Ekballo Suus

If we're the future how come many people plan our demise?

Maybe Thomas Jefferson had this in mind when he said that there should be a revolution every generation.

A very apposite quotation.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson had this in mind when he said that there should be a revolution every generation.

 

I've seen many references stating that Jefferson and a couple of other FFs were well versed in the sections of Polybius Book 6 dealing with governmental forms and the ideal constitution The implication of such statements is clear.

 

So I think you have a pretty safe assumtion there...

Yeap, history is cyclical. There is no solution other than what TJ said, but ofcourse, that is not practical.

Ah, I overlooked this! Makes me think... if this concept was widely considered, would humans be able maintain some sort of equilibrium? Or do you think that this revolution/freedom/oppression cycle cannot be affected?

Ah, I overlooked this! Makes me think... if this concept was widely considered, would humans be able maintain some sort of equilibrium? Or do you think that this revolution/freedom/oppression cycle cannot be affected?

 

Definitely food for thought.

One would have to define these words before a discussion could take place. Did the Sun Yat Sen, Bolshevic, French or American revolutions bring freedom to all those peoples? I don't think so.

They all left the door open for someone or some group to assume the state's power to remove freedoms from or exert control on the rest. I would define freedom as ultimate personal accountability. Maybe its just Americans, but a lot of people I know are conditioned to think that giving people (other than themselves or who they associate themselves with) a lot of freedom is undesirable.

 

Perhaps that's the case now that many people are not accountable to themselves and the natural consequences of their actions, but rather to a regulation and its state imposed consequences. If you remove much of the overarching behavioural control of government (that does not directly apply to individual rights), many people will have nothing within themselves to fall back on. Does that mean the situation deserves to persist? How do you give people the ability to reason, forsee consequences, and respect the freedom they and others deserve? With a state regulation or institution?

 

Most government intervention never truly solves any problems, it transfers responsibility from individuals to an establishment and reinforces the need for further intervention as a solution. I'm rambling now...

 

The point is, that freedom itself doesn't solve problems, but it creates people who can - because they have learned that using your mind and/or body to overcome the challenge of survival is the essence of life.

 

The reason I've focused on educational deregulation in many of my discussions is because children are the key to social change. I'd like to see kids growing up and learning outside the influence of the government with no limitations on what they can know or think and see the resulting changes in the U.S.

"Maybe its just Americans, but a lot of people I know are conditioned to think that giving people (other than themselves or who they associate themselves with) a lot of freedom is undesirable."

 

Amen! U.S.A. today.

 

"How do you give people the ability to reason, forsee consequences, and respect the freedom they and others deserve? With a state regulation or institution?"

 

What would you substitute?

 

"Most government intervention never truly solves any problems, it transfers responsibility from individuals to an establishment and reinforces the need for further intervention as a solution. I'm rambling now..."

 

Slavery? Civil rights? Crime? The gluttony of CEO's and BoD's?

 

"The point is, that freedom itself doesn't solve problems, but it creates people who can - because they have learned that using your mind and/or body to overcome the challenge of survival is the essence of life."

 

Without government or its 'interference', how would these other 'people', create and maintain this end?

 

"The reason I've focused on educational deregulation in many of my discussions is because children are the key to social change. I'd like to see kids growing up and learning outside the influence of the government with no limitations on what they can know or think and see the resulting changes in the U.S."

 

I agree with most of what you have said about the education system in the U.S., yet it has produced so much for the modern world. What, exactly, would you substitute?

 

My point, in my response, is that the individual alone or even in large groups, cannot gain or maintain 'freedom' without government. Again, I cite slavery as one example.

"Maybe its just Americans, but a lot of people I know are conditioned to think that giving people (other than themselves or who they associate themselves with) a lot of freedom is undesirable."

 

Amen! U.S.A. today.

 

"How do you give people the ability to reason, forsee consequences, and respect the freedom they and others deserve? With a state regulation or institution?"

