In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders that government must have the power to control the governed, but that it must be obliged to control itself. The primary control on the government is its dependence on the people, but the founding fathers felt the necessity of auxiliary precautions, as well.
Governmental offices are divided and arranged in such a manner that each may check the other. The system of checks and balances insured that governmental distribution of power could not be abused by individuals, since this system insured the subordination of private interests to public rights. The power which is surrendered by the people is given to governing powers which are then divided into distinct and separate departments. Theses departments include the executive, judiciary and legislative branches.
This is just one way in which justice is insured for a nation of people who have been offered freedom from the tyranny of dictatorship.
I hear that progressives do not revere the Constitution!
That it should change with the times!
That human nature is not something which endures!
Well, I for one, disagree with them.
So you oppose it being changed to let women vote? because their human nature to think women are not fully human is right?
More "progressive" ideas related to discrimination:
The 13th Amendment: Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
The 15th: Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The 26th: Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age.
It's interesting to think what kind of country we would have without progressives.
Sadly, "progressive" has fallen by the wayside, replaced by "socialism". Should the liberal party turn the clock back to actually "progressing" towards a better country for Americans, all Americans including the rich, it would once more be of value.
You examples are good ones from the past, but more modern ones include:
Consistently demanding more money to support those that refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
Demanding that America feed and care for the world at the expense of our own people.
Demanding that America police the world, changing other cultures and concepts into something more in line with their own beliefs and goals.
Prohibiting public displays of our history, displays that expose both the good and the bad from the past in order that we learn from them.
Prohibiting millenia old cultural constants, demanding that our culture immediately accommodate that wish to change the foundations of it. (Thinking of the trans-gender fiasco of demanding to use bathrooms of their choice.)
So while the country needs progressives, and there are still pockets and areas of discrimination, the modern choice of where to "progress to" needs re-evaluated.
One definition of progress: "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level."
I believe some people think "liberal" and "progressive" are the same thing. They are apples and oranges.
A good progressive embraces old ideas that still work and new ideas that fix bad ones for the sake of a better society and not necessarily a liberal one.
It's why we still have a Constitution and at the same time add amendments to it and new laws based on it. We have conservative progress.
Even Republicans can be progressive but not liberal. Otherwise, they wouldn't change any law or pass any Amendment.
"The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level."
That is indeed one definition. But that bolded portion is the sticking point, for no reasonable person can possibly find that it is true in some of the positions taken by "progressives" today. And yes, I get that I'm declaring that at least some progressives (or even most progressives), in some areas, are not reasonable.
I also take some exception that "progressives" are not liberals, that some conservatives are actually progressives. I believe that is no more than spin to support the fallacious idea that all progressive concepts are good for the country.
I have never seen a conservative make the claim they are progressive, and I have never seen a progressive that didn't fall into the liberal camp. They may have arguments over some specifics, but in general they fit very well there and do not fit at all well in conservative camps.
If conservatives aren't progressive, why do they pass laws and Constitutional Amendments and not stay entirely with the old ways?
Maybe conservative politicians are afraid to say they are progressive because language-deficient extremists have smeared the word.
You provided one example of a definition for "progressive". It does not match very well with what I see those professing to belong in that category seem to promote.
Which should answer your question.
I don't think we should support ignorant people who want to change the definition of words. I hope you agree with me.
And yet here you are...wishing to change the definition of a word from what those professing to know use.
Point being, are you changing or defining? From my perspective, you are trying to change it as it does not agree very well with what I have come, over the years, to think of as progressive.
Your definition may well be the dictionary definition, and is then correct, but when it comes to describing social or cultural matters I'll go with those that live the life. I don't know as I've ever heard you describe yourself as a progressive, but I know others that have done so, and it is their definition, produced through example rather than description, that has more meaning.
In any case, it is a matter of terminology and semantics, hardly worthy of argument. As long as our conversations are understandable that's all that is necessary. Although I will say that when you say conservatives can be progressive because they do change laws occasionally it will never be accepted as an example of "progressive" by the liberals choosing that label over "liberal".
How did I change the dictionary definition? That's where I got what I quoted.
So you support changing the definition of words for the sake of politics.
Let's hear it for propaganda. We can get our word definitions from Fox News instead of Merriam-Webster.
progressive conservatives are not true conservatives
A "true" or pure conservative opposes any and all progress.
A true, anti-progress conservative would oppose the right to vote for women and minorities among other improvements to society.
Progressive conservatives embrace good changes and oppose change just for the sake of change. But they defend old ideas that still work.
A true progressive simply wants to change everything.
These semantic games are dumb.
Many conservatives treat the Constitution like they treat the Bible. They laud the parts they like and ignore the parts they don't.
Imagine our world if conservatives had their way with the Bible? Why don't we start taking the Bible literally? Every last bit of it?
It's the same with the Constitution. It's a living document. We're just arguing about how much we should change it as the times change. Same with the Bible. It's all a matter of degree.
The Bible isn't written in literal terms is why we can't take it literally. Most of everything in it is either a metaphor, allegory, parables or symbol-type even when they were things that actually happened.
The Bible is full of contradictions such as how the second chapter of genesis contradicts the first chapter when one actually read the words for their actual meanings. You can't compare the to the Constitution that would have prohibit this nation from becoming "MYSTERY BABYLON" it was destined to become.
Progressively, the constitution never would have allowed the possessing "from sea to shining sea" by displacing the natives but it would caused this nation to change with it's development to where today We The People would be dictators of everything the government do. That is how the nation would be if We The People were progressive.
Many people consider a literal interpretation of the Bible important. It's the word of God, after all.
If they read it they would know better, one example is Isaiah 45:7's "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do [in the present tense through us] all these things"
"The Bible isn't written in literal terms is why we can't take it literally."
Why do you say that? Because it gives an excuse for the errors in the book? Because it gives the opportunity to "interpret" as one wishes, to fit our personal desires?
What indication do we have that the majority of the book is metaphor rather than careless lie or ignorance?
My ability to put like precepts upon precepts, similar lines upon similar lines and different things from different places as Isaiah 28: 9-13 reads.
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
You do it, then, because you get to interpret the meaning however you wish? Because for sure your "ability" to make those interpretations (precepts upon precepts, similar lines upon similar lines and different things from different places) is no different than what everyone else does.
No, Wilderness, I interpret things because of what we call "God" and "holy spirit" is my teacher; impossible for anyone without their being "born again" as my "Why Be Born Again" reveals.
Well, that's what I said, as far as I can see or you can show.
You make choices because you like them - your interpretations come from within you, your desires and imagination, not from scripture.
(I'm sure you understand it already, if you're honest with yourself, but claiming to be "born again" and thus more knowledgeable, smarter or better that anyone else doesn't do much for a listener. In plain fact, it simply turns them off and makes your words without value.)
