Whether we seek an absolute Utopian course or direct and manifest rule in a democracy of a republican nature. Our goals and desires as good men must remain the same. For if we desire for others or indeed our followers less than the best we can offer then we fall from servitude into grandiosity which is the vane of mankind and always has been it's downfall.

        We point fingers and say -- "he is a public servant" and we fall short of what it means to be a citizen of a great and powerful nation. Perhaps as good as it gets, we know not yet. We fall short if we do not maintain and in fact obtain the glory of self representation and freedom for all humankind. Not because we are weak but because we are that strong.

        I bend my knee with my hat in hand and beg that we are strong enough to lead toward betterness and not bitterness. I do devote my love toward that goal and believe that as a nation, no utopia is possible as no perfect performance is, but that is what we must strive for.

        1. profile image59
          squeeknomoreposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          One penny of raised taxes is less freedom for the hard workers that make this country robust, successful and viable.

          1. profile image59
            squeeknomoreposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            @Ericdrieker, we must work for what is possible.
            Not what is impossible.
            Who is to say what is impossible?
            God, himself.
            Remember Babylon.
            But, this is not a religious discussion.

          2. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Unless that penny is used to safeguard or add to our freedom.

            For example the US military defends the borders from a potential invasion, a conquered united states would probably be less free thus the money spent to guarantee the independence of the US is money that is taxed but which adds to the freedom of it's citizens.

            So no your generalization is patently false.

            1. wilderness profile image78
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              You are mistaken.  We have known for centuries that it is necessary to "spend" some freedom to keep what is left.  It is why young men and women have died in battle throughout those centuries.

              So a penny of tax spent to safeguard our freedom is less freedom, yes, but it is also something necessary.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                That is what I said, did you mean to reply to my comment?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  *and this is where the balance is of vital importance. Taxes we agree to, not those we do not agree to. PPACA tax for instance.
                  Watch for ever increasing taxes…leading to your social democracy… which creates too many taxes and burden.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    OH I see so whether a tax is right or not depends on agreement?

                    Well I think you will find plenty of taxes you don;t agree with have democratic support and so do plenty more that are not in place yet. Like the Buffet Rule Tax.

                2. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes.  To the comment that the generalization was false.  It isn't false as each penny of tax reduces freedom.  That we expect that and are willing to "spend" freedom does not make the statement false.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh I see.

                    Then your comment is mathematically irrational.

                    The idea that you lose freedom to do something that gains much more freedom than that is nonsensical. Obviously by equation you aren't losing freedom at all but gaining it.

                    1. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Much like spending money to make money.  It works, whether "mathematically irrational" or not.

                      But spending freedom does not typically gain more than is spent, spending some just retains what you have left.  Spend the freedom of 10,000 soldiers and the rest of the nation keeps what it has.

                      1. Josak profile image61
                        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        That phrase is obviously a misnomer, spending and investing are not the same

        2. Neil Sperling profile image61
          Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The WHOLE world is in this mess. It is absolutely foolish to see it as one Nations problem. The current monetary system advanced mankind a LONG way, as a global advancement. The time for NEW thought is as necessary today as the current system was necessary when it was given birth.

          Progress for any one Nation will only take place if the Global progress is considered with it. Thanks to advancement in distribution, manufacturing and technology we have become a global society. To consider the solution for any one Nation is today asinine.

          It is a great time to be alive - to witness and maybe even become a part of the total progressive step forward. It is time for MANKIND to progress..... and that is NOT an Idealist, nor a socialistic statement. It is a simple FACT, due tot the advancements I just mentioned.

          1. Rod Rainey profile image77
            Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "As long as there are rich and poor, governors and governed, there will be no peace, nor is it to be desired that there should be; for such a peace would be founded on the political, economic, and social outrages, the prison and death, while a small minority enjoys pleasures and liberties of all kinds for doing nothing."~ Ricardo Flores Magón

            1. Neil Sperling profile image61
              Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              As long as we look outside ourselves that Ricardo Flores Magón quote is accurate. But quantum physics is showing us a whole new way to perceive our existence. Take the two hours and watch the video "What The Bleep Do We Know"  ... youtube has it.
              The building blocks that have taken mankind to the level we have progressed too to date are now out dated. The new science is changing that perception.
              A whole shift in consciousness IS happening... to grasp what it is I am talking about one would have to let go of the opinions of the past that like I said have out lived their usefulness.
              It is a complete NEW Paradigm shift in consciousness that is in process of happening, disguised as the illusion of economic despair and governmental issues.
              Exciting times ahead. "Progress"

              1. Neil Sperling profile image61
                Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                and my comments again - have nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, politics nor Utopianism.

              2. Rod Rainey profile image77
                Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I have trouble finding two uninterrupted hours for anything but sleep, but I will try to watch it. As for the shift, my heart is in it and I see it happening, but I fear we'll be too late. I have immense faith in the potential of humanity, but very little left in humanity itself.

