United states ranting, a changing country

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Before you read, i'd like to remind you that I'm not targeting Liberals or Conservatives, only the dumb ones. I have friends on both sides and would like to remind you that i'm not targeting anyone on the forum, but specifically the average dolt on AOL.com or Yahoo!.com. (None of you on the forum are dumb, well at least 99% of you aren't dumb:)) Also don't question my question with your philosophical curiosity, just answer it.

Dissent among people is becoming more prevalent in the past decade than ever before. More often I hear pseudo-intellectual liberals mouthing off to everyone about how government is terrible. I also hate how they call it "corrupt." what a cliched word. Americans can't get their own material, nor can they understand supply/demand side economics or fiscal policy.

They don't examine exactly what they're talking about before they preach their superior views in their grandiose comments or forums online and grin with self-satisfaction. It's complete balderdash, provides no insight or new information, and is virtually redundant considering the millions of equally terrible comments online. Honestly, there is no unification among Americans.

And ultra-liberals/anarchists aren't the only bad things. We also have the average conservative moron (not all conservatives are morons), whose repertoire of insults trumps his actual language capabilities, which aren't large to say the least. They whine about how the president and congress is attempting to instill gun control, because after all, their only methods of influencing people are harassment and dangerous weapons. I also dislike how most Republicans are becoming more of extremists than Republicans, and snivel about how much they hate this or that. Reality check: We had a Republican-controlled congress for 8 years, you had your chance.

It's safe in the middle of the spectrum, but having scattered views prevents anyone from actually believing you. Voting Independent/Green is a lost cause, and most Independent voters are probably Democrats anyway.

Alright, enough of my anger. I'm moving on to the question I want to ask you. And just to make it clear for those of you who dislike my politics, i'm not a communist or fascist, I'm on the Authoritarian Left. These are the questions:

Are Americans becoming more divided among important issues? What is causing this?
How are we going to solve this problem, or is bipartisan unity in America even possible?
How dumb are Americans, or are they not too dumb? Are they getting dumber, or just succumbing to misleading information? Why don't Americans know anything about economics, yet attempt to unsuccessfully discuss it on AOL/Yahoo?
(if you aren't an American.) Do you see the same problems in your country? Why do you think that is?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,433 • Replies: 49

No top replies

@Leonard,

Leonard;83103 wrote:

1. Are Americans becoming more divided among important issues? What is causing this?

We are no more divided than we have been in the past:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/5379-u-s-fundamentalism-divisiveness.html

Leonard;83103 wrote:

2. How are we going to solve this problem, or is bipartisan unity in America even possible?

At this stage, bipartisan unity is not possible. Bipartisan unity is not politically realistic. Not in our nation, or in any other.

Leonard;83103 wrote:

3. How dumb are Americans, or are they not too dumb?

There is no way to accurately generalize about such a thing. There are fools, and there are brilliant citizens, too. We are a large, populous nation of diverse people.

Leonard;83103 wrote:

Are they getting dumber, or just succumbing to misleading information?

I think the matter is mostly of information. Not that media has been without corruption in the past (Yellow Journalism at the turn of the century comes to mind), but media is increasingly polarizing. And media is also largely dropping even the veil of objectivity and honesty - instead of Cronkites we have shock-jocks who rev up ratings by saying absurd and outlandish things. The result is that many people, having heard the absurdity enough, begin to take the nonsense seriously.

Our's is not the only nation facing this sort of trouble.

Leonard;83103 wrote:

Why don't Americans know anything about economics, yet attempt to unsuccessfully discuss it on AOL/Yahoo?

As if people in the rest of the world understand economics?

0 Replies

@Leonard,

Hey Leonard,

Leonard;83103 wrote:

.... Dissent among people is becoming more prevalent in the past decade than ever before.

More profuse, more polarized, widespread? My feeling is that I agree with you on this; that the extent of saturation (and amount of polarization) may be higher than ever (or perhaps must more visible), I don't know. The thread Didy linked just above asks this very question.

Leonard;83103 wrote:

More often I hear pseudo-intellectual liberals mouthing off to everyone about how government is terrible. I also hate how they call it "corrupt." what a cliched word.