 

What would you substitute?

I intended the educational freedom idea to be a starting point.

 

"Most government intervention never truly solves any problems, it transfers responsibility from individuals to an establishment and reinforces the need for further intervention as a solution. I'm rambling now..."

 

Slavery? Civil rights? Crime? The gluttony of CEO's and BoD's?

Can we just get rid of corporate welfare? Social security? Immense layers of bureaucracy? An interruption in these would seriously inferfere the expectations of entire structures and groups of people who are accusomed to and reliant upon them. I feel that most people are so alienated from other real people and so captivated by abstract masses of 'authority' and media that its hard to imagine these people becomming motivated to ensure that the others around them are not just slipping through the cracks. I do actually believe that this would be the natural reaction for fully responsible people - people want harmony and are sympathetic by nature. I know that I myself am hesitant to significantly contribute monetary aid to anything because I consider the taxes taken from my paycheck, the taxes I pay when purchasing anything, the taxes I pay for simply owning property, etc to be more than enough of a sacrifice on my part. However, I am incredibly interested in the children in my extended family and try to stimulate their intellects as much as possible. Instead of buying meaningless, waste-of-time toys, why not get them a good book or something they can be creative with? I do this because I think it will make a big difference in their lives later on. Perhaps they won't be satified with the generic meaning for life handed to them.

 

"The point is, that freedom itself doesn't solve problems, but it creates people who can - because they have learned that using your mind and/or body to overcome the challenge of survival is the essence of life."

 

Without government or its 'interference', how would these other 'people', create and maintain this end?

Mutual agreement. Clothes are a necessity right? Many people wopuld probably not survive without them. Does that mean that the government needs to be involved with clothing people? Groups of people use their mental and physical capabilities to produce clothes. As a consumer, I buy the clothes that I like best or think are the best value. The people making these clothes create and mantain this end without having to govern me and I aquire the clothes by mutual agreement and benefit. So many things are percieved to be only the realm of the state. It hasn't always been this way, it slowly became this way.

 

"The reason I've focused on educational deregulation in many of my discussions is because children are the key to social change. I'd like to see kids growing up and learning outside the influence of the government with no limitations on what they can know or think and see the resulting changes in the U.S."

 

I agree with most of what you have said about the education system in the U.S., yet it has produced so much for the modern world. What, exactly, would you substitute?

 

My point, in my response, is that the individual alone or even in large groups, cannot gain or maintain 'freedom' without government. Again, I cite slavery as one example.

I don't think the schooling system has produced so much for the modern world. Education has... but the U.S. school system is not primarily focused on education IMO. History and my personal experinces confirm that for me. Do you know about Thomas Edison's education?

 

Government is necessary. Absolutely. However, its role should be to enforce individual rights and protect its citizens from outside threat. Slavery cannot be practiced without violating these rights. Violence, theft, etc.

Re Soc. Sec.:

republiks, buckleyites (whose acolytes don't have a clue as to what he belches), the rectal ranger reeganuts and the neopathetics, who regurgitate the vomit of their masters, have one object: to destroy the S.S. Sys. Not because they have a desire to do any good for the great unwashed but rather because their masters reject the very thought that they have to contribute to the system. They are ignorant of, or feign ignorance of, the fact that this is a cost of labor and a deduction from their fraudulent 'bottom lines' and thus their tax burden. Best for these slackers and thieves to then steal it from you and me, the shareholders. The nation has been at war for most of its existence for the benefit of this lot. Their blood is not spilled.

 

This is where history and experience come into play. The system was launched during the Great Depression, (in reality for the benefit of Pres. Roosevelt's class), as the state legislatures (particularly in the now Red States) were becoming infested with communists and socialists. The congress had the disease of Vito Marcantonio to contend with. Aside from Roosevelt's good intentions, something had to be done for the starving polloi, lest the nation go over to the Dark Side. Ergo, Social Security, amongst others. At the time few were expected to live beyond age 65, so no big deal to the government. As usual, the FUND would soon find its way into the purses of the 'proper people', the 'good families'. The most did not and could not save for their retirements as they had all to do keeping body and soul together under the guidance of such benefactors as Ford and Carnege(?) and Rockefeller. The above mentioned 'acolytes' feel that they should be able to rub dumpers with them, this hopefully resulting in a 'lock'. Soon they will experience the joys of flatulence and feculence.