We are told but the book that (Luke 17:20-21) the kingdom of heaven is within us which is god's throne so if we are to believe god we have two believe what we hear from within rather than WITHOUT of us. With that being the case, no wonder almost no one recognizes the truth, they don't know where to look for it.
Just because someone believe in "out of their body" teachers doesn't make it valid. If it did we would not have people "brainwashing" others for their own selfish interest. Being led from within myself my interests is for the betterment of the entire earth otherwise I would be in pursuit of monetary wealth.
Being "born again" only makes one see 360 degrees of every picture and not he 180 orf less most people see. My new birth didn't make me smart - smarts how well one retain what people tell them; wisdom is "understanding the cause of the effects by which one is able to change the effects" - it made me wise enough to see the 360 degrees concerning many or most things.
"Being led from within myself my interests is for the betterment of the entire earth"
Now THAT has to be one of the most egocentric statements possible. To paraphrase "If I think of it, it is good for everybody." No need for other's thoughts - only what you come up with.
"Being "born again" only makes one see 360 degrees of every picture and not he 180 orf less most people see."
What I said, isn't it? Self proclaiming that your are "born again" makes you better than anyone that you don't agree is "born again" (and thus agrees with your concepts). Doesn't do much for a listener when you simply claim you're always right without producing any verifiable evidence of it.
You can ague against what I'm saying but you will soon see the reality of it. You are like the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time, you and no one else know the truth because you have accepted the teaching of someone outside of you. It is that same attitude that is lurking over me today by governmental leaders which will be proven just as incorrect as it did during Jesus' time.
The truth is everywhere, in environment, religious writings, nursery rhymes, folklore and every other source of information we know of, your good/evil. right/wrong and other judgments will keep your eyes closed until it is too late in this incarnation to do anything about it but don't worry, you will come to this comprehension of life one of these future days.
OR...when we both die, and our mind disappears from the universe while our brain turns to dust, neither of us will be able to gloat that we were right after all.
There is no "or" concerning life because there are to many indications that reincarnation is factual but for those who don't recognize it, like you, that is what you are destined to believe, so whatever you do, PLEASE, don't allow me to persuade you differently.
But it wasn't about life; it was about death. The end of life, the end of conscious thought of an individual.
You are welcome to try (reincarnation) - I'm always interested in learning new things - but it will have to be with actual, repeatable, verifiable events, not a simple declaration that is assumed to be true because you are born again and therefore understand things others can't.
Life has no ending, a specific incarnation ends. We are not our bodies, we are the life-force inhabiting the body to experience one or a combination of human attributes combined. Who we are continue until our time to integrate all human experiences where one manifestation becomes "born again" into a man with the definition of "mind able to comprehend and exceed the ability of all things." At that stage one began to comprehend earth and get a glimpse everything beyond.
But again, don't allow me to cause you to loose your comfort zone.
Peace
"Life has no ending, a specific incarnation ends."
Life, whether for an individual or a universe full of it, most definitely ends. And for individuals such as a human being, it ends with what we call death. There is no "life-force" that moves on or continues after the death of the body. We do not continue past that point, and there is no integration of all human experiences. There is no "born again" and no mind, ever, will be able to "comprehend and exceed the ability of all things."
And I don't need to claim to be born again to espouse those obvious truths.
Yes, Peace. It takes all kinds of ideas, concepts and minds to fill this planet. Not one knows it all or ever will.
Propaganda is effective when it corrupts the meaning and accuracy of words and persuades people to embrace the new meaning.
Interesting analysis.
"Progressive conservatives embrace good changes and oppose change just for the sake of change. But they defend old ideas that still work".
I don't know anyone wanting change just for its own sake. But I know conservatives to be resistant to change as a threat to the current order of things usually supporting a hierarchal structure that retains advantages to the few over the many. That is why I fear them as the first to sacrifice democracy in order retain privilege.
And there are people like me as a conservative progressive, that view change as a fluid process that is part of life as there is little that can truly stand still and immutable under the sun.
Your notion of 'progress' seems to be subjective. The notion that 'progressive' equates to objective progress is fantasy.
Wilderness, you are confusing progressives with self interest groups. Just because you do not agree with them does not make them "liberal" or "socialist."
Well, as I mentioned elsewhere, I use the definition garnered from statements from self-proclaimed "progressives" over considerable time. On the whole, they follow the liberal agenda pretty well, and take exception to nearly anything associated with conservative. And most of it is most definitely quite close to modern socialism, with an pronounced "govt. over self" responsibility attitude and a strong entitlement philosophy.
Still, it is new enough that it's likely that every "progressive" has their own agenda, without any real unified platform.
KHL,
Your "a basic premise of the founders that government must have the power to control the governed" isn't how the Constitution reads especially when you add the words of the Declaration of Independence that "the governors receive their power from 'the consent' of the governed". Add Art. 6.3's governors are "public Trust(ees)" along with Amendment 1 giving the people the right petition the governors and amendment 10 saying paraphrased, "when a decision is not constitutionally provided the governors nor prohibited the states then the states first and the people, if the states will not, have the right to enforce it.
Now, go back to the Preamble' six objectives for the constitution, "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" why do we not have everyone in this nation clothed, fed and housed? Why is our military occupying foreign nations? Why is there such large gaps between salaries of equally united workers? Why are the governors "to big to jail" for the 120 years of foreign war treason and 71 years of the war against American citizens called a "war on drugs"? Why we have the multitude of hate crimes magnified by Trump's presidency eliminating multiple ethnics' Tranquility as Americans? In developing "a more perfect union" why are there parties in government?
The people are supposed to send out "electors", which means people selecting people from another state for their state's congressman and both president and vice with at least one can't be from the "selectors' state" (Amen. 12). Why isn't that happening? Because the governors has prohibited We The People from studying the constitution and schooled us "we can't FIGHT CITY-HALL".
With today's instant communication We The People are supposed to be asked by congress how do We People want them to vote on everything and obey our vote to pass the measure, so, why aren't those checks and balances in place?
You need to STUDY the constitution with a dictionary to explain its terms.
"why do we not have everyone in this nation clothed, fed and housed?"
Because it is the general welfare to be promoted, not that of every specific individual. Individuals are responsible for themselves; the constitution is responsible for the entire country as a single gestalt. This point seems to escape many people, but it is at the root of the concept of our country. Notwithstanding the socialist ideas being pushed today, that the government is responsible for the individual, it was not a part of the original thought or constitution.
Then you have to ensure they have jobs to provide for themselves OR they must have the desire to do without as I had chosen until spirit told me to come to DC for an indefinite stay so I'm using my retirement from my working years.