Small clarification here: Although certainly not constrained to one orientation or another, I was under the impression that one of the hallmarks of conservatives was this, "... mouthing off to everyone on how government is terrible" - not liberals (although, again, just about everyone has some stake in making this claim).

Leonard;83103 wrote:

Americans can't get their own material, nor can they understand supply/demand side economics or fiscal policy. They don't examine exactly what they're talking about before they preach their superior views in their grandiose comments or forums online and grin with self-satisfaction. It's complete balderdash, provides no insight or new information, and is virtually redundant considering the millions of equally terrible comments online. Honestly, there is no unification among Americans.

I think I'd agree with you here, on the whole. Combine what seems to be a very widespread ignorance/stupidity on history, economic and political issues with media hype and elements of fundamentalism and.. well... it's pretty embarrassing. I share your feelings here

Leonard;83103 wrote:

1. Are Americans becoming more divided among important issues? What is causing this?

[INDENT]Objectively: I don't know and can't claim an absolute answer.

From the preponderance of what I've seen; however, I'd say this: Yes, we are becoming increasingly divided. The causes are likely many and varied; that being said, I'd number among them: 1) The effects of a media system that thrives on ratings, which - in turn - feed on controversy, circling the wagons-issues and titillation -and- 2) A growing dissatisfaction with the general condition of a consumption-based culture.
[/INDENT]

Leonard;83103 wrote:

2. How are we going to solve this problem, or is bipartisan unity in America even possible?

[INDENT] There could be a solution to achieving this bipartisanism; as you say. But if so - I can't see it. My assessment is that to the extent that what we're talking about actually is true, that it simply needs to "run the cycle" - that it can't be stopped. Only time, events and/or changes in our social gestault will alter it.
[/INDENT]

Leonard;83103 wrote:

3. How dumb are Americans, or are they not too dumb? Are they getting dumber, or just succumbing to misleading information? Why don't Americans know anything about economics, yet attempt to unsuccessfully discuss it on AOL/Yahoo?

[INDENT] There's nothing more dangerous than someone who thinks they know something, doesn't, and then acts and/or inflames others based on that perceived knowledge.
[/INDENT]Thanks for your OP and the opportunity to sound off on these issues. Apparently, we must be on the same wavelength here. For both these core issues there are other, recently-started, still-active threads. Since I'm involved in both, I'll defer to other moderators whether or not they should be merged.[INDENT]Stupidity in the U.S.
Fundamentalism and Divisiveness on the Rise?
[/INDENT]Thanks

0 Replies

@Leonard,

While I agree with Didymos, I want to add some comments.

After several decades of ignoring many of the fundamental problems of our time, we are now forced to confront them and to make major political and social decisions between conflicting viewpoints and project efficiencies.

Whether these decisions are correct, however, seems to depend on having before us not only the facts at hand, but the ability to understand them. If we rely on opinion and not knowledge, and if we are unable to critically examine conflicting claims and viewpoints, then these decisions have the potential to bring about disasters of great significance to the future of this nation and of mankind.

For at least as long, we have seen the following trends accumulating power and dominance in the world:

The demand for entertainment has encroached upon more or more aspects of our daily lives, and those who entertain us are rewarded by adulation and wealth.
- Our attention is riveted on sensational news, gossip about celebrities, sporting events, the latest rock album. And since our money supports these, we fuel an engine that fabricates ever more of the same.
The gradual evolution of the direction of public education from scholars and teachers to pupils and bureaucrats has resulted in lower standards and a curriculum slanted towards "relevance." Of what use is history or geography? complains a student who cannot find Florida on a map, or tell us the difference between Senators and Representatives.
Hand in hand with the first two, walks a subtle anti-intellectualism and a democratic snobbery that precludes many from attaining excellence or, for that matter, of desiring independent thinking.
- Everyman his own blogger has resulted more often than not, because people are not able (and do not have the time, being busy with other things)to discern quality, in mis-information and the belief that opinion is fact and that every opinion is of equal value.

Given these, and similar trends operating in our world, it seems a matter of hope that we will find any good political solution to these major problems. Consider for a moment, as an observer, the national discussions about global warming or health care reform.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

"As if people in the rest of the world understand economics? "
-The problem here is that people who don't understand economics are making a big deal about their problems rather than those everyone is facing, and even worse they attempt to speak of the economy in detail while instead butchering the facts.

