Living for the GOOD OF ALL

1. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Could you?  Could you give up all self-interest? and concern for your own self-benefit in life?
   
   
   Is it perfectly fine to force the rich to do so?
   Is it perfectly fine to force ANYONE to do so?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      democratic socialism.
      "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy."
      
      "Democratic socialism is distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism. In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.
      
      The origins of democratic socialism can be traced to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the British Chartist movement which differed in detail, but all shared the essence of democratic decision making and public ownership in the means of production as positive characteristics of the society they advocated. In the early 20th century, the gradualist reformism promoted by the British Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein in Germany influenced the development of democratic socialism."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

      replyreport
      1. 83

         James A Watkinsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist. When pressed about the famine, starvation, suffering, misery, and death that Socialism wrought in the 20th Century, which was vastly worse than anything that ever before befell mankind in human history, Bernie says he is different because he is a “Democratic Socialist.” I can appreciate the New Socialists adding the word “Democratic” to their name to distance themselves from the Socialists who murdered 100 million people. But I have been studying the Manifesto of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here is what the Democratic Socialists say they want:
         
         "A world free from capitalism" "We reject private profit" "Eradicate the sources of inequality" "Eliminate Free Enterprise and private charity" "Equalize wealth and income" "State ownership of what is now Private Property" "State ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations" "State ownership [Communism] and/or direct control [Fascism] of the economic resources of society" "State control over all private resources, including all land, insurance, credit, raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure, and all existing financial institutions" "Global government across national boundaries to ensure that wages, working conditions, environmental standards and social rights are the same worldwide" "Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor" "Eliminate Religion, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--the belief in an invisible being in the sky."
         
         NOW, you tell me how this is different from what Socialists and Communists have always wanted?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            James, if their manifesto's meaning of "state" means governors where We The People dictates to them "what to pass into law and not, what we want and not by our votes and they do no imposing on people in their dwellings" it is just another reading of the U.S. Constitution when the words of it is properly defined.

            replyreport
         2. 87

            MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            But Jesus was a socialist. He told the man to sell his worldly possessions and give them to the poor to follow him. (Matt. 19:21)

            replyreport
   2. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      People have to want to do for self & loved ones.   Only those who want & make an effort to succeed will do so.  There are people who can't be & don't want to be saved( i.e. improve themselves).   All people can't be rescued, most will fall by the wayside.  Many people are in the dire predicament they are in because they WANT to be!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         yes, Some because they were not warned of the dire consequences for  neglecting what must be done for the sake of survival and a good life.
         
         Future orientation: A life of design, toward the benefits reaped through effort and forward thinking.
         
         Present Orientation: Sit around trying to just live for today.
         
         Its not enough.
         
         and it leads to victimhood and peril.
         
         Then they want socialism. (or whatever they call it.)
         
         Apparently most here on HPTF think this millennial generation will grow up and grow out of it.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Some will grow up and grow out of it.   Others will be shocked into the realization that such a fantastically unrealistic philosophy is futile in its premise....….or when their parents either refuse to further support them financially or completely cut them off...………..It is the upper middle & upper class millennials who espouse socialism.  The lower, working, & lower middle class millennials want to be rich & successful.  They don't believe in the socialistic bull, they want THEIRS!

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Yes. They are coddled for way too long.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I have observed that it was the middle & upper class echelon of young people who are most vocal regarding socialism & communism.  They are vehemently vocal about income inequality.  They never were deprived in their lives.   Conversely, it was the lower echelon youth who wanted MORE....they wanted the good socioeconomic life.   They didn't want nonsense such as socialism nor communism- they wanted to be THOROUGHLY INVOLVED in CAPITALISM!

                  replyreport
            2. 87

               MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I think your answer explains why there are so many hard working, misjudged millennials. My millennial granddaughter, a very hard worker and married with 2 children, bristles when people call millennials "entitled" or "lazy". She grew up the hard way. Her father (my son) saw his good job as a systems analyst go to India, and worked at low-paying jobs such as convenience stores and temporary jobs until he finally got a permanent job in the federal government. By that time, she and her little brother were nearly grown and had been denied the perks and privileges that most kids her age had enjoyed.

               replyreport
   3. 61

      Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think most people could attempt such. I think that is why socialism is such an appealing concept.
      
