Where is the US economy headed?

Try not to be so utterly ridiculous rl.

Anybody who has the faintest idea about moral philosophy would not ask such an absurd question,

I agree with Kant's categorical imperative. You don't. What can moral philosophy do for you is your only consideration. And you have a vast menu to choose from some part of which you can shoe-horn to fit your needs.

"

I can agree with some of what Kant says but when it comes to Kant believing the ultimate worth of his philosophy lay in his willingness "to criticize reason in order to make room for faith." I do find flaws in that thinking.

In Zum ewigen Frieden (On Perpetual Peace) (1795), Kant proposed a high-minded scheme for securing widespread political stability and security. If statesmen would listen to philosophers, he argued, we could easily achieve an international federation of independent republics, each of which reduces its standing army, declines to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, and agrees to be governed by the notion of universal hospitality.

Now that is something I can agree with. Why do you suppose he did not say "statesmen should listen to theologists when it comes to the well being of society?

Because it was obvious that they already did do.

Do you think that maybe it is past time that we started implementing his strategy and start listening to the moral philosophers of our time?

I am here at Miami beach on vacation and working from my laptop which I have not figured out very well, I am having problems such as conection and no spell check, I suck at spelling if no one has not noticed.

Good post; I agree with the thesis of what we do is how all of us will eventually end up - right or wrong decisions. That's because all of our judgements are subjective.

Yes--I am inclined to think that we are not morally entitled to promote an idea we are not prepared to accept that it should command universal approval. Because if the promotion is effective it will command more and more approval and eventually become universal. Just as rail-roads have become universally accepted and destroyed many a fortune in the canal business. An original promoter of railroads, facing stiff opposition in Congress, was prepared to accept that approval rating. The fact that he made a lot of money, and some leverage on power, or that he might have abused that money and power for immoral purposes, is neither here nor there. Faster transportation is a universal good isn't it?

I sometimes notice that my page was loaded in 0.00000013 of a second. That's ******* fast. Getting it down to 0.oooooo11 of a second might be the growth engine everybody is seeking.

The waterways lobbies, among others, were laid low by the demand for it faster and faster, which must have been a force the railroad men knew was irresistible, and thus it is predictable that US men have turned out to be the fastest in the civilised world, according to an international survey, in which, to nobody's surprise, Greek men are the slowest. Steve Martin, in The Man With Two Brains, demonstrated the ultimate idealised version and again it is no surprise that such a "First" in movie history should be of American origin.

Obviously matters to be pondered by moral philosophers and economists far better qualified that I am. I only connect things up like Dylan shows us all how to do. The survey and Martin's scene for example. I can't help it. I don't will it or anything silly like that. I saw the Martin scene before I saw the survey. Years before. I had thought it amusing but when I saw the survey I guffawed at how slow sociology is compared to art.

So lie back on your beach and close your eyes and ponder that ****. Relax!!

It's probably cut out of TV screenings now.

Don't ask what "it" is!! You wanting it faster and faster is all that matters at this stage.

Check out Fox News' Round the World in 80 seconds feechewer.

reason I'm glad you posted this. This is what I am referring to. It is their attempt to tell voters that they are not elitists and that they understand the common american problems. But they don't obviously or they wouldn't be trying to hard to make these speeches over and over. They are selling bullshit and calling it a gold nugget. They honestly expect voters to sympathize with them over these silly speeches?

So? What's your solution Krumpie.

We do not need to be told that the water is rising up to the curtain rail. We need to know what to do about it.

Are you in favor of socialist policies? Such as everyone should have basic human amenities? ie. shelter, food, clothing a job? If you do think there should be a basis for which we provide for everyone equally as far as basic human needs go then I suggest this on top of this.

Why not allow yearly random picks of the populous to run government? Hear me out. We do something similar for juries in some court cases. Why not expand it to politics? Every year we select a new group to run everything. These are common people. Some poor, some middle class and others wealthy. But it is always a pick from every day people, just like a jury. The people who served before them can stay on for one additional year as advisers to the new group.

This way we don't have corporate elitists billionaires who run the country and bend at the knee every time some bank or large corporation needs a bailout. This way these people will know the common experience of every day Americans and not lose perspective. It will be a true democracy of sorts because no one person/class will have power.

As we sit right now there is absolutely NO ONE in government who understands every day american experience. They all are wealthy snobs who wouldn't know the first thing about how bad the economic conditions are for a wide range of people. They have lost perspective and only care about making their constituents more wealthy.

I'll leave this final note. My plan couldn't be any worse than what we currently have. It is worth the risk and we might as well ratify and try something new because the current system is not working.

This would then bring back the very saying, "We the people" instead of, "We the elitists".

I like it. A lot.

An extension of direct democracy.

Me too! It is always nice to hear the perspective of an intelectual like Krumple "She really has much to add to a philosophical descusions and even more so when she comes across as being civil in the face of those who do not agree with all of her perspectives.. Please forgive my spelling as I am poor at spelling and have no spell chek at this time.

Would you disqualify anyone from your pool of people that can be picked?

I would personally think that some may not be qualified but I could only hope that a majority would be in place to counter that person but I do realize that may be naive of me.

Well you might have to give me an example because to be honest I would have to say no. As soon as you start to discriminate on who could be selected then you start closing the door and in the future this list might grow and after a while people might start insisting that people have certain skills/education/knowledge to qualify and then you end up back where we started.

mentally retarded? Senile? How about the criminally insane?

I think the idea is shaky at the least, but in fairness, while the jury pool is random, some can be disqualified for cause, with a limited number of preemptory challenges allowed.

I don't think it's workable, but sometimes it does seem like we could have done better by throwing darts at a phone directory.