I would like to ask another question as well. I want to ask if you would prefer a 3-party state to a 2-party state? Or would you consider a 1-party state to be the most efficient?

0 Replies

@Leonard,

Thanks for the comments

0 Replies

@Leonard,

Leonard;83103 wrote:

And just to make it clear for those of you who dislike my politics, i'm not a communist or fascist, I'm on the Authoritarian Left.

What exactly does it mean to be on the 'authoritarian left' if not a communist? If you are left I presume you favor central planning, and if you are authoritarian, I assume you favor some form of rule by unelected committee, dictator, junta, etc; that would be communism, as practiced of course, but not as theorized.

Quote:

Are Americans becoming more divided among important issues? What is causing this?

How are we going to solve this problem, or is bipartisan unity in America even possible?

How dumb are Americans, or are they not too dumb? Are they getting dumber, or just succumbing to misleading information? Why don't Americans know anything about economics, yet attempt to unsuccessfully discuss it on AOL/Yahoo?

(if you aren't an American.) Do you see the same problems in your country? Why do you think that is?

1. Genuine differences of passing opinion among the masses, and genuine differences in political philosophy amoung the more intelligent.

2. Why should we want 'bipartisanship.' That sounds to me like one party rule. If there are genuine ideological divisions, and parties which actually represent the various ideological factions, why should we expect those parties to work together? They have different aims.

3. The establishment knows nothing about economics. Keynesianism ought to be considered a mental illness. The people know nothing about the details at all, but a majority of them do prefer a system in which they pay lower taxes and have to suffer less government intrusion. The people who do understand real, functional economics, as opposed to the keynesian fantasy, are ignored because the government could not operate as it currently does, and have the power it now does, under an austrian economic system.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;85868 wrote:

What exactly does it mean to be on the 'authoritarian left' if not a communist? If you are left I presume you favor central planning, and if you are authoritarian, I assume you favor some form of rule by unelected committee, dictator, junta, etc; that would be communism, as practiced of course, but not as theorized.

-Most Left wing Authoritarians are indeed communists, but there are exceptions. For instance, I mustn't be a communist to be authoritarian and on the left. Communism is nearer to Totalitarianism. That would mean having a single leader, without a senate or other such things. Examples of non-communists in this quadrant are Robert Mugabe, Pope Benedict XVI, and Mamoud Abbas, none of which I believe are communists. They belong to nationalist (but not necessarily socialist) parties.
My views, for example, favor harsher punishment for crimes, restricting alcohol-drug consumption, taking actions to make certain actions more difficult to prevent fraud, and actions to reduce anarchy. This also includes leaving economic decisions to higher gov't officials. The generic Democrat would disagree (most of them being anarchists). My views could be compared to those of conservative democrats and economic centrists. I also favor tax cuts for the rich, oppose globalization, and dislike environmentalism. That may have explained a little too much, but I guess it shows how i'm different from a communist.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

The US isn't just changing, it is dying. The old system is being silently tossed out after years of demonizing it. It is to be replaced by a system in which the government has even more control over the citizens and those citizens have even fewer rights.

This has been brought to you in part by, the failing education system. YAY! Go America!

1 Reply

@Leonard,

"2. Why should we want 'bipartisanship.' That sounds to me like one party rule. If there are genuine ideological divisions, and parties which actually represent the various ideological factions, why should we expect those parties to work together? They have different aims."

The common train of thought is "Why should I work with those damned Republicans?," or "Why are those stupid Democrats looking for change?" We don't want bipartisanship, but we desperately need it. The parties may not agree on economics, or social issuses, but most can agree that we need to repair the economy. How will we solve it? The majority party will win the vote. If that isn't total control, then what is? A 60% majority will almost always win. However, through agreeable methods we can work something out. You would start with small steps and work your way up. Do farmers/schools/factories need subsidies? Then you would change things while still agreeing. Anybody will say cancer is bad. So, they may agree that cancer research should be subsidized. Our president seems competent enough for such an endeavor. It's a shame his approval rating is in the gutter; just goes to show how antsy and impatient Americans are. They think we can change things in the blink of an eye, and don't do anything to help while sitting on their hinds complaining. It'd be nice if our country was full of Swedes or Danes. Why Swedes and Danes? They're frank, kind, and easy to get along with. Well, enough digressing. Basically it would be nice if we at least tried to get along, rather than squabbling over petty things. People's lives are at stake; aren't they more important than abortion or gay marriage? (though those are still topics that need to be adressed.)