      The devil is in the details. Good people are easily duped and taken advantage of by those with hidden agendas. Socialism has proven itself uniquely and inevitably inclined toward totalitarianism.

      replyreport
   4. 57

      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Could you give up all self-interest and concern for your own self-benefit in life?
      That depends!!! I openly revealed my self-interest "to be as free as a deer" at about seven years old but my Christian indoctrinating and schooling took that out of me. Had it not been for my 1973 "spiritual conception" and '76 "new birth" I would have never reached MY internal self-interest, I would have been stuck with my externally conditioned interest imposed on me. However, everything everyone does is predestined so how can anyone actually answer that question?
      
      Is it perfectly fine to force the rich to do so?
      By the fact that everything is predestined, No, we are not able to but some individuals who are predestined to do so will.
      
      Is it perfectly fine to force ANYONE to do so?
      The same answer above applies here also.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   social democracy
   "Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes. Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties and their influence on socioeconomic policy development in the Nordic countries, in policy circles social democracy has become associated with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.
   
   Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism."
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

   replyreport
3. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Why the expectation of equality?
   Just let me do my own thing in the environment of a free market!

   replyreport
4. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Why the demand for equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity?

   replyreport
5. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Possible response:
   
   "You are not accounting for abuse of power and the need for foresight and charity."

   replyreport
6. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   My answer:
   
   Abuse of power is best fought at the polls.  Foresight and charity begin at home.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The youth do not believe this. They do not realize how much power We the People have and are entitled to.
      
      We can bring forth revolutions within the political structure already in place. For instance, we can demonstrate and flood the emails of our elected officials to get them to enforce laws and close loopholes. We can demonstrate in front of their offices. We can deal directly with problems. We don't have to give up freedom and democracy, which is protected by having boundaries in place, for socialistic policies and politics.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         People have to have the innate gumption to improve themselves educationally & socioeconomically.  Although such things can be taught, they are inherent in some people.  There are some people who are born in abject poverty but they refuse to let abject poverty be a normative lifestyle.  They want educational & socioeconomic success.  They WANT...……..While there are others who simply don't have the innate drive to better themselves although they are born into better circumstances.   Some people are SELF-MOTIVATED while others are......SIMPLY NOT!   My late father called this having initiative.  One has to have initiative to succeed.
         
         There are LAZY people in the world.  They don't have the gumption to improve themselves.  They let life happen to THEM.  They are OWNED instead of OWNING.  Most people are OWNED, only a small minority have OWNERSHIP over their lives.  Yes, most people are SLAVES, believe it or NOT!

         replyreport
7. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Self-interest is natural and should never be ignored or surrendered. One can help others as one is inclined. The WILL must be involved.
   One's own self-guided free will.

   replyreport
8. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   The Will is to the psyche what the Heart is to the body.

   replyreport
9. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Free (SELF-guided) Will = LIFE

   replyreport
10. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    "A world free from capitalism"
    
    "We reject private profit"
    
    "Eradicate the sources of inequality"
    
    "Eliminate Free Enterprise and private charity"
    
    "Equalize wealth and income"
    
    "State ownership of what is now Private Property"
    
    "State ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations"
    
    "State ownership [Communism] and/or direct control [Fascism] of the economic resources of society"
    
    "State control over all private resources, including all land, insurance, credit, raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure, and all existing financial institutions"
    
    "Global government across national boundaries to ensure that wages, working conditions, environmental standards and social rights are the same worldwide"
    
    "Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor"
    
    "Eliminate Religion, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-- (which to them equals) a belief in an invisible being (nonexistent) in the sky."
    
    Eliminate God
    
    Eliminate free (self-guided) will.
     
    ... oh, sounds so fun.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       That is perfect if We The People were in control of the governors as Article 6' calling all governing officials' positions "Public Trust". As We The People's Trustees they are not to do anything without obeying our vote count. That would ACTUALLY be fun.

       replyreport
       1. 78

          Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I hate to be rude, but I don't understand you.

          replyreport
          1. 57

             The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

             Read the last phrase of USC Article 6 where it sAy All officials are "the public's Trust(ees)". Aren't "trustees", we'll say in prison, subjected to the will of the trusters so with all US governing officials being "trustees" of The People of the United States doesn't that make then have to get permission from We The People?

             replyreport
          2. 87

             MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

             I believe Elijah is saying it would "actually be fun" if the will of the people were in control of the governing officials and the decisions they make.
             