                1. Neil Sperling profile image61
                  Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this
            2. Neil Sperling profile image61
              Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this
      12. profile image59
        squeeknomoreposted 11 years ago

        How weak do you have to be before you admit that you have been weakened? If I were to explain it, I would say we are all in this same boat. My question would be, do you and you alone have enough strength to admit that no matter what you believe in, you must muster enough strength to fight against the tendency to accept what some hired gun on the internet tells us to think.   

        We know that Acorn, Soros, and the corrupt elitists in our government are hiring others to spout injustice wherever they can, especially on the internet. Do we have enough strength, (after being robbed all these years,) to allow truth and common sense to lead us out of the lies.
         
        The reality is that the truth is all we have to fight this obvious and over-burdensome encroachment to our astute sensibilities. Where will we ever find the strength to accomplish this multi-leveled task?  We must finally turn to ourselves and what is within us to wholly succeed in discerning the truth. Unlike the hired guns on the internet we have a commitment to the truth, and we cannot depend upon a paycheck from some rich unapproachable corrupt godfather to spew lies. Now that we understand the stakes of this life and death game, we shall do our best to be a beacon of truth and continue to live our lives in a meaningful way. The truth will always be with us, and could never be entirely hidden from our view.

      13. aware profile image64
        awareposted 11 years ago

        Life on life's terms .Joyfully participate in the sorrows of man.Lead by example. all that kinda stuff.

      14. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        Thank You, Relief 2000. Thank You.

      15. Ewent profile image58
        Ewentposted 11 years ago

        Conservatives do hate government. From all of the posts I see, if conservatives had their way, the entire government would be privatized. Now please, do explain how mingling so much for profit business into "government" is in any way NOT going to invite the same kind of Madoffing we saw from the conservative government from 2001 to 2008.

        Nothing in the US Constitution mandates that the federal or state taxes we pay should be handed to 4 of the biggest US corporations who don't need a dime more in profit. Take a good look at the realities of life in conservative states. They love to brag how "conservatively low" their taxes are. The reality is that of the top ten red states, all receive nearly double for the dollar they pay in federal taxes compared to the blue states that barely get more than a half dollar for their federal tax contributions.

        Some conservatives in the US today want every dime workers earn to go right back to the guy at the top in the form of privatization of government. Government is not a for profit corporation nor, should it EVER be. Government is the underlying structure of this country that was created as a framework for a well-ordered society. Conservatives love to gloss over this so they can get their syrupy mitts on more and more of our tax dollars in addition to stiffing consumers and employees. Enough is enough.

        1. profile image58
          retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Nothing more Madoff like than Social Security, Madoff had been a major Democrat donor.  I wonder if any of those wonderful compassionate Democrat phonies offered to return that ill gotten gain to the poor people bilked by their buddy Madoff.

          1. Ewent profile image58
            Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Oh really? So you must walk into grocery stores, pay the cashier and walk out empty handed, right? Sorry..I PAID for my SS for more than 4 decades. I don't walk out empty handed. Conservatives want all of our payroll deductions privatized in the hands of Wall Street Hot Shots. I paid for my SS, Medicare and Medicaid by working my butt off at 1 full-time and 2 part-time jobs for those 4 decades. I'm fed up with you conservatives implying that SS payroll deductions should vanish into the syrupy mitts of some Madoffer on Wall Street. The reason SS had to instituted in the first place was because a conservative Republican named Hoover played fast and loose with the Wall Street speculators and caused every bank in the country to slam their doors shut. To you I say, Crash Baby Crash...and then? Don't bother to try and collect YOUR SS.

            1. GA Anderson profile image84
              GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Once again your opinion is unfettered by facts.

              SS is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. Pay early contributors, (you), with money from newer contributors, (folks working now). Your SS and Medicare contributions were spent a long time ago. It is not your money you will be collecting.

              And you did not pay what you will receive - you will receive more than you paid, barring an early death.

              from bankrate.com (there are others with the same facts if you don't like bankrate.com)

              ...No matter how much you pay into the system, whether you earn the average wage over a lifetime ($43,100 in 2010 dollars) or if you're in a two-income household where one earns a high wage and the other earns an average wage, you get back substantially more than you pay in. But those on the high end of the wage scale pay proportionally more in taxes than the average wage earner, not surprisingly.

              Example: A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).

              A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.

              Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retir … z2mcUv9pqM


              On the other hand, Galveston Texas is a proven example that retirees in their "privatized" SS program receive a much higher ss/pension benefit than the government's SS program. And is a true investment plan - not a Ponzi scheme!

              Here is the SSA's comparison report. If you read it you will note that the only areas where SS is better is in welfare areas, (ie. government handouts - which you appear to oppose), such as disability and survivor's benefits - which are unrelated to your SS contributions.

              http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf

              Regarding your "Hoover" causation claim - it's an opinion, your opinion, and I believe it is wrong, but I harbor no illusions that you would change it based on any factual discussion - so go ahead and keep it as it is. It fits you.

              But I do appreciate the gist for the mill, so thanks.