1 Reply

@Leonard,

Leonard, I don't think that 'dumb' is the right word. 'Ignorant' would be one of them, and another would be 'spoiled'. I think many get spoiled by certain things, like what the media dishes out. We have too many channels to choose from, fast food everywhere. In general, people are spoiled which leads to almost a volunteered ignorance.
With YouTube, we all can be Journalists and be famous, because we think we are entitled to it.

To quote Dennis Miller: That's just my opinion, I may be wrong.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

Well lets look to Ireland for a moment. They were recently interviewed and as it turns out, 40% of their national taxation went to pay for their universal health care system. They also mentioned that over 50% of the people still purchase private health care insurance.

So not only will you have to pay with your work deducting it in some form of pay roll taxation but in the mean time, you'll end up wanting your own private insurance anyways because the free health care will suck.

You really think a government that already has two of the major public systems in the red is going to make another system balanced?

Mark my words, this proposed health care system WILL ultimately be a pay roll tax by everyone and the system will be so backed up and low quality that people who can afford it will purchase their own private plans instead.

My equivalent is education system. Public schools suck, private schools require payment and those paying for private schools also must pay the tax that provides for public schools. Double pay.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

How can we accurately approximate the results of United States health care reform based upon another nation's approach to the problem? For example: the US is not adopting Ireland's policy.

Remember: the details of the US reform are as yet unknown. The government is still hammering out the matter. Saying, 'Oh, such and such country is such and such way' and then applying that information to the as yet unestablished US reform is necessarily non sequitur.

How can anyone make certain and confident predictions about a system when the system itself has yet to be drafted? Pessimistic, optimistic, whatever: we simply cannot go that far while also sticking to reality. We just do not know what will come out of these political efforts.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;85908 wrote:

The US isn't just changing, it is dying. The old system is being silently tossed out after years of demonizing it. It is to be replaced by a system in which the government has even more control over the citizens and those citizens have even fewer rights.

This has been brought to you in part by, the failing education system. YAY! Go America!

As Mark Twain said about himself, America can reply to you, "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated". If America could survive Jimmy Carter, and can survive Barack Obama, America can survive anything.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

I'll toss in my two cents, after all you ask for it right?
I agree with several of the post already made, but I'll just make a general statement on some of my opinions of US economics.

I think a fundamental problem in US economics is the idea that we must have constant growth. The birth of the US roughly corresponds to the birth of modern capitalism (in the big scheme.) So, we haven't really known any other economic system. In the early days, when more growth was needed we just expanded westward, taking whatever we wanted along the way. We eventually expanded to the west coast. But we soon needed more growth, so we expanded into South America, the Philippines, briefly had Cuba, and acquired Alaska and Hawaii (not necessarily in that order).

I believe that the moment we populated the West Coast, our ability to sustain this constant growth, was severely hampered. Had we not continued our expansions, the Great Depression could have occurred then. But, those expansions were just buying time. The Great Depression occurred, but then came WWII which gave us Japan and the strong foothold in Asia we wanted. It also gave us Israel and the connections to the Saudi Royal Family. The access these resources fueled the post war boom, but alas all good things come to an end. Reagan tried to give us access to Soviet resources, but that didn't really pan-out, Bush II may have given us Iraq, but that remains to be seen.

This old formula only measures the dollar costs and all other costs are essentially deferred or paid by someone else. Those who get the most benefit from the expansions pass the enormous costs of the expansion onto the citizens (both at home and the conquered territory). The world is pretty well populated, so we may have really reached a turning point for modern capitalism. There is a desperate (almost manic) push among certain Americans to continue the old formula for expansion, and they are using every means available to convince the average Joe American that the old formula is still good and will bring us back to our greatness. Resistance to the desperate call is tentative because capitalism is so much a part of our American identity that no other solutions are apparent.