No, society is not responsible for the individual. Not even for providing them with jobs that they find satisfactory, that they can handle and that pays what they wish to be paid.
this is not progressive thinking, wilderness!
But it is constitutional thinking. As I told Elijah, The pursuit of happiness is a "right". To have a job to aid in that pursuit is a "privilege" (not a right) under the Constitution.
I did fail to address *The pursuit of happiness is a "right". To have a job to aid in that pursuit is a "privilege" (not a right) under the Constitution.*
Because the government has made and taught "money" IS THE "means of obtaining happiness" - although it doesn't - their conditioning our minds to believe it makes it a "right" because they conditioned us to believe it. Had they not conditioned our parents' parents' to the umpteenth degree to be money dependent your statement would be correct. You should read my "Treason-USA-Style" - BE AWARE: it will make you treasonous to read it if you do nothing about it - you will see just how conditioned ou minds are.
I am speaking about how the constitution reads this nation is supposed to be, not how what money embracing societies do not do. The constitution was written for a society where everyone were equals with its leaders inquiring of the people before taking any action - it was provided to itty the natives this land - and not for a society where the producer of money is beyond being judged for miss-behavior as the US is to day.
Elijah, I worked as a legal editor for nearly 30 years. The lawyers told me that under the constitution there are certain "rights" and certain "privileges". A citizen has the constitutional right to pursue happiness, but certain things like jobs are privileges to help him in his pursuit of happiness. I didn't say that; legal minds did.
MizB, Lawyers are not taught to even understand the constitution, according to everyone I've talk with, they have to study it, although most only read it, it independently. So saying they are "legal minds" doesn't say anything about how well they understand it after their researching it.
I've studied it in depth because the words and the actions of government doesn't fit the wording I've found. I've used legal dictionaries when possible and older 'Websters' for word definitions, when I could find them, to be sure what I knew the words to mean were correct. If we had "progressive" politicians they would have brought the definitions I've found forward to this day and we would not be "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abomination of the Earth" she has become. BUT WE CAN'T CHANGE DESTINY!!!
Elijah, we must agree to disagree about this subject. I'm not talking about just any lawyers. I'm talking about the lawyers who review and publish the law. I think their knowledge takes precedence over anyone who is self-taught to interpret the law.
MizB, U.S. Constitution, Article 6 and paragraph "2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." That also included anything in the constitution which includes the "three fifths of a person" clause in it, the 13th Amendment's "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States" and any laws mad by the U.S. government contrary to the Preamble's six intents the document is supposed to accomplish.
To differ with me is to differ with the Constitution, yet, you are allowed to.
How can a country calls itself democratic if it can have a President who wins with less votes then his opponent?
In a true democracy every vote has the same value. And the party with the most votes wins.
The US (and the UK too) does not have such systems and therefore are not really democratic countries.
The US is a republic of states, not a "true democracy". The founding fathers were smart enough to recognize at least some of the pitfalls of a "true democracy" and try to eliminate them where possible.
So, what would you consider the pitfalls of a "true democracy"?
The single largest problem with a true democracy:
"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.” Robert Heinlein
The plebs of America have found out they can vote themselves 'bread and circuses' without end and are doing so in our country. We either straighten it out or, eventually, we will bleed to death.
There are others - honest people concerned and voting for the good of the country seldom make the time and effort to understand just what is "the good of the country" for example - but that is the biggest, deadliest problem of a pure democracy.
That is true, Wilderness, because true democracy don't have parties not classes, the decisions of the greater number is accepted by all. Also, a democracy doesn't require a congress nor courts, just someone in the position to direct the voting for what the people prefer. That is why the founders said they had produced a republic.
Wait. A democracy doesn't have any criminals, people that refuse to abide by the will of the majority, and thus does not need courts?
"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
---------------------------------------
No, people vote for their particular interests, when has that ever been any different? There is nothing noble or altruistic about the electorate. Do you think wealthy conservatives like Trump are really interested in what is best for the rest of the country or are they not fixated to using their wealth to maintain their control and advantage through any means necessary? Truly hard core, as this "Bread and Circus" analogy seems to spread all though conservative circles.
---------------------------------------
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.” Robert Heinlein
---------------------------------
So, what is the alternative to extending the franchise to all "warm bodied" adults citizens over 18? Who do we have to disenfranchise to make you conservative types happy? What do you think has to be done and do you think that the rest of us all are going to buy it?
------------------------
The plebs of America have found out they can vote themselves 'bread and circuses' without end and are doing so in our country. We either straighten it out or, eventually, we will bleed to death.
---------------------------------
So, when did this all start? The beginning of the 20th century with Teddy Roosevelt, conservatives are alarmists with the stark inequitable distribution of wealth in the country currently, how can anyone say what you are saying? So, tell me, how do we straighten this out?
--------------------------
There are others - honest people concerned and voting for the good of the country seldom make the time and effort to understand just what is "the good of the country" for example - but that is the biggest, deadliest problem of a pure democracy.
------------------------
Everybody has a different idea of what is good for the country, and it is certainly not the property of conservatives as they are, here and now. And if it is not the people who decide and know best, who does then?
"And if it is not the people who decide and know best, who does then?"
God, the Creator. The laws of physics extend to the entire universe. The laws of nature must be known. These laws are how God Himself created everything that exists. If we don't cooperate consciously with these laws and ways of physics/nature, we will suffer, we will perish.
We are intelligent beings, we are perceptive beings. Let us perceive the truth and let us accept what the founding fathers gave us.
A way to live in harmony. A way to live in freedom. They gave us a form of government which will fail only if we do not understand it.
... and man, we just don't! Look at how many are beguiled by the likes of Bernie Air-Head Sanders. There is a man with a brain full of fluff! He understands NOTHING about good government. N O T H I N G!
Alright, whose interpretation of the will of God the creator do we accept as gospel? The God of Trump and his fawning evangelicals certainly is not my God. There is Allah, Buddha, atheists, agnostics. Whose perception and whose truth? A tenet of Freedom is equal rights, that is a constant as far as I am concerned.
The last 230 years have provided evidence of the Constitution's longevity but also as to how it adapts to all manner of change that was inevitable over almost 2 and one half centuries since. I say that that flexibility is why this society remains in one piece today.
I will take Bernie any day over an authoritarian autocrat like Donald Trump.
Which ever God encourages us to live as some scripture say we were made, independent of anything we as an individual made for ourselves and eating and drinking the earth like the rest of the self-reproducing environment living beings. If you look inside of yourself you will find that one within yourself in this life or some future life. It all depends on what you destiny is.
I only ask that you, PLEASE, don't call me sir, all man are equals and such titles are exalting another one above yourself.
I do not "exalt" anyone, it is merely a sign of courtesy and decorum within a society generally lacking in both. You speak of scriptures, I seem to recall a passage where such courtesies were encouraged among people.