              GA

            2. profile image58
              retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Your Social Security is not an object it is a transfer payment from the generation of current taxpayers to the current generation of retirees.  It has been that from its inception.  It is not a loaf of bread or even a 401k.  You are not guaranteed its receipt upon retirement, either.  It is a whim of the State.

              1. Ewent profile image58
                Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I don't  care how you choose to skew it. Do I lose part of MY income to a payroll tax deductions every pay period or not? You men make me laugh with your BS lines about how one generation pays for the next. Yet. We all know you hot shots of the right have a SS cut off at $105,000. So fine...Don't collect what you paid every pay period for. Who cares? Your 401K took huge hits when the conservatives had control for 8 years. Let's hear you deny that the whining and complaining about how the 401Ks had taken huge hits were a fantasy. If I pay for something, I want what I paid for. Your payroll deductions for your 401K are tied to Wall Street Madoffers who always love to play fast and loose with everyone's money but their own...Try Kozlowski, Ebbers, Icahn and let's not forget the famous Enron Bois who ate up 33,000 midwest employees retirements all while Madoff while living high on the hog for the same 17 years. Greed isn't good..It's a sickness you need to get help for.

                1. profile image58
                  retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Social Security is actually, in reality, structured so that those who are currently working provide the funds for redistribution to those currently retired.  This is not anything but the factual reality of the actual Social Security system.  I know the real and the factual aren't nearly as comforting as to lefties as hate but so be it.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    It seems to me that you get far more comfort out of hate than most other people on these forums, left or right.

                    1. profile image58
                      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Assume what you will.

                      1. John Holden profile image61
                        John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I assume nothing. I just read what you write.

            3. profile image58
              retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Fantasy history isn't real history, but what can one expect.

        2. profile image58
          retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

          It is not government that produces a well-ordered society but a well ordered society that wishes to preserve that order that creates the mechanism to do so - legal systems, institutions, government, etc....

          Conservatives only hate intrusive, greedy, oppressive lefty government, you know, the kind that orders you to buy health insurance.

        3. GA Anderson profile image84
          GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It appears you feel very strongly about this, but have you delved into the accuracy of you overly broad statements?

          As a "fringe" conservative, let me offer some insight.

          I think that most conservatives do not hate government, but I do think they dislike overly controlling BIG government. And as for conservatives wanting to privatize ALL government functions - it would be interesting to learn where yo got this notion. I have not heard of such an agenda.

          Also, what is this "Madoffing" that the Bush administration did?

          As for the rest... since rhetoric is seldom based on fact it is probably useless to expend more effort.

          GA

          1. profile image58
            retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            ditto

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            If you want an example of a Conservative government trying to privatise ALL government functions, look to the UK.

            1. wilderness profile image78
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Interesting.  Are they trying to privatize the share the wealth programs, too?  Let private industry decide how much they will take from everyone to give away?

              And maybe the Army and Navy too?  Privately owned aircraft carriers and tanks?

              1. profile image58
                retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                It is the UK, that would be helicarrier - the Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier is purely and solely American.

                1. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8553566_f248.jpg

                  The new HMS-Prince-of-Wales-Queen-Elizabeth-class-aircraft.  They haven't even decided which plane (plane, not chopper) will be on it.

                  I want one for the pond on the north 40.

                  1. Ewent profile image58
                    Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    $200 billion for an embassy in Baghdad the size of 4 football fields that had to be sold to Iraqi's government because of cost overruns, the Sept. 2008 Financial Meltdown your hero had 8 years to see coming. The 2001 billions Bush handed to hire and create jobs that the DOL reported by 2008 had 8 million out of work. The 3 tax cuts Bush pushed and pushed and pushed to get that the GAO reported in 2004 already with a single tax cut made the 1% 11% richer while the middle class ended up filling in the losses for what the rich thieves in this country weren't paying according to the incomes THEY earned. Don't you bois EVER give it up with your bullying? You lost 2 elections. Don't hope for another round of Selfish, self-important hot shots of the tyrant GOP breed in the White House...We've all had enough of paying while GOP freeloaders live large off our tax dollars.

                    1. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Have a nice rant?  I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the UK privatizing govt. programs, but it sure makes a nice (if sense free) rant.

                      1. Ewent profile image58
                        Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Ah yes, another typical regurgitated mantra for the narrow minds in the US...They "speak" ...everyone else "rants." Nice try. No rant..MY opinion...Let me know when you can mentally process the difference between "rant" and Constitutional right to free speech and opinion.

                        You righties make me laugh. You actually think smug mugs and slick responses are the last word. The "last word?" I'd settle for a little silence from you rabble rousing militant verbal terrorists. You can't have your way. Your hero isn't president anymore and the days of his "MY way or the highway" are obsolete. How about step into 2013 instead of the days of the GOP Bull tyrant Civil War?

                  2. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Read the Preamble to the US Constitution. It explains the purposes of the US government. Among those purposes:

                    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

                    Despite what some conservatives and their minions claim, privatization is not only unconstitutional, but to be quite honest, inadvisable and untenable---or just plain stupid.