 

At this time, California was populated by the citizen 'dregs' of humanity. At the time many of these louts were refused entry into paradise by that state's police.

 

It was at this time that mac arthur*, the great general and patriot and all around incompetant, AGAINST THE ORDERS of pres. hoover, FIRED on the WWI veterans for daring to peacefully march, under the banner of a valiant Marine general, for their meagre service bonus before they and their families starved to death. Ah!, but then there is hoover, himself. After WWI, he supervised the giving away of food to starving Belguim. A gift, free, nada, zilch! When his 'free market' administration held that 'prosperity was just around the corner', they gave food to the grocers for free, nada, zilch. These in turn were obligated to 'sell' said to the rabble. These yokels (particularly in the south), had a word in the cup likes of the grocers - along with a rope to clarify any misunderstandings, and the food was then distributed free of charge.

 

Charity:

By this, one may assume that the soup kitchen of Al Capone in Chicago is meant. Or, mayhaps, the charity of the of the newly poor whose vaults were emptied by the bank failures and stock market dive. Or do we mean Rockefeller's public relations 'dime'?

 

In conclusion:

By all 'means', let's have done with S.S. I wonder if it is known that a pauper given a million bucks today and invests it properly, will merely be poor? That little matter of inflation will soon return him to his former estate. But we must have charitable thoughts for the top management of corporations with their personal boards and back dated options.

 

Now for Taxes:

Yes, it is the welfare queens, slackers and cannon fodder who eat them up. Not the 'good people'. Therefore away with them. Each can build his own highway and with his Second Amendment alleged 'right', protect himself. Keep a bucket handy in the unlikely event of a fire. Do home schooling. Have his own FDA to protect him against kangaroofurters and e-coli snout burgers and the assorted mountbanks hawking their potions on the uwary. Have his own back yard well for water in the outhouse and kitchen and tub. Just too bad if one lives in a city. Museums? Libraries? Parks? Why bother? And lest it is forgotten, ones own Soc. Sec. Sys. As a digression, I wonder how well it is known amongst the first mentioned ignoratti, that Medicare, save for numb-orchid's Part D, has a 2% overhead, while the vaunted HMO's have an average 18%? Of course, it feels so much better to pay ones taxes to an HMO than one of the government's few successful programs for the komrades. Don't forget best to come down with a stroke while one is out of his service area. A 'medical professional', located in nearby Tanu Tuva, with many home schooling diplomas, and speaking Thracian, will assist you for quite a very long while as your brain turns into cheese.

 

At Last, Books:

It is my personal, unalterable, inflexible and determined view that all rug-rats over the age of three be lavished with books. Not, however to the exclusion of a baseball, doll or coloring book.

 

* Please get me started on that traitor.

* Please get me started on that traitor.

 

Don Tomasso,

 

Please see the poll I have started in the general history forum...

Some services do hold some value. I mean seriously, I value public libraries (even if I buy any book I need, if i cant find the info on the internet) and I value the fact that some minute fraction of my tax money goes to medical care for nieces and nephews of mine whose parents are utterly incompetent at providing for themselves, let alone a child.

 

Now, how different do you think the U.S. would be if idealogues and corporate giants never gained control over state matters, society had not been shaped through forced schooling, foreign interventionism never came into play, etc. ?

 

In this scenario, however it plays out in your mind, would the government or corporations be so overbearing? Would people be more inventive, entrpreneurial, and reliant on themselves and their communities? Would the U.S. be a hegemon? Would we targeted by terrorism?