But, otherwise, OK.
The greatest courtesy or decorum anyone can have is make everyone family since there is one strain of DNA that runs through all human kind. Brother and sister, regardless of age, should be the most welcomed courtesy or decorum by everyone. Thank you, I appreciate you OK.
Peace
Elijah, Credence is not exalting you. I don't know where he is from, but all southerners are taught to call our elders, and even strangers, "sir" and "ma'm" as terms of respect. It certainly is not equivalent to "your majesty". Military also use it as a term of respect. So please, play along with us. I'd much rather somebody call me "ma'm" than "hey you!"
MizB, I am a 1945 born in LOUISIANA boy who discovered why the terms in the USA are considered respect rather than class as they originally were. However, every word's original definition is the proper one although the meanings get changed as we get farther and father away from their origins and that is why this nation is Biblically called "Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth," so many terms has lost their original definitions here. One example is the terms "human, woman and man" has "woman and man" used as genders with "human" as our specie. However, the lowest common definition of the prefixes "hu and wo" means "hu=hewed from and wo=woven from" while man means "minds able to comprehend and (dominion's meaning) exceed the ability of all things". Man's genders should not be recognized until puberty when we become girls the egg producers and boys the sperm producers of man.
The following is what happened to those titles.
Mr, Mrs, Ma'am, Miss and Sir, from where they originated, meant terms of class. Peasants, the lowest classes, could not use them among themselves but had to use them to lords, gentlemen, knights and kings, their wives and "ladies in waiting" and each classes in a lower positions had to use them to all higher classes.
In the USA even elder slaves were not allowed to receive those terms from anyone and felt something was amiss so they taught their children to "respect their elders" by using them. Their masters, being removed from its origin, accepted their explanation "we teach our children to respect us so they will not forget to respect you" and they began to use it as such themselves. The slaves would even whip their children for failing to use them and some masters, after slavery, began to do the same. So, that is the cause of it being enforced as a term of respect in the south.
"No, people vote for their particular interests, when has that ever been any different?"
'I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.' 'Give me liberty or give me death'. 'We pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.' More recently, Elon Musk has sunk millions into research for his space machines, but has taken out zero patents, saying that his findings are free for anyone to use. Soldiers throughout history have put the country above their very lives, and so do may others such as cops, fire fighters, etc.
Lots of people throughout our history have expressed thoughts and actions that put the good of the country above their personal welfare.
"So, what is the alternative to extending the franchise to all "warm bodied" adults citizens over 18?"
Really? You can't think of a single alternative, liked or not, to that franchise?
"So, tell me, how do we straighten this out?"
Not sure, but most assuredly not by giving politicians near total control over our lives. Not be removing personal responsibility for ourselves. Not by guaranteeing total support for everyone, at someone else's expense.
"And if it is not the people who decide and know best, who does then?"
The point was not that there are disagreements over what the country needs. The point was that so few people care what it needs any more; only what they themselves want or need.
Understood, Wilderness there are many heroes, but is that the norm? We live in a capitalist system with its very foundation based on avariciousness and self interest. We have had our philanthropist Carnegies, Rockefellers, Musks, Gates or Buffets. But all of these men have long attained their perpetual wealth and comfort and could afford to be generous, the average man in the street not so much.
Is it possible that people interpret what it is they need as one in the same as what the "country needs"? This is characteristic of either side of the ideological divide.
The idea of "giving politicians control over our lives" is relative and depends on your point of view. A conservative point of view is not in itself a universal constant.
There are no alternatives to universal adult suffrage short of threatening the premise of one man, one vote as a principle of a democratic society. And, of course any suggestion that attempts to compromise those values, I am not going to like.
"Understood, Wilderness there are many heroes, but is that the norm?"
Actually, I think it used to be. Maybe it's just rose colored glasses, but people do believe in our country and will give up their lives for it. We bought war bonds, we made sacrifices.
But no more. Now it's just complaints that we can't get as much as we want from the country. There is almost no consideration of giving to the country...except that others aren't giving enough while we take more and more.
It is just as Heinlein said; the plebs are voting themselves bread and circuses while providing nothing and it will destroy us in the long run, for the givers will one day tire of being the goose and take their golden eggs elsewhere. Or protect those eggs somehow, while is something the plebs cry about every day.
Then there are alternatives. You just don't like them. But Cred, you are refusing to actually address or even discuss the problem illustrated in the quotation, simply pretending that it doesn't exist or that it will go away if we ignore it. If you truly believe that his scenario won't happen, that the poor won't vote themselves money to be paid for by the workers and producers, that's one thing. Foolish, blind, putting ideology over reality, but it's one thing.
Understanding what is happening and refusing to take steps to stop it is another, and it's difficult for me to think that any reasoning person cannot see it when half the nation provides nothing, leaving it to the other half to take care of. That's blinders, not just foolishness.
I agree with you - one of our most precious concepts is "one person one vote", but it isn't working, and for the very reasons Heinlein articulated. We either make changes (there or elsewhere) or we're going to die on the vine. We may go down singing praises to the failed concept, but we WILL go down.
Don't be evasive, Wilderness, what is YOUR IDEA of an alternative?
The uber patriotism was at its max just after Pearl Harbor and has been suspect since Vietnam and Watergate. Change is a fundamental feature of the universe, Wilderness.
To blame the poor for the travails of the Capitalist class is a red herring and Heinlein should have stuck with his Science Fiction. How was he a renown authority on this issue? This capitalist class will move their golden eggs to where there is more efficiency at less cost, a tenet of the Capitalist system. None of that has anything to do with what the rest of society does or do not do. They are driven, not for the 'good of the country' to hijack your description, but by self interest. You seem to harken to a time when the common adage was "what was good for General Motors was good for America. That stuff belongs in a museum, I can't believe that you give that any credibility, today.
Are open are you to discuss the problem and specific solutions outside your being critical of me? You don't know what I will I like or dislike when you fail to present anything.
The bigger threat is from the pregotives and greed of the Corporate class and not from the poor who remain relatively powerless. I just see these accusations against the poor as a right-winger/conservative gripe having no credibility for me.
As for the vote as a precious value in Democracy, it works fine when not thwarted by those who think that rule of the majority is not a desirable outcome as it works against their selfish agendas.
Wilderness, You are a relic of a past that is long gone and irrelevant. And, outside the ballot box, you have no choice but to go along with the ride, as the people have spoken.
"You don't know what I will I like or dislike when you fail to present anything."
Of course I do; you said that any system that does not give people the ability to vote entitlements paid for by others is unacceptable. That everyone whether they contribute to the nation or take from it, must have a say in how the money taken from the producers is spent.
"As for the vote as a precious value in Democracy, it works fine when not thwarted by those who think that rule of the majority is not a desirable outcome as it works against their selfish agendas."