                    1. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Fascinating.  The post you reply to was written in response to (among other things) http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118349#post2508513, where John said that "If you want an example of a Conservative government trying to privatise ALL government functions, look to the UK." (bolding added)

                      Neither that post, nor mine nor Retief's, has the smallest thing to do with the US, the constitution or privatization of any US govt. functions.  Nevertheless, I would be interested in your interpretation of just where the Constitution says that no govt. programs may be privatized; perhaps the postal service is a good example.  Where does the constitution state that we have to have a government operated postal system?  Or is it just a stupid claim from liberals and their minions?

                      1. profile image0
                        mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Clearly just another stupid claim from an uninformed liberal minion...wink

                    2. Ewent profile image58
                      Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      The very fact that they are deliberately attempting to deny voting rights to minorities and women and desperate to push laws they know will prohibit women's rights shows clearly how pathetic they are to keep the male supremacy intact after more than 235+ years. If you think their militancy toward THIS president is bad, just imagine what they'll do to the next president who WILL be a woman.

                      1. wilderness profile image78
                        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Exactly what "women's rights" do you refer to?  The right to murder without fear of punishment?

                        Although you will steadfastly cling to "women's rights" as an abortion issue, it isn't.  Only what is murder and what is not.  It is incredible that so many people absolutely refuse to recognize this very simple concept and deal with it instead of screaming "WOMEN'S RIGHTS" at every opportunity.

                        Women do NOT have the right to indiscriminately murder, so deal with that instead of trying to ignore the basic question of what is murder and pretend it isn't there at all.  It is there, it is the basis of abortion disagreement, and pretending not to recognize it does nothing for your cause.

                      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Won't that be delightful.

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, they are privatising unemployment payments whilst giving high earners tax cuts.

                http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 … unemployed

                And yes, they are attempting to go down the road to privatising the armed forces

                http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 03473.html

                We have already closed down Royal Navy ship building, having to look to other countries now to provide us with our ships.

                1. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  If I'm reading it right (and not sure I am) the first one just pays companies to help people find a job.  It would appear that Brits are unable to fill out job applications, etc. on their own and require help to do so.  Not unexpected in a country moving quickly towards socialism and the nanny state.

                  Not sure about the second one, either - are they proposing to hire people to buy guns for the army?  Probably not a bad idea, given that politicians can't get anything right, but would sure open it up to fraud.  Even more than politicians making the decisions, as hard as it is to believe.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    No, Brits on the whole are perfectly capable of filling an application form. The businesses concerned provide free labour to other businesses and then when one of their "clients" lands a job, usually with no help from the "providers" the "provider" gets a £2,000 bonus. Unemployment is still through the roof.
                    The companies also wish to take over more of the governments role in paying benefits.
                    How on earth do you work out that we are rapidly heading toward socialism when the government is shedding government functions to the private sector, bailing out banks to the tune of billions whilst slashing unemployment benefits?

                    Actually, politicians don't procure any weapons or anything else.
                    Like the NHS, they are privatising the Armed forces by stealth.

                    1. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Well, that makes more sense, I guess.  I've always kind of looked up to the English and couldn't understand why they couldn't fill out a simple form.

                      Still don't understand, though - business provides free labor to other businesses - why?  Sounds like a good way to go broke, unless that 2,000 bonus is paying for that "free" labor.

                      But Britain, when compared to the US, has sunk far down into the morass of socialism.  You say so yourself - nearly all the country lives in govt. housing and well over half draws free money from the govt to live on.  Compared to the US the poor Brits have lost their self sufficiency long ago to a powerful govt. that finds it necessary to coddle them their entire lives.  Sad when such a fine group trips up SO badly like that.

                      1. John Holden profile image61
                        John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Ah, but the business that supplies free labour doesn't actually pay for that free labour, we do through the government. That free, to business, labour also displaces some paid labour.

                        No, nearly all the country doesn't live in government housing. Government housing is largely restricted to the armed forces and some fire fighters. Local government used to provide a lot of social housing but that role has been taken over in many areas by private companies.

                        I'm not sure how you calculate that over half are living off "free" money. To reach that figure you would have to count all those working for insufficient money to live off and therefore count that as redistribution of wealth to the employers s they benefit from cheap labour.

                        There are very few remnants of socialism left in the UK and what is left are being rapidly stripped away in favour of the capitalist robbers.

          3. Ewent profile image58
            Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            IF you have to ask how Bush stole billions during those 8 years and tried in vain to turn the US into the United States of Texas, you're obviously slathered in conservatism that is nothing more than a bunch of freeloaders. 10 of the top trough feeder states are conservative states. They get an average of $1.30 for every dollar they pay in federal taxes. States up north are lucky to get 65 cents for every dollar we pay. Take your GOP Bull tyrant back to DogPatch where Lil Abner and Daisy Mae fall for it.