It must also be noted that this old formula has been pursued regardless of which political party was in office at the time.

1 Reply

@Leonard,

Leonard;85911 wrote:

"2. Why should we want 'bipartisanship.' That sounds to me like one party rule. If there are genuine ideological divisions, and parties which actually represent the various ideological factions, why should we expect those parties to work together? They have different aims."

The common train of thought is "Why should I work with those damned Republicans?," or "Why are those stupid Democrats looking for change?" We don't want bipartisanship, but we desperately need it. The parties may not agree on economics, or social issuses, but most can agree that we need to repair the economy. How will we solve it? The majority party will win the vote. If that isn't total control, then what is? A 60% majority will almost always win. However, through agreeable methods we can work something out. You would start with small steps and work your way up. Do farmers/schools/factories need subsidies? Then you would change things while still agreeing. Anybody will say cancer is bad. So, they may agree that cancer research should be subsidized. Our president seems competent enough for such an endeavor. It's a shame his approval rating is in the gutter; just goes to show how antsy and impatient Americans are. They think we can change things in the blink of an eye, and don't do anything to help while sitting on their hinds complaining. It'd be nice if our country was full of Swedes or Danes. Why Swedes and Danes? They're frank, kind, and easy to get along with. Well, enough digressing. Basically it would be nice if we at least tried to get along, rather than squabbling over petty things. People's lives are at stake; aren't they more important than abortion or gay marriage? (though those are still topics that need to be adressed.)

No no Leonard, you have apparently fallen asleep and experienced the American dream. That there are true ideological differences between the two major parties is purely an illusion, which they both propogate in order to maintain their power. Both parties, despite any rhetoric to the contrary, support central planning, imperial foreign policy, internationalism, deranged pseudo-intellectual environmentalism, and an exchange of individual liberties for 'security.' They are both owned by the largest corporations and banks, whose lobbyists now pretty openly write our legislation and give to congress. The congressman don't even read the bills and say, 'yes sir, we'll pass it.' This is fascism. When I talk about 'genuine ideological divisions,' I'm not talking about these poodles. I'm talking about citizens (and yes, the rare congressman or official) who truly believe in a certain political philosophy, whatever that might be.

From your description earlier, it sounds to me like you are indeed a communist, as communism was practiced, not theoretical communism with no government at all (insane pipe-dream, and ugly dream as well). Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe government should set economic policy. You believe government should enforce morality, as with drug and alcohol prohibition. You believe that liberty (as defined in the bill or rights e.g.) should be exchanged for security and order, in order to prevent 'anarchy.' That sounds like communism in practice to me; of course, a better name would be oligarchical collectivism. Either way, you should come to America! We're nearing your ideal every day! But watch out, some people aren't real happy about that, so I wouldn't go around cheering, 'Horray! Enslave me! Take my rights and my wealth! Isn't the government generous for telling us how best we should live?!' :Not-Impressed:

0 Replies

@chad3006,

chad3006;86011 wrote:

I think a fundamental problem in US economics is the idea that we must have constant growth. The birth of the US roughly corresponds to the birth of modern capitalism (in the big scheme.) So, we haven't really known any other economic system. In the early days, when more growth was needed we just expanded westward, taking whatever we wanted along the way. We eventually expanded to the west coast.

The idea of having constant growth is not an economic problem, it's a political one. It's been around since the dawn of society, and really took off in the last couple millenia with nation building and the rise of technology and better communication. Constant economic growth is not reality. You're making it sound like the politics of nation building in the US somehow goes hand in hand with capitalism, but you can have almost any type of economic system grouped together with any type of political philosophy. According to Friedman, economic freedom and political freedom tend to go together (this is the trend throughout history), but it does not always happen.

[quote]There is a desperate (almost manic) push among certain Americans to continue the old formula for expansion, and they are using every means available to convince the average Joe American that the old formula is still good and will bring us back to our greatness. Resistance to the desperate call is tentative because capitalism is so much a part of our American identity that no other solutions are apparent.[/quote]

What type of expansion are you taking about? Expansion of political power abroad, expansion of government here at home, economic expansion? US companies have already quite well expanded into foreign markets, and there is not a whole lot keeping them from expanding further, except for plain market economics and competition. "Capitalism" might be a part of our identity if you watch a lot of CNBC or read the WSJ opinion columns, but we really haven't had anything like real capitalism in this country for quite some time. That's a myth that has been perpetuated by investment show hosts and businessmen. Real, classical capitalism is a system that is designed for individual economic freedom, whereas the US system is designed to nurture and expand US multinational corporations and industries.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

"My equivalent is education system. Public schools suck, private schools require payment and those paying for private schools also must pay the tax that provides for public schools. Double pay. "
-From a former private school student, I must say that the rigor of coursework as well as the cost of education is more than worth it. I've worked part-time since I was about 10 to get through private school, but it ends up embellishing and improving any college application. The tax is another part of being an American, and any hard worker can compensate for it.

"No no Leonard, you have apparently fallen asleep and experienced the American dream. That there are true ideological differences between the two major parties is purely an illusion, which they both propogate in order to maintain their power. Both parties, despite any rhetoric to the contrary, support central planning, imperial foreign policy, internationalism, deranged pseudo-intellectual environmentalism, and an exchange of individual liberties for 'security.' They are both owned by the largest corporations and banks, whose lobbyists now pretty openly write our legislation and give to congress. The congressman don't even read the bills and say, 'yes sir, we'll pass it.' This is fascism. When I talk about 'genuine ideological divisions,' I'm not talking about these poodles. I'm talking about citizens (and yes, the rare congressman or official) who truly believe in a certain political philosophy, whatever that might be."
-If differences in ideology are merely an illusion, do people just vote for a party based on the candidate's good character and background? I've never heard of a case where a die-hard republican votes for a democrat because he seems like a good guy. He'd rather vote for a mean republican because they also oppose abortion. You can't be a little pro-life. You are either pro- or anti- abortion. The two parties have contrasting views on specific things. Now if you have scattered views, you could a) not vote, or b) make up your mind. You could also c) move to a 1-party nation or an anarchy. In an anarchy, you would see no tax, no government action, nobody to keep things under control, and barter instead of currency (currency can't work without a treasury, which would require government). I doubt you'd enjoy thugs with a gun to your head asking for the goods you're carrying, with no police force to fight them off. Maybe they'd have a gun and you don't due to lack of a gun law. Maybe you'd take a drink from a fountain of non-regulated anarchist water to notice it's tainted and contract toxoplasmosis. No government to take you to the hospital to get treated, or maybe an untrained doctor could attempt to help. The barter system would be used, and an apple merchant could be looking for mangoes and you notice you can't trade for any apples because you're only carrying oranges. Anarchy=Chaos. Chaos is bad, we should all be civil rather than a bunch of apes running around trading fruit or stealing things with no consequence.

"From your description earlier, it sounds to me like you are indeed a communist, as communism was practiced, not theoretical communism with no government at all (insane pipe-dream, and ugly dream as well). Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe government should set economic policy. You believe government should enforce morality, as with drug and alcohol prohibition. You believe that liberty (as defined in the bill or rights e.g.) should be exchanged for security and order, in order to prevent 'anarchy.' That sounds like communism in practice to me; of course, a better name would be oligarchical collectivism. Either way, you should come to America! We're nearing your ideal every day! But watch out, some people aren't real happy about that, so I wouldn't go around cheering, 'Horray! Enslave me! Take my rights and my wealth! Isn't the government generous for telling us how best we should live?!' :Not-Impressed: "
-I'm not communist. I shriek at the word and remember suffering and famine that people have endured. I'm not communist. Call me Fatah, Nationalist, Progressive, Liberal, Center-Left. It doesn't matter what you call me, but I'm no communist. If you were in the Authoritarian right, I wouldn't call you fascist. Or anarchist if you were in the Libertarian left. It's all relative. The constitution called for freedom and liberty. They are a product of government. I wouldn't sacrifice them for security, nor would I give up security for freedom. Government is necessary for both. It won't give you everything you want, and you'll never agree with everyone, but you wouldn't either if you lived in anarchy. "Yay for Anarchy! No government to provide medical care, clean water, a food supply, shelter, safety, assistance, or crowd/crime control! No taxes or anyone to tell me what to do, but I can fend off criminals, collect food, filter water, and get educated by myself." I'll just explain by saying I support gun control, compulsory classroom attendance, drug control, punishment for breaking laws, work for everyone, and that the government provides the necessities (minus food) that people need to survive. It isn't communist if people get freedom within a reasonable frame of control. Reasonable as in outlawing murder and other immoral acts, without religiously immmoral acts included.

"Leonard, I don't think that 'dumb' is the right word. 'Ignorant' would be one of them, and another would be 'spoiled'. I think many get spoiled by certain things, like what the media dishes out. We have too many channels to choose from, fast food everywhere. In general, people are spoiled which leads to almost a volunteered ignorance.
With YouTube, we all can be Journalists and be famous, because we think we are entitled to it.

To quote Dennis Miller: That's just my opinion, I may be wrong."
-Not everyone is spoiled. The government doesn't spoil, it only gives us what we need. Media is entertainment. Media is the opiate of the middle classes (no reference to the Marx quote on religion- I am a very religious, non-communist man). We are only spoiled by it if we think it is spoiling us, i.e the placebo effect. Of course, there are people who get lucky in the stock market, and live as millionaires. They become spoiled. They can only get rich in the stock market when there is a government present. This is luck, and luck is natural. If anarchy is defined as chaos, or keeping everything natural, then one may become lucky in anarchy and become spoiled (perhaps by finding a river teeming with fish to eat or an immense oasis teeming with life). If you would allow me to explain, I used dumb as a synonym of blind follower or distracted. Of course not everyone is like this, but basic things are distracting us from politics, important events, and economic topics. We use the word economy like it's nothing special; the word economy has been worn out. People say the word without knowing what it means, what supply and demand are, the Phillip's Curve, Stagflation, Real and Nominal GDP, the Keynes Effect, etc...
Anyway, I wasn't intending to call Americans stupid. It was another one of those annoying problems with subjective definitions.

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 09:21 PM ----------

About the freedom within a frame of control, I don't mean freedom as an illusion. I mean real freedom, but not pure freedom.

1 Reply

@Leonard,

Leonard;86190 wrote:

-If differences in ideology are merely an illusion, do people just vote for a party based on the candidate's good character and background?

Sometimes, but mostly the illusion is successful! Most people vote based on 'ideology.' In other words, the propoganda is effective and people actually believe that the Republicans and Democrats differ in the way they say they do; but they don't differ. The people don't understand the genuine political philosophy of either the true right (individualists) or the true left (collectivists), so they vote for the slogans which they are told in the corporate media mean one or the other, or for the candidates which the media tells them are one or the other, but really everything about both parties is fascistic. The 'right' does not believe in individualism, the 'left' does not believe in collectivism; they both believe in oligarchical collectivism: i.e. fascism.

Quote:

I've never heard of a case where a die-hard republican votes for a democrat because he seems like a good guy. He'd rather vote for a mean republican because they also oppose abortion. You can't be a little pro-life. You are either pro- or anti- abortion. The two parties have contrasting views on specific things.

Agreed, the parties do have very distinct views on a select number of laughably inconsequential and highly emotional issues. That is intentional. It's the same as Roman mobs rioting over differently colored chariot teams, and being placated if the emperor adopted their teams color. It's just a color, just an appearance. On substantive issues, almost all if not actually all, the 'right' and the 'left' have the same views, and that, once again, is because they are controlled by the same special interests: high finance, military contractors, bigPharma, bigAgribusiness, etc. (though high finance is by far the most influential of our behind-the-scene masters).

Quote:

Now if you have scattered views, you could a) not vote, or b) make up your mind. You could also c) move to a 1-party nation or an anarchy. In an anarchy, you would see no tax, no government action, nobody to keep things under control, and barter instead of currency (currency can't work without a treasury, which would require government). I doubt you'd enjoy thugs with a gun to your head asking for the goods you're carrying, with no police force to fight them off. Maybe they'd have a gun and you don't due to lack of a gun law. Maybe you'd take a drink from a fountain of non-regulated anarchist water to notice it's tainted and contract toxoplasmosis. No government to take you to the hospital to get treated, or maybe an untrained doctor could attempt to help. The barter system would be used, and an apple merchant could be looking for mangoes and you notice you can't trade for any apples because you're only carrying oranges. Anarchy=Chaos. Chaos is bad, we should all be civil rather than a bunch of apes running around trading fruit or stealing things with no consequence.

I don't have to choose between anarchy and authoritarianism. I can choose a limited, constitional republic. We had it, we lost it, and we want it back!

Quote:

-I'm not communist. I shriek at the word and remember suffering and famine that people have endured. I'm not communist. Call me Fatah, Nationalist, Progressive, Liberal, Center-Left. It doesn't matter what you call me, but I'm no communist.

Remember, I'm not saying you believe in what Marx had to say. I'm saying that the system you are describing resembles what communism turned out to be in practice. But you know what, forget I said it. No need for the label. The substance of what you're saying speaks for itself.

Quote:

The constitution called for freedom and liberty. They are a product of government. I wouldn't sacrifice them for security, nor would I give up security for freedom. Government is necessary for both. It won't give you everything you want, and you'll never agree with everyone, but you wouldn't either if you lived in anarchy.

Who said anything about anarchy? I'm not anarchist. I'm a libertarian. I believe in very limited government, not none at all.

Quote:

"Yay for Anarchy! No government to provide medical care, clean water, a food supply, shelter, safety, assistance, or crowd/crime control! No taxes or anyone to tell me what to do, but I can fend off criminals, collect food, filter water, and get educated by myself."

'Anarchy' is not a situation in which government does not provide medical care, food, and shelter. Why would you assume that, if government fails to provide such things, those things won't exist? Are you aware of the 19th century in the U.S.? ...It was horrible! The government didn't provide any of these services! Humanity experienced the greatest increase of material prosperity in history! O wait..:sarcastic:

Quote:

I'll just explain by saying I support gun control, compulsory classroom attendance, drug control, punishment for breaking laws, work for everyone, and that the government provides the necessities (minus food) that people need to survive. It isn't communist if people get freedom within a reasonable frame of control. Reasonable as in outlawing murder and other immoral acts, without religiously immmoral acts included.

These proposals of yours which I underlined are unconstitional. I thought you supported the consitition? The only proposal I agree with is 'punishment for breaking laws,' and who wouldn't? An anarchist I suppose...and I'm not one.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

kennethamy;85990 wrote:

If America could survive Jimmy Carter, and can survive Barack Obama, America can survive anything.

Survive Jimmy Carter? Survive the most morally upright President of the modern era?

Oh no, he botch the Hostage Crisis. At least he never botched a war.

This was a man who railed against the injustices of the Georgia courts and Georgia attorneys - to their faces at a speech at the University of Georgia Law School. That takes some, what I like to call, moral balls.

This was a man who, after publicly saying that McGovern was unelectable, tried to get on as the man's running mate. He knew McGovern would lose, but was willing to be a losing VP candidate anyway. To run with the better man, to run with the good and honest McGovern against the despicable, criminal Nixon.

He opposed the death penalty, work extensively for civil rights - as the Governor of Georgia for goodness sake! He gave amnesty to Vietnam War draft dodgers, he was the first President to address gay rights - and he supported gay rights! Carter had the moral balls to speak honestly to the public - which is evident to anyone who cares to give his "Malaise" speech a listen.

This is a Nobel Prize winning diplomat who spent unimaginable energy try to better the situation in Israel/Palestine at a time when President Bush, who we may not have survived at all, was unwilling to do anything at all but support the mounting death toll.

Jimmy Carter is a great American, maybe the greatest alive, a man who boldly served his country as Governor of Georgia and then as President of the United States. He is a humble man, an honest man, and one of the great modern American Presidents.

His electoral defeat marked the end of an era - and the full blossoming of PR-Politics with the election of B-movie actor, cigarette peddling Ronald Reagan.

Survived Jimmy Carter.... I'm surprised we survived with only one term with him in office. We desperately needed two.

1 Reply

Forums
» United states ranting, a changing country

Read Discussion
Reply to All

United states ranting, a changing country

Quick Links

My Account

able2know