Or until, as pointed out, the people find they can vote themselves every increasing bread and circuses without having to work for them. Why is it that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that such a system is doomed to failure when allowed to operate without checks? You haven't seemed to be in favor of unchecked federal borrowing - why is it OK to vote to "spend" anyway (by giving away) the proceeds of that borrowing? Do you honestly believe it can continue unchecked for ever?
You want possible solutions:
Voting only by people paying net federal and state income taxes. You get to decide where the money goes...IF you are helping to supply that money. Having children in subsidized lower education doesn't count; people in higher education that received grants, subsidized loans, etc. find that it DOES count as "negative taxes".
Voting only by those same people, plus people drawing more than minimum SS benefits as a result of age and retirement (not disability). They theory being they have already purchased their voting rights in the past.
Voting only by people that have served in the military. (They purchased their vote with that service, and for life)
There are a variety of methods that could be used to apply voting privileges to only those that contribute. Which might you find acceptable, given that it is NOT working to give that right to those that do not contribute, but only want what they can squeeze out of other's pocketbooks?
You're being deviant, everyone as a citizen has the right to vote this stuff about voting in entitlements is BS...
As I said, conservatives exaggerate this all of the time. The GOP has turned the Supreme Court into a Right wing tribunal. The GOP dominates in most of the states legislature and their Governments. The GOP has had control of the Executive and Legislative branches since 2016. But that is not enough, you still want to silence everyone that do not subscribe to the reactionary view of Goverment, classic rightwing thinking and solutions. So, you would think that if this danger you present were real, Democrats would dominate throughout the Government, but that is not the case, so how is the sky falling?
Most revealing
Your solutions speak volumes about you as one operating well outside the political mean or norms. Thank Goodness that your solution are no more palatable than Robert Heinlein's science fiction stories and short of revolution will never be realized, as such a revolution will not go well for either one of us.
It is most interesting that who you believe should have the right to vote is careful not to exclude you, yet you have the gall to want to disenfranchise all left leanings Democratic voters. And let's cut to the chase, that is what you ARE suggesting. But it is "dead in the water" as it will never be permitted without a fight, not while I am around, anyway.
These people you want to disenfranchise you want to relegate to status of children? Do all conservatives think as you do?
And, yes, you are right about one thing, I don't like your solutions.
You said, Credencs, "We live in a capitalist system with its very foundation based on avariciousness and self interest."
That is not the system the Constitution's Preamble intended since it came from the native Americans. They had NO monetary system, their system was barter with would work well even in this industrialized system. We could put a chip on everyone's Social Security Card that shows where they work then the basic of "fresh grown foods, ground water, clear air and shelter of clothing and dwelling" would be provided. Everyone without them would be required to fend for themselves.
Of course, in the 18th century society and its structure was quite different.
I did not associate the Constitution with the reality of the current economic system. The Constitution provided for the 3/5th compromise, so was all its 18th century precepts set in stone today? The Constitution speaks of a Treasury and The Federal Government's obligation to issue currency, what does that have to do withNative Americans?
Credence, I'm not sure of Elijah's reference, but I think it was that our forefathers saw the Çherokee document on which their government was based and agreed that it would be a good idea to base the nation's constitution on its concept. I'm sure they did not use the exact wording but the concept, which they mixed with their Freemason ideals.
http://www.angelfire.com/ar3/cabone/
There was also a program on the History Channel that brought this out. I forget which one.
That is a new one for me, I will check out the link you so kindly provided, thanks...
MizB, There are several references to the founders getting the idea for the document from the native Americans, that is only one of many.
You repeated the question *"So, tell me, how do we straighten this out?"*
I would say we should begin but reading the Constitution with a full understanding of the words' meanings and then applying the instructions it empowers We The People with for controlling the governors.
Unfortunately, the whole point of this mini-thread is that "the people" do not want the control needed. That with the power of their vote they are (legally) demanding bread and circuses, paid for by others, and that means they will continue to control the governors and further their demands.
I guess I didn't began at its beginning, thanks for the enlightenment.
Hi there Credence2, you know, when I see a reasonable discussion I just have to jump.
I am not surprised that I can agree with many of your points, and maybe I am mixing some of you subsequent responses with this one, but I have to ask: Do you really not agree with Wilderness' point, about Heinlein's statement, that the pleds will vote themselves "bread and circuses" once they realize they have that power?
Of course we are talking about the power of pure democracy - one man, one vote - which is not our system, (except for presidential selection), but otherwise, do you not believe that folks will vote to benefit themselves before consideration of country?
I agree with the start of your sentiment that it is a shared concept, but disagree when you lay it at the feet of Conservatives. All rich folks aren't Conservatives, yet I would guess that they too vote for self-interest.
So as a basic starting point, my question is; Do you believe the "circus" sentiment Wilderness brought up is wrong?"
GA
Always good to hear from you, GA.
Here is my opinion to address your question:
As part of a later excerpt of a reply I gave to Wilderness subsequently.
"As I said, conservatives exaggerate this all of the time. The GOP has turned the Supreme Court into a Right wing tribunal. The GOP dominates in most of the states legislature and their Governments. The GOP has had control of the Executive and Legislative branches since 2016. But that is not enough, you still want to silence everyone that do not subscribe to the reactionary view of Goverment, classic rightwing thinking and solutions. So, you would think that if this danger you present were real, Democrats would dominate throughout the Government, but that is not the case, so how is the sky falling?"
So, no, I don't agree with the Bread and Circuses analogy. The country is virtually infested with Republicans and their sort of reasoning which is more than a check on the concern expressed by Wilderness. If this were truly a danger, it would have made itself manifest long ago.
In other subsequent comments, I expressed the view that people generally vote for self interest, while at the same time saying that that interest corresponds to what is best for the country. You can bet that most everyone operates that way.
Not all rich people are conservative, but to maintain the status quo, which for the most part works to their advantage, more of the relatively affluent probably are.
So, to the answer of your basic question, I believe that Wilderness' view is an incorrect one.
"If this were truly a danger, it would have made itself manifest long ago."
You don't see the continual growth of the entitlement state as a danger, a danger produced by the "plebs" voting themselves things that they want but cannot afford so require others to pay for it?
Which part is not a danger - the part where people are no longer required to support themselves, but can sit back and force someone else to do it, or the part where those people that don't have what they want force someone else to provide it FOR them, apparently without limit?
You truly don't see a danger with the ever increasing percentage of citizens that contribute nothing to the country's needs, but DO take from it?