            1. GA Anderson profile image84
              GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Well I suppose I must be well "slathered" then, because I do have to ask how Bush stole those billions you speak of. Was it outright theft? Is he an $8 billionaire now?

              Care to offer any details to explain the "United States of Texas" reference?

              As for your "feeder" states criticisms - your numbers make for a good rant, but might not be so representative when the types of Federal tax dollars returned are examined.

              For instance; this image, from a site I think you would probably endorse, (The Big Picture, )

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8554821_f248.jpg

              ps. sorry the image isn't more readable here, but it is clickable - to see a larger image

              shows that the numbers you use also include; SS, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, and Payments to Native Americans, along with the social welfare programs that I think your point is intended to highlight.

              So are those Red State vs. Blue State issues? I don't think so, and if they were not included then who knows what your disparaging numbers might be.

              ps. your "states up North" reference really includes just 10 states - take a look at them - Do you think their size and population demographics, (ie. retirees, vets, etc.) have any influence on their numbers?

              Of course, I am probably way off base trying to offer facts and realistic perspectives to a rhetorical rant - so I will just leave you to your railings.

              GA

              1. Neil Sperling profile image61
                Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                This video 118% says all in an awesome way

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p47S80L6t7k

                1. GA Anderson profile image84
                  GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Obviously you liked the video, but I am unable to connect it, (more than philosophically), to the response you attached it too.

                  GA

      16. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        There really seems to be hatred floating around tonight. If hatred is destructive of life, then love is constructive of life. ...which side of the fence are YOU on? Sorry, but there does seem to be a fence. Things have become pathetic.
        We are all here on this earth together! Why is it on the internet, in these forums, such hatred spews?
        why again?

      17. mynationalvelvet profile image62
        mynationalvelvetposted 11 years ago

        John Holden, check this out! smile
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNc-xhH8kkk

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'm sorry, I don't have an hour to spare to watch a video without even knowing what is in it.
          Could you please précis it?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Right, watched enough of it to realise that Friedman's reality and the reality of dirt farmers is a bit awry.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
              Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              How so?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Essentially he said that as land prices were rising in the 19th century farmers could not have been poor. A total fallacy.

                1. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh?  If you have a ton of gold bullion, are you poor?  A pair of antique Rolls Royce's? 

                  Or does "poor" mean unlimited "things" but no cash in the bank?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Antique Rolls Royces in the 19th century!

                    That would be some trick.

                    1. wilderness profile image78
                      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      But expensive land is not.  I trust you see the point here.

                      1. John Holden profile image61
                        John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Let's see. the bankers own the land and the farmer is a little poorer for that.

            2. profile image58
              retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Although Friedman may not have been able to directly relate to the precise nature of 19th century farming, he loved much closer to the 19th century of hard working Americans than you or I.  How wonderful to suppose that one who spent his entire adult life studying Economics knows nothing and we know all.  The son of Ukrainian, Jewish dry goods merchants in 1910s  Rahway, New Jersey could hardly be thought of as privileged.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                It's not a matter of knowing nothing or knowing everything or being privileged or not privileged.

                He is entitled to his biases just as I am entitled disagree with them.

      18. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        Some women have a tendency to jump right up on the chopping block. Yet they are the ones who complain about getting chopped up.
        Step away from the knives.

        In Utopia you can lie on your back, get chopped up and then expect *others* to get out their needles and thread to stitch you back together. Never mind that *others* have better things to do than deal with your bloody body parts.

      19. mynationalvelvet profile image62
        mynationalvelvetposted 11 years ago
        1. mynationalvelvet profile image62
          mynationalvelvetposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I agree Kathryn. One thing I've learned though...is don't take it personally when people are filled with hatred and ideological food fights. Don't take it personally. It's hard, but that person is a projection of their own reality, their own dream.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Dear N Velvet.  Thank you for this Milton Friedman link. Unraveling the myths is what must be done to maintain the reality of freedom which the founding fathers envisioned for themselves and posterity.

            I agree with your statement: "… that person is a projection of their own reality…" Thanks for reminding us. It is always a challenge not to take things personally.
            Glad you stopped by!

      20. maxoxam41 profile image66
        maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

        In your postulate you assume that the government or any governments to that matter is an independent organization. As history taught us, Eisenhower himself said it, at the end of his presidency, referring to the military industrial complex, financial pressures are condemning any governments to work against the people. At least in the US.
        But it belongs to rational behaviors and individuals to differentiate truth to lies and act upon it.
        Facing a financial crisis, to our contrary, Icelanders decided to make bankers pay for their crime. The result was the reestablishment of economical growth.
        Our government decided for us to protect individual interests instead of the collectivity. Knowing that we can assume that our government doesn't and won't have our interests at heart, we can assert that our idealized definition of the government (by, for, of the people) is obsolete.
        Unfortunately only two solutions prevail either we silently comply (our current state), either we rebel (and FEMA camps, the right to detain, torture, kill based upon presumptions will be implemented on any US citizen). But the fight is worthy!