             However, since there have always been two factions (politically) of "We the People" there would always be one faction of folks (the minority voters) who are unhappy.

             replyreport
             1. 57

                The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                MizB, by the first of the intents in the Constitution "to form a more prefect Union" the political parties are already outlawed, having a people called "minority" is also. No form of division will allow uniting as this nation's name implies.

                replyreport
11. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    The thing is, the youth are catching onto this like wildfire because of the internet and social media.
    Can they be influenced so easily toward this NEW way? Can they be just as easily turned against it?
    
    I hope so.
    
    We elders need to keep flooding the internet/social media with how ridiculous an idea democratic socialism truly is.
    
    Don't slack off, thinking they will grow up and out off it.
      ... not with the education and the indoctrination going on in educational institutions across the nation.

    replyreport
12. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    If you would read The Federalist Papers you might get what the Constitution is REALLY about!
    
    Read Plato and Aristotle while yer at it too!

    replyreport
    1. 57

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       The Federalist Papers, also according to Article 6, if they are "contrary" or denies anything in the Constitution are "notwithstanding" or invalided.
       
       I've read and understand Plato's writings.

       replyreport
       1. 87

          MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          But Hamilton, et al, wrote the Federalist Papers to counteract the ultra conservatives who wanted a weak federal government and strong states' rights. These  states' righters were folks who were fed up with the strong government of the monarchy and were cautious about giving too much power to a central government. Hamilton and his followers were afraid that a nation of independent states would be vulnerable because they would be without common direction. We are still fighting over this today. And how did we get sidetracked on the Constitution?

          replyreport
          1. 78

             Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

             Socialism is the opposite of democracy, as far as I surmise.
             Democracy replaces living for the good-of-ALL, first, with living for the good-of-SELF, first.
             
             Its fine to contribute to the good-of-all as long as one is living for the good-of-self, first
             AND is not forced to do so.
             
             For instance a lifeguard must keep himself healthy and fit.  He willingly eats right and exercises in order to fulfill his purpose of saving others. His concern is necessarily self, first.
             
             Similarly, a free citizen in a democracy necessarily takes care of himself and his loved ones first. He finds work he enjoys and has a talent for. He networks with those he chooses and trusts. He tithes and helps others according to his ability and interests. A free market provides endless avenues and directions to Make Money to use for one's own happiness and well being.
             
             Freedom requires boundaries, but the corral is huge and the horses love galloping in it.
             
             In socialism, a state worker cannot find work he enjoys because the selection of job opportunities is limited. Furthermore, he feels forced to do so out of obligation and expectation to contribute to the whole of society.
             
             Without a wide corral, the horses are miserable.

             replyreport
             1. 87

                MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I grok it. On a trip to the Soviet Union during Perestroika (Communism rather than Socialism) our group met a famous Russian rock 'n roll singer who insisted on hanging out with us. When he found out I was a radio broadcaster, he singled me out to talk to me. He lamented that he had to sing songs that were picked out for him by the state and gave me a tape of his own compositions. They were quite good, I might add. I always wondered how he fared after the fall of the Soviet Union. I wonder if he was ever allowed to write and sing his own music. I think it is too bad he didn't immigrate to the U.S. so he could be completely free, and we could become fans of his. I remember his first name was Eugine (pronounced "Oo gin".

                replyreport
                1. 78

                   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                   Eugine was a creative individual, but like a horse, which gallops with the wind, his life was reduced to standing in a stall.

                   replyreport
          2. 57

             The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

             MizB, you asked "how did we get sidetracked on the Constitution?"
             
             I answer it with "anytime we talk about what the governors are doing should be compared to "The Supreme Law" the constitution is, if/when we don't we have nothing to actually support our views, we are talking just to get our unsupported beliefs known."

             replyreport
13. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    Its all based on the truth regarding human nature.
    
    Read Hume's Treatise on Human Nature.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       The natives of America were man, not human, most people are human or woman which means the same thing, incomplete man, that is why so few people even read the Constitution, it is written for man instead of less than whole man.

       replyreport
14. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    There is the good of living for the sake of something else, only.
    
    There is the good for living for the sake of itself, only.
    
    The highest good consists in living for the good of both itself AND something else.
    
    
    self And others, (... in that order.)

    replyreport
15. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    Socialism in the form of Democratic Socialism, the latest and greatest, will replace living for the good-of-SELF, first with the living for the good-of-ALL, first.
    
    Be careful what you wish for.

    replyreport