That, Wilderness, would be elevated if we eliminate money out of our "pretense of a democratic system" and implement chips on our SS cards, ID cards or the two included in one that shows where we are working that changes when we change jobs and living that changes when we move which will allow everyone to obtain anything being manufactured for comfort or grown as food. It would also be used as their "time card" for their work be they farmers or any other type of worker. Then anyone not identified would have to register or live like any other animal which is required to qualify to enter Armageddon to survive the world's termination sometime around 2028. Being retired could be the only exception concerning working but their moving would always be registered.
Unless you are suggesting that anyone can "buy" anything they want, without having to earn it, I fail to see how eliminating paper money or coins will make any difference.
And if you ARE saying that anyone can have anything they want, well, that's the problem we're facing now. Far too many people get what they want without ever earning it.
Everyone's "micro chipped" card or cards would show they are workers or retired which would be the only way THEY WOULD BE ABLE to get anything from the industrialized state; without it they would be left to live "environmentally".
+10000000000000000, Wilderness. It ALL started with the so-called Great Society in the 1960s. It has degenerated into generational handouts. Enough is DEFINITELY ENOUGH! Let's reduce the social & welfare programs 90%-95%. Teach people to earn, invest, & save their way. If we teach poor people in America to suffer, they would learn & start to do for themselves.
If I would accept your premise about "makers and takers" scenario, I would rather revise the tax code so that the homeless guy had to pay a least a dollar in income tax or legislatively roll back the entitlement situation. There are nothing but Republicans in Washington, why not do that?
Either of the above is better than disenfranchisement which says that those that are not conservative in their vote are not entitled to a vote. That kind of thinking is unacceptable in my opinion.
Like I have always said, the remedy of the rightwing type fly in the face of democratic concepts.
As GA points out, I'm not sure where the extreme partisanship you're exhibiting comes from. It's not about republicans, it's not about democrats. It's not about liberals or conservatives; it's about people voting themselves needs and luxuries while forcing others to pay for it.
Or are you complaining that that is the goal of liberals and if conservatives don't agree that it is a good thing then they are wrong?
So far you've managed to completely avoid discussion of the whole focus of the quote: that pure democracy cannot endure when people find they can vote themselves anything they want, with others left paying for it. Is there a reason you don't want to discuss the concept and how it can/will affect a nation?
For you it is about people voting themselves needs and luxury and forcing others to pay for it. I simply do not acknowledge that such a situation exists to the extent that you seem to dwell on it. What about my gripe about excessive waste in military spending taking from the domestic economy, who is forcing me to pay for that?
it is not the goal of liberals but the hallucinations of conservatives that keep this myth in play.
So, should I be able to shut down the rightwing and Republicans voters because I think that their concepts give advantages to the rich that are undeserved or waste my money on unnecessary saber rattling. There are a lot of people who consider themselves Democrats, do you think that they ALL are ignorant or moochers?
I will discuss what ever you like, but I don't agree with your premise. Perhaps if you presented it in another way?
You are blind, Credence, if you don't. Congress has 535 people with over 500 being millionaires mostly since comment into office, GA is correct. Almost every head of every department is a millionaire so where are your "mind's" eyes?
I have no problem with rolling back a lot of our entitlement philosophy.
But it will then be voted right back into place; that's what Heinlein is saying. And it won't be just conservatives doing it; it will be anyone that doesn't want to earn what they need and want.
Let me start on another premise, instead of blaming liberals for the entitlement society, perhaps you should look at your neighbors? This "attitude" that you say that you abhor is everywhere, not just with the poor or Democrats.
The kids have cell phones perpetual stuck in the ears as if they were an appendage. We have instant gratification as a foundation reflected in ubiquitous credit. So who is going to patiently save for something when they can have it now? Children expect gaming platform for gifts costing hundreds of dollars, while I was content with a box of crayola crayons. No kid comes by and offers to cut the lawn and there are no lemonaide stands. These days only the "dumb" kids resort to work and earning as money is so easily obtained without it. Why are kids going to work, when it is so much easier to ask daddy or mommy? Instant answers on Google, so why go through the trouble of research and ardent study?The world that you complain about is part and parcel of technological and social change. It starts with pampering the young very early. You can't even spank them without their calling the police to have you arrested.
When you spoke of "war bonds", I saw that in many ways you are stuck in a time bubble. There has been a lot of changes to society since the early 1940's and we cant' go back and undo all the technological and social changes that got us all to this point.
All of this is beyond ideology or political party affiliation.
So, without getting to the root of the problem, correcting the problems that you lament about is just an exercise in futility.
This is crazy Cred. You dispute the concept of bread and circuses by framing it in political partisanship, and then validate it, and your belief in it, with this kids comment.
Isn't the meaning of your comment that someone, (the kids), can get something they want, and have others, (the parents), pay for it -- instead of working for it themselves? Your rationalization being that is where our society is?
Wasn't that Wilderness' original point?
Couldn't the failure of the parents to take a stand and do what is right -- be a check for the good of the family and kid -- to teach the kid values instead of reinforcing an instant gratification mentality, be compared to the failure of legislative representatives to do the same?
Couldn't the AHC be compared to the cell phones and game stations -- the parents/nation can't really afford it, but does it anyway because the "plebs" are demanding it?
GA
Wilderness was taking a partisan and ideological tack about the problem, what about his disenfranchisement suggestions? What gives you the idea that he was taking a universal non-partisan approach?
You are comparing apples and hand granades, the issue in Washington is what principles guide the spending of tax dollars. Thrift and frugality should always be the goal. But, that is not the case with the politicians and ideological tack that Wilderness embraces. They are just as wasteful but in a different direction, one that I disapprove of more so.
I don't consider Obamacare wasteful, where paying billions for flightless dodo birds from DOD R and D, I would. The concept of Obamacare says that sooner later we all are going to have the costs of uninsured people on the ledger. Somehow and somewhere, someone has to pay. How is that humanely avoided? Depends on your point of view, doesn't it. I did not take that attitude about Social Security or Medicare, did we consider any of that as a "game boy" over a box of crayons?
So who really is for efficient government and appropriate use of tax dollars? It is certainly not the conservatives. While you speak of non-partisan, Wilderness hardly comes off as such. The ultimate solution may end up being non-partisan. But with the contentiousness in Washington these days, I would not look for it soon.
"Wilderness was taking a partisan and ideological tack about the problem, what about his disenfranchisement suggestions?"
Sorry, Credence, but Wilderness took neither a partisan nor ideological tack. It was YOU that tried to make it partisan and ideological. I only quoted a man that sees a problem and gives what he thinks is the inevitable result of that problem. I agree with his analysis, but it is not from politics or ideology. Just simple common sense.
What about the disenfranchisement? It was YOU that asked for solutions, not I. I gave some that might help, but you refused to discuss them, even after asking for them!
So come down from your own partisan and ideological stance and discuss what happens when people can vote themselves those bread and circuses, and what could be done to stop it. So far you've refused to do so, going off a complete tangent, but that doesn't solve anything.