      21. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        What about the first settlers that tried to survive communally here. It did not work so well. However when everyone was given their own plot of land to cultivate, they thrived. It is natural to look out of one's self first, loved ones next and community last. Not to say they didn't want to look out for the community at all, but first things must come first.
        If I, who was a life guard, did not keep myself in good shape, working out everyday… for myself… I would not have been strong enough to rescue anyone. Furthermore, my ability to stay safe in the water had to come before I could rescue anyone, ever.
        Looking out for oneself first is purely common sense…

        and certainly does NOT go against Christian values, Mbuggieh.

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I strongly suggest reading some history---particularly of the Plymouth Colony and of the larger Massachusetts Bay Colony and New England. This is the story of communitarianism and its roots in the US.

          And no---and particularly in colonial history, self-interest is not "common sense". In fact, if you read some history of Colonial America you will find that the colonies in which self-interest trumped community interest there was little initial success.

          Remember, there is no Jamestown "Starving Time" analog in New England's history.

          And why?

          Because the Pilgrims were a communitarian people; a society in which the group was more important than any individual in the group.

          You might read Bradford's "Of Plimouth Plantation" for a first-hand account of communitarianism and Colonial America.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Communitarianism does not go against ANY thing I just said.

            "Communitarianism emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. While the 'community' may be a family unit, it is usually understood in the wider sense of interactions between a community of people in a geographical location, or who have a shared history or interest. Communitarian philosophy is derived from the assumption that individuality is a product of community relationships rather than only individual traits."
            Wikipedia

            Repeating:
            What about the first settlers that tried to survive communally here. It did not work so well. However when everyone was given their own plot of land to cultivate, they thrived.

            It is natural to look out for:
            1. One's self first,
            2. Loved ones next
            3. Community last.
            Not to say they didn't want to look out for the community at all,

                                       But first things must come first!

            For instance, if I, who was a life guard, did not keep myself in good shape, working out everyday… for myself, because I enjoyed it… I would not have been strong enough to rescue anyone.
            Furthermore, my ability to stay safe in the water had to come before I could rescue anyone, ever.  In other words, my own safety came first.

                        Looking out for oneself first is purely common sense…

            and certainly does NOT go against Christian values, Mbuggieh.

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              No actually, in terms of the New England Pilgrim/Puritan/Congregationalist experience and worldview, family did NOT come before community---community meaning society .

              Wikipedia is rather meaningless in understanding 17th century New England communitarianism; rather meaningless in grasping a culture that placed society---as a covenanted group, before self and before family.

              As I said, read some history particularly basic history comparing and contrasting, for example, New England and the Chesapeake during the early colonial period. You will find not only what communitarianism is in terms of New England, but how its absence in the Chesapeake almost caused the collapse of the British colonial project in that region.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                This goes against human nature. You are misinterpreting the whole experience of the 17th century. Ever read Hume? Ever hear of the Age of Enlightenment?

                "The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in the late 17th- and 18th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenging ideas grounded in tradition and faith." Wikipedia

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What has the 17th century and The Enlightenment got to do with 16th century Pilgrim immigrant culture in New England?

                  As I said, Wikipedia is meaningless.

                  Read some primary sources from the 17th century---the 1600s, written by men and women living in New England. Then, you will understand basic communitarianism and its development in the US.

                  And no, communitarianism does NOT go against "human nature". Perhaps having lived my entire life in New England I am more connected to communitarianism than are those living in other parts of the US. Communitarianism remains our way of life.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    And you are also connected to your own survival first. That is human nature.
                    Thanks for sharing your sources. We can all read and determine for ourselves what you are arguing for.

                    1. profile image0
                      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Perhaps the combination of New England and Catholicism makes it impossible for me to put my own and personal survival first and above all OR to accept that human nature is "me first"---survival of self at all cost and be damned with others.

                      If that were the case there would be no sacrifice of self for others as we see virtually every day.

                      Human nature---and survival is not for all of us, thankfully, rooted in maintenance of self at all cost.

                      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        It makes me happy to contribute to society. Who is being made happy first?
                        ME
                        The members of your community want to contribute to the whole because they are able to, because they are inspired to do so… who is motivated and able to contribute in the first place?
                        THEM 

                        ...each one of them tunes into his
                        own self
                        first and foremost.

                2. Rod Rainey profile image77
                  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  “Individualism may be the greatest boon to authoritarianism since the whip, and has helped prolong it well beyond its natural lifespan. Its message is: 'Yes, fight the system by all means-- we all hate it, don't we? But you must fight it alone. That's what a real warrior does. Groups just stifle your creativity. You must stand alone!' It reflects the oldest authoritarian strategy-- divide and conquer."~  Philip Slater

      22. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        ...why do you want to help Susie over there who has so many children she doesn't know what to do?
        She wants you to help her provide for her brood even though you were not the one who loved her husband SOOOOO much!
        If you want to help her…. go for it!
        However, even if Susie were my sister… I was not the one who had SEX with her husband and I would not feel obligated to help her…except maybe through babysitting… and even then, only if the kids were nice to me! If they are brats, then yes: $10/hr.