I see that Wilderness has addressed this comment and explained his perspective. It appears that the concept was his point from the beginning - not the politics of it.
And that is where your comments miss the point. You are all about the politics - denying the concept for partisan reasons, but then validating it in another, non-political, example.
And you are still doing it here. I didn't address whether Obamacare was wasteful, or whether it was a good or bad program, I simply pointed to it as an example of the concept being discussed: A majority demanding something they couldn't afford, and demanding someone else pay for it.
Do you deny that is a fair description of the basics of the AHC?
I can't agree with your "apples and grenades" thought either. The concept is not about "...what principles guide the spending of tax dollars," it is about a demand by a majority that tax dollars be spent - to benefit individuals, regardless of principles of thrift and frugality.
Your politicization of the question continues with your references to; the DOD, R & D, Social Security and Medicare.
Those could be part of the discussion after a common ground is found, (agreement or non-agreement with the concept), but until then, that discussion could only be an apples and hand grenades exchange.
GA
That is why we need the "Micro Chipped" card to keep every form of class out of our nation as "to forma more prefect union" demands this nation do.
With the Micro Chip, GA, Children would have one showing they are in school which they register every arrival and departing their school to ensure they qualify.
Just curious, since there are a lot of retirees lurking in this forum, are you also willing to get rid of Medicaid and Medicare? Aren't those programs just old people wanting the rest of us to pay for their health care?
I understand most people who get Medicare have paid into it, but it's still underfunded, which means that those who use it are taking more from it that is being put in and that younger, healthier people need to subsidize it.
Yes, it's underfunded. Because much of it was given away to those that didn't earn it. Because legislators ignored their fiduciary duty to maintain it and instead spent it on their pork barrel projects while paying the absolute smallest amount of interest they could manage.
Using my own statement from SS and the earnings figures they provide if I had invested those same earnings in a stock mutual fund for 40 years, given the average stock market return for any 40 year period you might choose, I would be a multi-millionaire. Instead I have to add to SS payments just to eat, while watching as my check falls every year before inflation . (This year was the first since I retired that I actually saw it go up a few dollars.)
"Aren't those programs just old people wanting the rest of us to pay for their health care?"
Medicaid has zero to do with "old people wanting the rest of us to pay for their health care" - it is solely for people that can't pay for their own health care, regardless of age. And Medicare, as you point out, has been purchased by a lifetime of contributions into a retirement plan. A plan that has since it's inception become nothing but a pile of free money for politicians, but still paid for by payroll deductions dedicated to retirement.
"Medicaid has zero to do with "old people wanting the rest of us to pay for their health care" - it is solely for people that can't pay for their own health care, regardless of age."
This is not true. Medicaid is also for disabled individuals. Should a nation not take care of its disabled? What's the alternative? Of course, there are those that take advantage of any system by thwarting its laws. But many on Medicaid are indeed "old people" who have health problems.
Also, if you make under a certain amount you cannot buy a product on the Obamacare market so you must purchase an expanded Medicaid policy. There are people who say they'd love to buy a policy but cannot as they are not allowed to. That has to change.
I worked on several anti Obamacare campaigns and worked for Medicaid for two years. Healthcare is something that we will work out better, to some extent, or fall into full blown third world status at some point.
Then, the excellent Medicare Advantage policies get funds this way:
"The Medicare Supplemental Medical Insurance, or SMI Trust Fund gets its Medicare funding primarily from money Congress allocates for the program and from Part B premiums and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan premiums."
The extra cash given to Medicare Advantage plans doesn't come from the payroll deductions. So...is that then "welfare?" Many "old people" are on policies that get their cash basically the same way Medicaid policies do. Most people on Medicaid in Indiana pay premiums, granted they are small, but the same holds true for most Medicare Advantage policies. It's ALL subsidized.
People need to understand that the nature of any insurance policy is really a socialistic concept. If I'm very healthy and live to an old age, then die suddenly, I really get screwed by these diabetics. I don't care how much they are paying, or how much I am paying, or what type of insurance policy any of us have. That's the name of the game.
https://medicare.com/medicare-advantage … an-funded/
"This is not true. Medicaid is also for disabled individuals. "
"Medicaid has zero to do with "old people wanting the rest of us to pay for their health care" - it is solely for people that can't pay for their own health care, regardless of age."
That's what I said; it is for anyone that can't pay their own way.
"The extra cash given to Medicare Advantage plans doesn't come from the payroll deductions."
That's correct - the funding comes directly from the individual who purchases such an advantage plan. No subsidy; it's purely from the individual. Payment may be in the form of cold cash or it may be in the form of agreeing to use the insurers HMO rather than choose doctors as they please, but the individual foots the bill either way.
Advantage plans work in conjunction with Medicare, but only in that medicare payments go to the advantage insurer rather than the individual purchasing the plan and the purchaser gives up their right to use medicare and are forced to either use advantage doctors or pay for their care themselves.
T"hat's correct - the funding comes directly from the individual who purchases such an advantage plan. No subsidy; it's purely from the individual."
No, that's absolutely not right. Medicare Advantage is highly subsidized. They want you to think it's less government controlled because it makes old folks feel better. You can Google this though. Read my link for a bit of incite.
Almost every single person on Advantage has a fully, or highly subsidized policy. That's why Monthly premiums range from $0 to the high $300s. Your payment is income based.
The government makes EXTRA payments to health insurers to cover Advantage plans. I wrote hundreds, if not thousands, of letters lobbying for that money.
That's quite an 18th century view. It was a republic of states and quickly became a hybrid republic and democracy after they realized the serious flaws of a true republic.
It always was a "hybrid republic", or a "hybrid democracy" if you choose. It was always a mixture of a republic and a democracy, in an effort to minimize the flaws of both.
Then I misunderstood you when you said we have a republic.
It really isn't either. Rather it is a bastardized conglomeration of what the founders thought would work, taken from many sources and piled into one.
Overall, it seems they did a good job, but we are paying the price now with the extreme partisanship we're experiencing now and with the slow slide into modern socialism - the plebs are indeed voting themselves 'bread and circuses' at other's expense and we WILL pay a large price for that if we don't get it under control.
I'll take a republic over the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
In Presidential elections, we have a democracy at the state level and a republic at the national level.
The Electoral College is a great example of our hybrid political system.
"The Electoral College" isn't in the constitution if you understood Amendments 12 & 24. In 12 they left out that "the electors and the people" vote in the primaries which are all done on the same date nation wide and it doesn't indicate that there would be a presidential and vice candidate from each state for November's general election when read correctly.