        Then I would earn enough money to open up a day-care and charge $50 a day, 6 children X 50= $300 a week x 4 weeks in a month = $1,200/mo. In that case I might be able to watch her kids for free.

        But even then, I was not the one who had sex
        or required in any way what-so-ever to take care of her kids.

                                In fact, I would be enabling her
                                by giving her more opportunity
                                         to love her husband
                                           and get pregnant
                                                   again. 

        And as we all know, very distinguished Mr. Silverspeeder regularly attests to the fact that this scenario is happening over there in England through their welfare program. Actually, it is more sinister than that, because singles /couples are intentionally getting pregnant just to receive government assistance.

      23. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        It is not sad. What is sad is when a lifeguard goes out to rescue a drowning victim and gets pulled underwater along with him. A double-drowning in which a trained lifeguard gets pulled underwater to his own death is always
                                 
                                       the lifeguard's fault.

      24. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        Common sense enables survival:
        Cut and dry (logical) common sense
                         which is not
        tainted, infected or contaminated by

                         FEELINGS

      25. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

        Relief2000 stated: "...all goals are personal goals regardless of how much we fantasize that there is a human collective."
        "Collective:
        adjective
        our collective interests: common, shared, joint, combined, mutual, communal, pooled; united, allied, cooperative, collaborative. ANTONYMS individual." Thesaurus

        - who can argue this?

        Do we all have the same interests?

        Not with free will.

        Has anybody seen the animated movie, "Ants?"
        Get it for your kids and pretend its for them. Woody Allen is the voice of the main character.

      26. profile image59
        squeeknomoreposted 11 years ago

        "It is natural to look out of one's self first, loved ones next and community last. Not to say they didn't want to look out for the community at all, but first things must come first."
        This quote of KLH is valid in my opinion.
        MM

      27. Ewent profile image58
        Ewentposted 11 years ago

        Sharing may not be instinctual. But, contrary to contrarians and narcissists, nothing ever is accomplished without a unified sense of sharing ideas and plans. I'd love to see just how the first US rocket in space would have been accomplished with ZERO planning. Or, for that matter how the US government without sharing by the Founding Fathers would have just magically happened.

        I have no idea what some parents taught their now adult children but sharing is not one of them. I surmise this is a result of bonding to complete strangers in Daycare for their early childhoods where battling to get the attention of Daycare caregivers was their only means of getting ANY attention.

        Don't share. Who cares? Live in isolation if that's what please. Just don't impose that selfish narcissism on generations of people with proven track records of success who have not only shared their ideas and plans but themselves.

        The smallest, narrowest minds are often the also the most selfish.

      28. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

        wink

      29. profile image59
        squeeknomoreposted 11 years ago

        Do we confer with our self FIRST or not, before performing all actions?
        Thoughts, before actions
        Self, before others.
        What if you lived only for others
        and never for yourself…
        You would go nuts.

        Therefore, let people find their own work. Government can't create jobs for the people. The people need to create jobs for themselves. It will work out naturally. Those who want to teach can find work in schools. Those who like to sell things can become salespeople. Those who want to heal people can become nurses, doctors, chiropractors, natural health practitioners, physical-therapists, etc. Those who like building houses can become construction workers, flooring installers, dry-wallers, roofers, etc. Those who want to become window dressers can work in department stores, specialty shops, malls, etc. Those who want to be artists can work in galleries or can become graphic artists, illustrators, interior designers, architects, etc. Those who want to work with money can become bankers, accountants, economists, etc. Those who want to work with food can work in grocery stores, restaurants, food trucks or in catering, etc. Those who want to own a small business can be their own bosses. Those who like to write can become authors. Those who like music can become musicians and those who like acting can work for the movie industry. Those who like to invent things can become inventors. And all these lines of work are interconnected. This is what we have in America. Just see that all is fine.

        And remember... necessity is the mother of invention.

      30. profile image54
        Education Answerposted 11 years ago

        In a socialist country the "people" (government) owns virtually everything.  I bet the NSA would love to have full control of Google, IBM, AT&T, Verizon, and so many other companies that would make their job so much easier.  Right now, they have cooperation; with socialization, they would have full control.  Our government would never misuse this added power, right?  Our government would never target its own citizens, right?

      31. profile image54
        Education Answerposted 11 years ago

        You are proposing that the "people" (government) control the media though.  You're also proposing that companies such as Google, AT&T, Verizon, and others be owned by the "people."  Again, the people is the government.  Our NSA would love that.  We already have our leaders lying to us, and we already have our government spying on us.  What's a little more lying and little more spying, right?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No, the people are the people and the government is the government.

          1. profile image54
            Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            So, in your socialist utopia, who would control the media?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Certainly not the capitalists, they would be straight out.

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Now be honest and answer, John.

                The government will control the media, just as they do everything else.  With total price controls on both products and services (labor), the government will control everything from business to media to individual actions.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Why should the government control the media?

                  Your quite happy with a capitalist controlled media and a capitalist controlled government though aren't you?

                  1. wilderness profile image78
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Because in a socialist world, government controls everything.

                    "Capitalist controlled government" - what is that?  Where people bribe government officials to make appropriate laws?  I've never heard of a government where that didn't happen, whether the bribe was money, power, sex or something else.

                    And yes, capitalists, presuming that means people and business, should control the media.  Almost anything to keep it out of the hands of government.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      What is the basis of your claim that in a socialist world the government controls everything?

                      Capitalist government where people bribe officials to make inappropriate laws and make inappropriate use of taxes.

                      What is wrong with the idea of impartial media? Why is it so important that media presents only one side of the picture?

                  2. profile image54
                    Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Does this mean that you are finally admitting that the government controls the media in a socialist country?  Earlier, you said that the "people" control the media.  Which is it?

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      No, I'm not admitting that the government controls the media in socialist countries.
                      Name me a socialist country, not a mixed economy but a socialist one.

                      1. profile image54
                        Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I knew you were going to say that.  Excuses.

                        John, you won't answer the tough questions.  You dodge them.

                        By the way, what is the name of your impartial newspaper, Pravda?  If it's "owned by a trust," that doesn't really make it socialist, does it?  In a socialized economy, this business would be owned by the people, the government. Again, who controls the media in a socialist country?

              2. profile image54
                Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                That's not an answer, John.  Let's try again.  In your socialist utopia, who would be in charge of the media?  Specifically, when you say the "people," who do you mean, the government?

                Why are you so evasive?  Let's get a straight answer, so all of us capitalists will better understand socialism.  You keep saying we don't understand socialism, but then, you're unwilling to answer the tough questions when they are asked. . .

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  There is a much reviled (by the capitalist press) newspaper. It is owned by a trust that are specifically banned from any editorial influence. t also has a very good record of employing editor who are able to remain impartial not not exercise any political bias over the content.
                  So, no government in that.

                  I'm willing to answer tough questions, are you willing to listen to the answers though?

                  1. profile image54
                    Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Where's your answer then?  Who controls the media in a socialist country?

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      The people.

                      Government seem to do a pretty good job of controlling the media for their capitalist paymasters at present.

                      1. profile image54
                        Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Isn't it true that by "the people," you mean the government?

      32. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

        Why do you juxtapose "reality" and "philosophy"?

        Do you actually believe that are opposites?

        And, in terms of the United States, do you really believe that the is some difference between the "people" and the "government"?

      33. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

        Your statement makes no sense.

        IF the government is supplying "all the needs", then why would anyone live in "poverty"?

        That said, the present-day countries that are steeped in socialism---like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, have some of the LOWEST poverty levels in the world.

        I think the problem is that there is a real LACK of understanding as to what socialism is and how it works---in reality; a real LACK of understanding that socialism is time and space specific---that socialism as you imagine it---which seems to be akin to some dystopian Soviet bloc variety of socialism is not necessarily socialism.

        Socialism comes in many forms and results, therefore, in many things.

        You also seem not to get that labeling something socialism does not make it socialism.

        For example: The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but there was NEVER socialism in the Soviet Union---never.

      34. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

        We have worker owned/operated cooperatives in the US as well, and despite what some engaged in this hub will claim, they are doing very well and---as in the UK, outperforming their traditionally-held analogs.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Wait for the "ah but" smile

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Except for the implication that all or the large majority of coops are doing better than traditional business, there is no "ah but".

            There are indeed coops in the US, and some of them do very well.  Others fail and still others limp along, always on the verge of going under.  How could it be otherwise in a free market?

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 11 years ago

          BTW, I didn't sat all employees would vote on taxes, I said the finance department would fill in tax returns.

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Their are worker owned cooperatives in the UK where everybody has an equal say"

            Sorry - I didn't catch that the workers only had an equal say in some of the business decisions.  Without a qualifier, I assumed it meant all such decisions.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Taxation isn't a business decision it's a requirement. Though with a socialist system it would not be a major industry.

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                No, no - not writing the check to pay taxes.  Figuring out which deductions can be take legally and, more importantly, figuring out which ones might shade the truth but get by the auditors.

                Specific employees will do much of it, but ethics most certainly enters in as well and should be an owner wide vote.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  OK, owner wide it is then.

                  1. wilderness profile image78
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    So the most evil of the owners, those unwilling to share with others or help the downtrodden, are the ones filling out the taxes.  In a business filled with people working together as a group to be successful.

                    I trust you can see the irony here, how capitalistic those owners are?

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Still a champion hurdler I see.  Keep jumping to those conclusions.

         
        working

        This website uses cookies

        As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

        For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

        Show Details
        Necessary
        HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
        LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
        Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
        AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
        HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
        HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
        Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
        CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
        Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
        Features
        Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
        Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
        Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
        Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
        Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
        VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
        PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
        Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
        MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
        Marketing
        Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
        Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
        Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
        Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
        Statistics
        Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
        ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
        Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
        ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)