"...basic premise of the founders that government must have the power to control the governed..." must have a typo in it since our Constitution was specifically designed to protect people from government and allow people to across the board use government for said protection. Degradation of what protection means and how the term is used today for selfish purposes that disregard decency, honor, and the common good of the majority in tandem with the protection of the weakest among us has worked with other issues to muddy the waters so much that people actually do seem to want to be taken care of (controlled) by the government.
... the corporations should pay everyone. Then everyone will feed their money back to the corporations through shopping. Its all on the corporations.
Worth repeating:
"I also take some exception that "progressives" are not liberals, that some conservatives are actually progressives. I believe that is no more than spin to support the fallacious idea that all progressive concepts are good for the country.
I have never seen a conservative make the claim they are progressive, and I have never seen a progressive that didn't fall into the liberal camp. They may have arguments over some specifics, but in general they fit very well there and do not fit at all well in conservative camps." wilderness
Kathryn, you never met my late father either. He was a conservative who thought nothing should stand in the way of progress. You young people know nothing of the "greatest generation". They are the ones who came back from WWII and built this country into the greatest nation in the world. It was their children, a product of Dr. Spock, who began tearing it down.
On this we can agree. It was my generation, the one born after WWII, that started the decline we see today whereby the govt. bureaucracy always knows better than the individual, and is all too happy to take control from the people.
MizB and Wilderness, it was the post "European War 2" United Statesman who finally began to implement the NWO. That is why American politicians imported top German high level scientists here before an during the US entered the war. The US' NWO was meant to do that although I now believe it has being stopped under Trump who was actually to have manifested it.
LOL German scientists were welcomed into the US because it deprived Germany of their talents and because they were useful to the war effort. Not to promote a NWO.
Germany was a "test run" to see if people could be so brainwashed that they would believe everything was alright under certain conditions. They proved they could so when the US saw that they "deprived Germany of their talents" so by fighting against them no one would believe the US' intentions was to implement the same order on the entire world to reduce earth's population to 500 million written on the "Georgia Stone".
Wilderness, do you know what Dr. Spock said after he saw a 20-year result of a generation following his instructions on child-rearing in his book? He made this statement on TV, The best thing you can do with my book is to turn the kid over your knee and use my book on his backside. (paraphrasing him)
There are laws concerning monopolies. Yes, these can become a force of tyranny!
We don't need to abolish The Constitution! We need to use it to establish justice by putting a stop to monopolies by following antitrust laws.
For instance, Ronald Reagan took advantage of antitrust laws to break up the telecommunications power base of AT&T into several smaller companies.
Yes, Reagan did, and now they are regrouping in monopolies under a new type of Republican. However, his breaking up monopolies just looked good on the surface, like Obama care, the result was the sky-rocketing of our consumer telecommunications bills. Instead of a $30 a month phone bill, consumers just had to have the new technology. Until they started wising up, they had $40 a month landline bills and $100+ mo. bills for a single cell phone, and they had to buy their phones for both.
An old joke was: "We're the only phone company in town, but we try not to act like it" soon became "we're not the only phone company in town, but we act like it."
Are you trying to blame the break up of monopolies for the actions of stupid, greedy consumers? Because if not, it sure sounds like it!
That "bread and circuses" line isn't a partisan one, it is a concept.
Although today's facts on the ground make it easy to view as a partisan statement - which is the way you supported your disagreement with it, let me ask again about the basic concept of the statement.
In the context of both Heinlein and Wilderness' use, it addresses the concept of pure democratic rule. As in the majority gets to make the rules, or more bluntly, mob rule.
Do you think there is a difference between majority rule and mob rule? (as a concept, not any particular political period)
If you unconditionally support "one man one vote" in all circumstances, then you are supporting majority rule, right?
And if you do support majority rule, and the "plebs" are the majority, then how can you deny that they have the power to vote themselves all the "bread and circuses" they want?
The point of the quote isn't dependent on a particular party. It wouldn't matter if the "plebs" were Republican or Democrat.
My point is that you may disagree with Wilderness' political beliefs, but I don't see how you can disagree with the truth, (as I see it to be so obviously so), in the context of its original Heinlein use:
Doesn't our modern politics prove the quote?
The party with the majority vote makes the rules and decisions in each component their majority controls.
The Democrats did it with the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate, and they did it with Obamacare in both Houses. The Republicans did it with their gerrymandering after 2010, and, obstructionism after the Dems lost their majority in Pres. Obama's time.
But you really don't agree with the "bread and circuses" concept?
GA
Funny, GA, the only folks fixated on the term are found in rightwing leaning circles.
We don't really have pure democratic rule, there are the Courts, thank god for them, that limit the power of the majority to do what ever it wants. We also have a Bill of Rights that also protects against excesses from the majority. So, I guess my point is from the current American system of Government where the term "bread and circus" is an oxymoron.
That Bill of Rights is explicit about under what circumstances people must be able to participate in the franchise. Wilderness seems to want to undercut that.
yes, within the constraints that I alluded to earlier, I trumpet of idea of "one man, one vote.
A majority does not necessarily have to imply "a mob". Can we really say that the preponderance of voters for a particular candidate or issue constitute a mob?
Why not simply say "the people" rather than plebs?
The reality is that the plebs are not monolithic in their views and support and because of that, the gloom and doom the Wilderness refers to is unlikely to actually occur. So, rather than all the plebs voting in unison, there is disagreement among them and that is what makes the current system work. All you have to do is look at all the damned Republicans in Washington, these days. That is how I can disagree with Wilderness' premise.
The party with the majority vote is not fixated in stone either, it changes with the mood of the people to move left or right or move closer to the center. I will keep the give and take over Wilderness' ideas of simply shutting down participation from the side that he opposes.
Everybody votes for their own interest, but ying and yang are balanced to keep politics from tipping too far to one side or the other. For now, that is good enough to me, so I still resist the idea of "bread and circus"
Well damn Cred, just can't address the concept without a partisan perspective can you?
I see it in the opposite way. I don't think you can address the partisan politics of it without addressing the concept first.
So you and Wilderness have at it. I'm going to get some popcorn ready.
GA
by promisem 5 years ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
8 Core Principles of ConservatismIndividual FreedomLimited GovernmentThe Rule of Law. Peace through StrengthFiscal ResponsibilityFree Markets.Human DignityConservatives are not opposed to common-sense change. However, conservatives prefer gradualism when it comes to change.Conservatives support the...
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and libertarians...and moderates...What specific conservative belief, policy, or ideals do you...
by Charles James 13 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these in a hub or hubs I really would like clarity on what exactly the conservative...
by Kathryn L Hill 6 years ago
... or not?
by Allen Donald 12 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
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 DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This 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 Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This 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 Libraries | Javascript 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 Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This 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 YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This 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 Login | You 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) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We 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 Pixels | We 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 Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore 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 Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |