We got off topic during the Irritating News Item Discussion. So I start this tread for the sake of the political or ethical discussion of freedom and its consequences.
The Freedom Discussion
(42 posts) (6 voices)-
Eric,
as I said, I don't really know communism. I just used one part of it where I can stand behind it, if it is executed by free will instead of enforced. Capitalism has it's advantages too, but with its great economical power comes a great responsibility to use it well.
- "And where do the more expansive claims of your freedom end? I'd like to walk in the rain, but not be bothered to carry an umbrella. Can I demand that the gov't force someone to do it for me, to give me my freedom from carrying an umbrella?"
No, you would be forcing that government person to do something and taking his freedom away. What I suggest is that we stop wanting things for ourselves (egoism) and see to the wants of the others. Use Empathy (Do unto others what you would want them to do to yourself). So if you find it raining and are troubled by being wet (while not carrying an umbrella) you might see someone without an umbrella (who has more need for it then) and give or loan that person your umbrella.You might then even, seeing as you don't like to carry it yourself for yourself, carry it for that person, thus treating that person as you would want to be treated. Radical idea, I know. Yet it is a commandment every christian has. It's going the extra mile, like Christ told us in the sermon on the mount. It's giving your coat together with your shirt when only your shirt was asked. Bill Hybels once wrote the context of those examples Christ gave in the culture of the time, concerning certain laws there. And it just results in giving up your own freedom so that others get more of it.
For example, using that principle in our capitalistic society, is the fact that we like running water. Not having that would seriously worry us. We'd get angry for not having it provided to us. Right? So seeing our need for running water we can turn our eyes to Africa, where in some areas, people, entire villages don't have running water. Now seeing that same need with someone else, what should we do? Shouldn't we try to give them running water (if it is within our capabilities)?
Will we get the same treatment in return? Probably not. Do we need to? No. Christ never says us to expect to be praised for it. Most likely, people will just not understand it. Why do we do that? Our only answer should be because of our love. Not human love, but divine love within us. This reminds me of the song that goes: "They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love. Yes they'll know we are Christians by our love."
- You use a lot of examples which deal with whats going on in America right now. I don't know about those, so that doesn't really help.
I don't know Ayn Rand and I don't know much about Obama's decisions or program, and the GM take over doesn't ring a bell with me (Cars generally don't interest me, so I had to think twice before I got what GM stands for). However, any takeover to me is the proof of the flaws of capitalism. One gets more, a million hard workers lose their job. Who was most in need of the extra money? The head of those companies or the hard workers?But I guess that you are against that yourself, judging what you write.
"To put it another way, economic wealth is generally expansive in a capitalist system. Everyone gets wealthier. Bill Gates helped me. He did not steal from me to make his billions. He provided help to little ol' me, and in return, I gladly gave him some of my valuable cash for his even more valuable product.
I would love to be able to help ten thousand people with the problem of 'I have three spare hours, and I'm bored.' I'd sell them a novel, and they'd be happy, and I'd go buy a new car, and I'd be really happy.
America's wealth is largely founded on hard work, risk-taking, and wisdom with a heaping helping of trustworthiness. Decreasing freedom in that system is like pouring sand into a fine Swiss watch."
So America solved the problem of poverty? You guys have more poverty then us in Belgium. In Belgium for example, everybody has a health insurance by default. (our entire social structure is stronger) How can this happen? Because from every paycheck a certain percentage is taken which the government uses to put up a social system for every citizen. It means giving instead of taking, which then results in receiving again.
Mon Sep 7 2009 9:23 am # - "And where do the more expansive claims of your freedom end? I'd like to walk in the rain, but not be bothered to carry an umbrella. Can I demand that the gov't force someone to do it for me, to give me my freedom from carrying an umbrella?"
-
Tadeusz
MemberNikolaj,
Okay, lets not call it communism then because the use of government power is part of the term. Voluntary charity or communalism is more what you're advocating (or you say you are. There are parts where it seems like you do advocate gov't power.)
I've heard the arguement that the voluntary communalism that was practised by the early church failed, and this was proof that it was a bad idea. (We've actually been studying this communalism in my Sunday night class which is...interesting.)
I'm also wondering if the voluntary communalism largely applies between Christians.
Running water. Africa. What the people of Africa need is a revivified British Empire. In Ethiopia, much of the starvation was deliberate government of Ethiopia policy. Starvation was used as a tool against internal enemies. Much of Africa's problem is that if you get rich by hard work, the second cousin of the President for Life is going to come around with some army buds, steal your factory, and then run it into the ground.
If you give Arabs tractors, they will use them until they run out of oil, and then the tractor will break. Its not so much laziness as 'it will be as Allah wills'. If you take them missiles, the leader of the missile group might hold back on the maintenance data from his troops because information is power and he doesn't want to share. Which really messes up the maintenance.
Its not as easy as giving people money. You have to train them to think the right way, and you have to stop the thugs that all societies have from stealing it.
In Somalia you have two groups of tribes, the Samil?? and the Sab. The Sab farm, make shoes, work hard. The Samil, who the country is named after, fight and loot the Sab and sneer at the hard-working Sab.
There is a Venezeuelan blog called The Devil's Excrement which has the viewpoint that perhaps God chose to curse various nations by giving them oil. Vast wealth, foreigners working and giving you money for you doing nothing....most societies with oil seem to be messed up. You would replace oil with Christian charity and do harm.
Wise as serpents.
In America...
Ayn Rand was one of the premier philosophers of the 20th century. She would consider you evil, probably. I don't agree with her, but she has many useful points amid the junk. She was and is very influential. Sadly, her novels are considered great by her followers and extremely boring by most (Nothing like a 53 page speech by the hero to liven a book up!). However, it is possible that without her, you and I'd be saluting the Hammer and Sickle each morning.
GM takeover? Um, this is one of the largest corporations in the world. No European is ever allowed again to criticize any American for being too provincial :). Obama gave the struggling corporation billions of dollars which it then blew, but he attached a few strings when he gave the money. When it sank for the second time, he rescued it again, but used those strings, and gave much of the corporation to the UAW, the union, those hard-struggling workers who are making 52 bucks an hour (my heart bleeds for them.). In other words, he engaged in Fascism and he used the American Taxpayer to foot the bill. When the Swedish government rebukes you for going too socialist, you might think you have a problem. And Obama fired the head of the corporation. And we can now assume that GM will produce cars with the same wonderful efficiency that the gov't brings to everything else which is to say, not any.
I'm for the hard workers getting ahead. The thing is that Ayn Rand was right...the thing that the Have-nots have not is Capitalism. We'd be better off in America with more capitalism, and less fascism.
America vs. Belgium. Um, you are aware that we protect you and the rest of Europe from Bad People with Guns who'd like to steal all your neat stuff, right? And that you don't have to spend your money doing it. Imagine how much more money America could spend on football stadiums if we just sold our aircraft carriers to Putin.
I've reccomended Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Anthem) to you, and now I'll reccomend someone more modern. John Birmingham just came out with a SF novel about what happens when America is vaped by a wave of energy from space. At first, some Frenchmen are happy, but the wiser are heading too the hills. Two weeks later, no one is happy. 'Without Warning (America is Gone)'. The interesting thing is I thought of JB as liberal.
Also, this system you have in Belgium is backed up by government power. Pay or get tossed in jail. Thats not voluntary charity.
I read in the Bible that the poor we will have with us always. I'm not sure that the problem of poverty can be solved.
I've also heard the arguement that the poor in America basically have it as good as the Swedish. In other words, America is on a higher plane as a whole than Europe, despite our paying for your security.
With health insurance, we have problems that need to be fixed to be sure. But taking the issue from giant corps and giving it to even more giant government seems suspicious to me. I've heard a lot of rather eyebrow raising stories of people waiting very long times on waiting lists in Europe. Now, I've had some experience with that myself but I suspect it would be far worse in Europe or simply unavailable. I suspect that my second-born son might simply have been written off in Europe as born too young.
This is not to say that we don't have problems with health insurance in America, but it seems to me that the More Government solution is like saying 'you have cynanide and sarin gas poisoning and so we're going to give you more cyanide.' Most of our problems are probably created by government. I honestly don't know what to do to fix things, and I suspect most people are in that boat as well.
Mon Sep 7 2009 3:51 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know Eric, I figured you would be up in arms about what I said about the chemical tagging in cough syrup. From what I know about it, the tagging chemical is more or less harmless, if taken with the proper dose of cough syrup. If taken with the dose needed to hallucinate, it causes severe internal pain, and gastrointestinal problems. Supposedly, only people who use it as a hallucinogen would be affected by this, however, fact remains, the chemical tag is not mentioned on the label. Have you given your child cough syrup in the past 4 years? (That's about when it started) What if your child was the one person on earth who was allergic to the chemical tag? How would you feel about it then? What if, right now, it's to keep people from getting high off cough syrup, but next week, it's mind control in the water? Where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? Most people don't even know about this chemical tagging. (Indeed, unless you're a Robo-enthusiast, you probably wouldn't.) Point is though, it's still there, and thousands of kids drink it unknowingly every day.
Mon Sep 7 2009 5:16 pm # -
"Its not as easy as giving people money. You have to train them to think the right way, and you have to stop the thugs that all societies have from stealing it."
I never wanted to suggest to just give them money. I said that we, having a lot of wealth have responsibilities. Just as the military advantage of the US makes them, like you say, protect Europe from bad people, people who have lots of wealth can use their money to train teams to go over there and provide help, training, ...
"Also, this system you have in Belgium is backed up by government power. Pay or get tossed in jail. Thats not voluntary charity."
Partly true and partly untrue. Belgians are obligated to vote. So <i>everybody</i> had a hand in what government is acting at the moment. So while a minority (even if it might be a big minority) did not choose for it, the majority did.
I guess that in some European countries you could have had problems with your son. But Belgium (and the Netherlands even more so) have a strong childcare system. (Ironically we were also the first to legalize abortion etc. :-()
"I read in the Bible that the poor we will have with us always. I'm not sure that the problem of poverty can be solved." True, but the bible also stresses to take care of the poor (and the widow and the orphan). So that argument is, how do you call it, moot?
I also think that we are in most cases misunderstanding each other. You talk a lot about government, while I mostly (unless stated otherwise) talk about individual action. It's true that the government is responsible for running the country, but it can't do it alone. It needs the support of it's people doing little things here and there.
You can't expect the government to solve hunger, but if most families don't throw away their leftovers, but bring them to a beggar in the street (or even better, invite the beggar at their table) then hunger would be not such an issue as it is at the moment. But the thing is that we're constantly pointing to the government to fix things we could easily prevent if we all take responsibility. But as we are not doing that these problems need fixing, and so you get government directed health care, minimum wages, ...
Furthermore we are both defending our own way of life. We are both brought up in a certain society and its hard to see another society and not see the differences, and mostly the negative differences.
"America vs. Belgium. Um, you are aware that we protect you and the rest of Europe from Bad People with Guns who'd like to steal all your neat stuff, right? And that you don't have to spend your money doing it. Imagine how much more money America could spend on football stadiums if we just sold our aircraft carriers to Putin."
Because football is important, right? This is what we would call American arrogance. They are here to save the world, patronizing everyone... :/ It's true, WW2 would have had a different ending if America hadn't been involved, and I'm grateful America did get involved. But assuming that we cannot help ourselves and that America is the worlds police or babysitter is a bit far fetched, don't you think?
Mon Sep 7 2009 5:21 pm # -
Eric, when you have one sentence accusing the President of fascism and another, immediately afterward, calling him socialist, I find it very difficult to motivate myself to read the rest of your post.
Mon Sep 7 2009 8:24 pm # -
Broadly speaking, it is the function of the government to restrict freedoms for two purposes:
- to protect fairness and justice
- to preserve other freedomsIt is also the function of government to force (and oversee) communal action for communal benefit.
That's vague and general, but so was your request. I welcome questions.
_____
(Discordianism focuses very much on the level of the individual, or, on the other extreme, the level of the entire race, and as such my faith has relatively little bearing on my political stances. At least, not directly and obviously . . .)Mon Sep 7 2009 11:17 pm # -
Okay, so how does it work on an individual level? Do you look after each other or do you just mind your own business (according to discordianism)? As far as I can see freedom can easily lead to individualism, because you mostly concern about your own freedom. But I can see Discordians just taunting structure for the fun of it or for making people think about which rules (written or unwritten) are necessary and which are obsolete. (I remember the broomstick thing from the B-movie world and I remember reading the PDF of the principa you linked me to describing discordian meetings, something to do with wearing bathrobes in public.
Are there hard rules, necessary rules that should not be broken for Discordians? And do these then impede on (personal) freedom or enforce it or be not related to it at all?
Mon Sep 7 2009 11:29 pm # -
Scott--it's not so easy to distinguish fascism from socialism/communism in practice, because in both cases all the means of production are owned and operated by "the state", but the state means something different.
In fascism, there is a strong central government that theoretically represents the best for the people, which oversees all means of production. Thus all factories belong to "the state" which means the central government.
In socialism, there is no central government. "The state" is nothing other than the name for everyone who lives within the geographical area united as one political entity. Thus "everyone" owns and oversees all the means of production. That gets complicated, though, so the people select a few from among themselves to manage the operations of such things. Problematically, most people are not really ready for socialism, so socialists consider it necessary for an elite group temporarily to control these things, the core (what we know as the Party and the government). These are supposed to be stopgap measures until the people can learn to live as socialists, everyone doing everything he can for everyone else and sharing operation of everything.
Thus most socialist states look like most fascist states, because in both cases private businesses are seized by the government. In the former, the government does this because it is acting on its own authority for the benefit of the people. In the latter, the people do this through their agents who have the appearance of being a government but should not be called this, because there is no government, only the representatives of the people who are handling these particular parts of the people's interests.
Thus when the government takes control of any sector of society that was previously managed by private enterprise, it is not entirely clear whether this is a fascist or a socialist move. It is a fascist move if it it done to consolidate power in the hands of the central government for the benefit of the people; it is a socialist move if it is done to spread power to the people through their agents the government. If you think it's just semantics, you may be forgiven--but then, you and I like semantics, and so do socialists and fascists, who see themselves as polar opposites based on the specific definitions of what they are doing.
--M. J. Young
Tue Sep 8 2009 3:07 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberJohn,
There are a LOT of really bad things going on in the world. Thats at worst only a small really bad thing.Wodium,
Examine Russian Communism and German Naziism...1. Gulag Archipelago==Concentration Camps
2. Both totalitarian
3. Both warlike
4. Killed Kulaks and Ukrainians == Killed Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs
5. Secret Police with KGB == GestapoThe biggest differences between the two are National character (Russian vs. German) and personal character (Stalin was a bueraucrat and Hitler was an artist).
Whats the difference between socialism and fascism? They're both statist totalitarian utopias, and both should be opposed by all right-thinking individuals, or anyone with a gram of self-preservation.
Nikolaj,
I'm glad you realize its more complicated. Just how do you deal with the Somal tribesman who believes that his being a 'warrior' aka a thug is more noble than the Sab who are scum under his feet because they work for a living?I understand the Netherlands have a tendency to engage in euthanasia, even if the patient doesn't want it. We have flaws in this area as well. I recently heard about a case in Oregon of a woman who needed a drug. The gov't said...we won't pay for your cancer drug, but we will pay for euthanasia. The cold-hearted and vicious corporation instead gave her the cancer drug rather than the kindly and sweet government which offered to off her.
Its incidences like that that bring back my fondness for the Colonial era punishment for bad government officials...tar and feather them and run them out of town on a rail.
Indeed, we need to take care of the widow and orphan, but we need to do it from the point of view of 'yes, this is a restriction of freedom, but its a worthy cause.' That way, we won't go hog wild. Caution in infringing on freedom is warranted.
Of course the gov't can't do it alone. The gov't is the agency of last resort or should be. A gov't strong enough to fix all your problems is strong enough to crush you like a bug.
Granted, I'm an American, but I'd say that makes me less provincial than most other residents of other nations. I read about a month ago of a lady, Rachel Lucas, visiting Auschwitz. She said after it, on the bus trip back, the French and others were laughing and talking while the Americans mostly looked sad and quiet.
I probably know more about Belgium than you do about Michigan or Tennessee or Alabama or Alaska. Granted, I know less about Belgium than France or Germany or England or Pakistan or Iran or Japan or...
I don't accept the charge of being overly sheltered.
There is a story that may illustrate the American to you.
A Native American and a Settler are standing discussing what they can do. The Settler shows the NA his musket and his plow. The NA shows the S his skill with sneaking through the woods.
S: "Cool, show me how to do that. That's impressive!"
NA: "Sure."
And thats the end of the conversation because the NA doesn't feel like he needs to learn from the Settler. The story is probably not true, but it gets to an essential part of the American character. We're not proud. You have a good idea. We're happy to steal it.American arrogance. Like Dizzy Dean said, its not arrogance if you can do it. Face the facts. We do save the world on a regular basis. When a tidal wave smashes a nation on the other side of the world, who comes riding over the hill to rescue them, and then gets spat upon as thanks?
When Katrina smashed New Orleans, I saw a Belgian aircraft carrier come to their rescue, right? I don't want to be mean, but everyone needs to accept the basic facts of reality. If some cataclysm happens to your country, you'll probably be soon making an acquaintance with tough, large men who have USMC on their uniforms and have a box of food in one hand, and a jug of water in the other hand. And if some dictator rolls over the horizon with tanks, you won't see the stealth bombers, but you'll see the dictator's tanks exploding.
I'm uncomfortable with so much bragging. Specially because I'm not one of those guys who does that. But, facts are facts. At one time, the British Empire was the World's Policemen. They decided to get rid of slavery, and they ridded the world of it almost completely. America told the world to stay out of the Americas, but we were able to get away with the Monroe Doctrine because the British Navy was backing us up. It was their muscle, and our loud mouth.
At one time, the Roman citizen told the world what he expected from them. Nowadays, the American is the person crazy enough to try to keep the sea lanes open so that Europe and Japan don't freeze in the dark, and tell the Chinese that they can't steal Taiwan and that Putin can't crush Europe to servility.
I don't expect gratitude. It does help us. Its who we are. Americans are a combative, aggressive people. But it is annoying to be attacked for good deeds and truths spoken. You spoke of Christians being attacked for helping others. Well....
Tue Sep 8 2009 3:22 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberMJ,
I saw fascism as 'the gov't takes over private businesses, sets their prices, tells them how to do everything, but lets the 'owner' remain on as a puppet' and socialism they just do away with the puppet. Fascism is more efficient because you at least have someone with a clue in the loop.Libertarians tend to call both of them 'statists' and reach for their rifles...
I see fascists and socialists as a pride of lions and a pack of hyenas arguing over the lamb as to who gets to eat it. I'm the lamb. But since I'm an American, I'm a cybered up street samurai lamb armed with a laser cannon in my left hoof, and a rocket launcher slung over my right shoulder, and razor sharp teeth, and a wool cloak infused with kevlar....
"I'm a baa-baa-baa bad lamb. Let me show you my favorite kung-fu move. Its the Lamb Chop!"
Tue Sep 8 2009 3:41 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberI think it would be better, and more productive use of our time to create worlds based on our ideas. Create a world in which a historically based fascism and a historically based communism are different. Create another one where America acts just like everyone else does, and yet the world is the same. If you find that too easy, you might do what I did one time...I was challenged as a result of one of these types of conversations to create a world in which the people I criticized were correct. It was surprisingly easy.
See if you can create a world in which a Christian American neo-con social conservative's viewpoint is the correct one. And oh yeah, you have to make it interesting to play in...no dull worlds allowed.
Tue Sep 8 2009 4:10 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberI think it would be better, and more productive use of our time to create worlds based on our ideas. Create a world in which a historically based fascism and a historically based communism are different. Create another one where America acts just like everyone else does, and yet the world is the same. If you find that too easy, you might do what I did one time...I was challenged as a result of one of these types of conversations to create a world in which the people I criticized were correct. It was surprisingly easy.
See if you can create a world in which a Christian American neo-con social conservative's viewpoint is the correct one. And oh yeah, you have to make it interesting to play in...no dull worlds allowed.
Tue Sep 8 2009 4:12 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberEric, you double posted.
You call the chemical tagging in cough syrup a small problem. I don't know for certain, but I've heard that they're doing the same thing with ammunition. Putting something in the gunpowder so that it only has a very limited shelf-life. Can't take away the guns, so they take away the ammo instead. Tell me that doesn't worry a little if it's true. I don't doubt it for a second, but I've only heard smoke and rumors at this point.
(Doing Therapy)
Tue Sep 8 2009 4:28 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberYes, John, that does worry me. I'm doubtful that that is the effect, but I'm not certain. I've certainly heard of chemical taggants that you can put in explosives to make it easier to trace the chemicals to their makers.
And yeah, I double posted, sorry. I'm going to try to stop this conversation and move on to worldmaking. I think it might be more fruitful.
Tue Sep 8 2009 4:43 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know Eric, I keep thinking about how the policies of the United States would have changed after my stopped the Pearl Harbor bombing. It is agreed that had WW2 started a scant 5 years later, we probably would have lost. Pearl Harbor was the catalyst for the US involvement.
Imagine a world where Germany actually invaded the US. The right to bear arms would have a whole new meaning. There would probably be government installations passing out military weapons to anyone who could prove he could shoot. If nothing else, it would be proven as a needed part of The Constitution.
Assuming that we fought to a stalemate and went into a state of Cold War, how would that affect US policy, on gun control, foreign relations, etc?
Ya know, I could also imagine that being the entire Civil Rights movement, right there, as people of all races fought against a common enemy. The United States would actually be united.
Just a thought.
(Doing Therapy)
Tue Sep 8 2009 6:56 am # -
Its more complicated then America saving the world on their own. It was not on their own. America won the war is not really correct, because its America and Canada and France resistance and the few Belgians and the Dutch and ...
Not to forget that at one time it was Belgium who made the most effective guns. (Not that I like that)
And of course its easy to provide military help to those who need it when the USA takes half a continent in size. If you then say that a small country like Belgium is incompetent because they can't take care of themselves and needs the help of others it's a bit unfair. Big America looks down on the little guys. That's the kind of impression I get.
As to making a world that is not dull on our ideas varies on what is dull. I suppose that for you it means that their need to be fights and aggression, right? Yet I'm enjoying MJ's world I'm in right now where the only fight I had was because I versed into an ambush in preparation. I haven't been fighting since.
Tue Sep 8 2009 8:31 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI like the story of Belgium's role in WW2.
Belgium was the only thing standing between Hitler's armies and their destination. Hitler marched through, he didn't think Belgium would fight back because they were neutral in the war, and because they are so small. Belgium fought back. Belgium held Hitler for 2 days, and that gave France time to mobilize. It was a turning point in the war. I really like that story.
(Doing Therapy)
Tue Sep 8 2009 8:46 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberJohn,
The Civil Rights Movement was helped by the National Rifle Association. Nothing persuades the Klan to leave a black family alone like a window opening and a rifle barrel sliding out. Much of the early gun control legislation was more openly racist or anti-immigrant. There is a reason the saying is 'God made all men, but Samuel Colt made them equal'. A Colt Peacemaker doesn't care if the finger pulling the trigger is black, or Mexican, or female.Nikolaj,
I would of course agree with you that the US got vast amounts of help. Some even argue that the Soviets won the war, and the US was the help.There are approximately 300 million people in the EU. I understand it has more people than the USA. They are rich, technically skilled, and have a long tradition of being so. They also have a very long and successful warrior tradition.
15 Billion US for an Aircraft Carrier divided by 300 million of the Richest People on the Planet is fifty US dollars per person in Europe. And such costs for large capital investments tend to be amortized over several years.
In order to have a Mediterranean AC, and one above Europe near the Russians, and some sort of Anti-Submarine Warfare unit for the East North Atlantic (because you don't need an AC out there but you could help your allies and guard your own coasts against sub attacks), and one more AC for the Dardanelles Strait because thats where most of your oil comes through, and its very, very vulnerable....200 dollars per person and divide that out over eight years or so to make it 25 dollars a person per year.
Thats not 'We can't do it'. That's 'We don't want too.'.
Its not easy for the US to provide military help since we're half a continent in size. Europe is bigger than the US. So is Russia, and China. Canada might be too. Australia and Brazil, and Indonesia as well. We 1)Run a very powerful and productive economy. 2)Still spend huge amounts of cash as a percentage on the military and on charity.
Europe could do likewise, but they choose not too. Maybe Belgium can't afford an aircraft carrier by itself (doubtful), but I'm pretty sure that England or the US would be glad to sell you some used cruisers. And likely you'd get a pretty reasonable deal on them. You might even get them for a song.
There is some natural degree of tension between the elephant and the ant, but as long as the ant is trying, and he's not instead spending his days looking for ways to sabotage the elephant, and carping at the elephant, then they should be able to get along with mutual respect and aid. Do I blame Poland which just got released from seventy years of slavery and impoverishment under communism? No, they do what they can with a willing heart. Fiji, hey, they also do what they can.
Tue Sep 8 2009 1:31 pm # -
I don't even understand half of what you are talking about. Amortized? AC, that's something with electricity currents right? Elephant and ant? Where did they come in? Are you blaming us from wanting to sabotage you?
We are not one nation in Europe, like America is. Things are different and more complicated. And I don't know anything about how that all works. I don't speak economics or politics. I just like to treat people with love and care, like people. And from that motivation I try to treat bigger issues. But I am by far an expert at that and I do not plan on becoming one. I really don't want to fall back into a "my daddy can whip your daddy" kind of discussion concerning governments. It is clear to me that you know more then me about what people do know and why, yet I won't let that stop me from questioning it. And that's the only thing I'd like to do, question it, not impose whatever partly formed view I have myself.
Tue Sep 8 2009 2:00 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know though, I think the US getting invaded during WW2 might have ultimately been a good thing. I recall an episode of Star Trek Enterprise where some race or another went back in time and was aiding Germany by giving them future technology. The United States' citizens were united in a way we had never been. There was a black woman who was a small-time leader in the civilian resistance. Under what other circumstances could a black woman have been of any importance during the 1940s? I mean that given the racial tensions and the social climate of the time, she would have been (at best) Rosa Parks without that war. With the war, she was a respected and trusted leader in her community.
Tue Sep 8 2009 4:22 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberAmortized is a finance term. Roughly, you know that its going to take you three years to build the soccer stadium so your city council plans on dividing out the costs over three years. I hope I got that right.
AC was just my acronym for Aircraft Carrier.
The militaries in the free world can be summarized as an Elephant (the US), a horse (England), and a long line of ants (Everyone else).
I do blame Europe for wanting to sabotage America.
Feel free to question, but sometimes you're going to get answers you don't like. The question then becomes, are you willing to accept the truth?
All the various data comes down to person to person in the end. The various attacks Europeans make on America, and many of the policy decisions that support those attacks, are not in my opinion largely based on good reasons. They're not based on love. Jealousy. Desire to control. Pride.
Should Belgium, out of love, out of gratitude, out of simple enlightened self-interest try to help the US? Should Belgium ask itself 'what are they doing right, and what can I do to copy or make even better ?' I think so. Its interesting that in the pre-WW2 era that the Nazis and the Communists learned lessons from observing the other one on how to perfect the Monster Machines they created. Should not the Free Nations do likewise?
A dull world is a world without inspiration, without color, without some form of conflict (physical violence is the easiest form to use, but not the only one.) You could divide my world I just created into two parts, and its fairly clear to me that the first part is Less Dull. Granted, its more violent, but its also more colorful, more innovative and imaginative as well.
I am requesting that you make a world, and that you make it interesting. You on the other hand just built yourself a straw man arguement and set him on fire. This allows you to dodge my real arguements. The truth frequently hurts. Did I enjoy reading the idea that the US is inherently a combative and aggressive nation? Not really. I wanted to think of America as the pure and innocent one that is forced, forced I say to war. In truth, we go to war quite readily. Usually for good causes, but we're more King David than King Solomon.
The truth hurts.
Tue Sep 8 2009 4:27 pm # -
I just saw that I used an expression meaning the complete opposite of what I meant. When I said by far, I meant not nearly. (rather like far from)
So what I meant to say was that I know very little about those stuff. As far as I know Europe hasn't tried to sabotage America. Certain countries might have, but collectively ... I doubt it, we are not so united like in the US.
You are making it sound that America is the most highly developed society and the only way for others to become great or worth not being called an ant is by copying or improving on that copy. That sounds like a very close minded or arrogant way of thinking. Like yours (America's) is the only way, that there are no alternatives.
I can't finish this post now, need to go and won't be back for a day or maybe two. I really don't want to fight. You just seemed to have pushed a button I didn't know I had.
Tue Sep 8 2009 4:52 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberI've just created a world based on Voluntary Communalism. Its quite warlike still. Perhaps I'll tackle a more peaceful world later.
Yah, John, you're right. However, I may have a helpful thing or two to say to Niko's most recent post.
1. I had a discussion like this to some degree with a Finnish game designer. One thing I detected in him (and he was more European than you are) was pride in his own country. I suspect you have the same thing but you're not realizing it. I think such an attitude of pride in one's country is good. It does mean that one is not quite as noble and enlightened as one thought. :)
2. I'll accept your point about Europe not collectively sabotaging.
3. I would say that America is superior in a great number of ways, and that others would do well to watch and learn. I would say that in other ways, America is inferior and it would do well to try and learn.
I would further say that some answers work in certain countries,and not in others, and so there is no example to be copied.
You do accept that there are behaviors that are better for an individual than other behaviors. Why would this not apply to human societies?
4. Actually, I'm pretty far from closed-minded. I'd have to say I'm much more open-minded than the average person or the person who thinks of themself as tolerant. What I am is a proponent of certain positions that politically correct people don't hold, and so when I with a smile and good arguements do so, its shocking.
As to arrogance, is it arrogant to speak the truth?
And 'ant' is a metaphor. Compare each countries military. How exactly am I suppose to describe the fact that one side is many orders of magnitue weaker than the other side without offending? This is not an insult. Its a description of how things are. When I say that MJ or my friend J is far smarter than I am, I do not insult myself. I merely describe the facts.
Tue Sep 8 2009 6:59 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberWays for America to learn...
1. America is violent. Its not guns. We'd kill each other with rakes if we lost our guns.
2. The Anglo-Saxon tradition of drinking is to get stone drunk as quickly as possible on the cheapest possible liquor, kill someone with a chair, and wake up with an empty pocket, a dreadful hangover, and a murder charge in a prison cell. Okay, I exzaggerrate, but not much.The Germanic tradition of Beer Gardens seems far more civilized.
3. Handshaking has its benefits, but in a world of bio-terror, I think we should be going Japanese and with bows. Less hand contact the better.
4. Its great for economic productivity that we are so very mobile, but I'm uncertain that its best for the people themselves. Perhaps the Frenchman who has 'his cafe'' and never moves is right.
5. One of the things that makes us so economically dynamic is the ability of small businesses to become Fortune 500 companies pretty quickly. Such things as Google change the world around them. But corporations are clearly the creation of the state, and as such are infringements on the free enterprise system. I think its a tradeoff which creates power centers and benefits certain groups in exchange for the vast economic power they bring. But it might be better to live in a world with a lot more Mom and Pop businesses, and hardly any corporations. I think the French have something like this in some part.
6. Soccer. I hate to say it because American Football is just plain cooler (and I will entertain no silly arguements otherwise), but we need more soccer. Football injures too many young players.
7.Tue Sep 8 2009 7:12 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberSoccer. I hate to say it because American Football is just plain cooler (and I will entertain no silly arguements otherwise),
No, you're wrong. They're BOTH stupid.
we need more soccer. Football injures too many young players.
I was on the soccer team in high school. (Hence, how I know that soccer is stupid) A girl on the team broke her leg very badly. It's still a hazardous sport.
Tue Sep 8 2009 7:25 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo Posts
No offense intended with the above, I've just never been much of a sports fan.
The other thing though is that I read about a restaurant which had no prices anywhere on the menu. Customers paid whatever they felt was a fair price for the meal they just ate. Supposedly, the place had been in business for more than 20 years, so they must have been doing SOMETHING right. I was thinking that line of thought could be an interesting way to run government taxes. You pay whatever you feel is a fair price for the services you're receiving.
Tue Sep 8 2009 7:50 pm # -
Completely off topic--Eric, I can't help wondering whether the world is so small that the Finnish game designer of your acquaintance might be Eero Tuovinen. I'm sure he's not the only game designer in Finland, but he does have a lot of contact internationally.
Closer to topic: yes, it can be arrogant to speak the truth; truth can be spoken arrogantly.
John, part of the problem of having people pay the amount of tax they think is a fair price for the services received is that a significant part of modern tax systems are about redistribution of wealth--that is, the people who get the most benefit from government services are those who get food stamps, unemployment, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, heating assistance, aid to families with dependent children, and the wealth of other social services provided to those who cannot afford them. The people who pay the most in taxes probably don't even get that much use of the roads for which their taxes pay because they launch from their private airfield and land on their helipad. Most of what they perceive as government's contribution to them is interference with their business objectives and claiming their assets. But it makes no sense to suggest that the people who have nothing should pay what they believe their public assistance programs are worth to them, and the people who need nothing to pay nothing for it.
Concerning a more fundamental point here, let me address it by analogy. I have often commented that I know there are flaws in my theology. I am a Bible teacher and commentator, but I make no claim that I know all of it. My proof of this is that I have changed my position on many points over the years, abandoning a belief I once thought was correct in favor of a belief I concluded was better supported and more plausible. It would be foolish for me to presume that I will never do this again, and thus foolish for me to assume that I now have everything right. The problem is, I do not know which things I have wrong. If I knew, I would correct them, and then they would be right. I can only say that I am as right in everything as I know how to be now, which I hope is more correct than I once was and am certain is less correct than I will someday be. I do not expect to be right about everything in life, only to get closer to that, and hopefully not to abandon any correct beliefs in favor of incorrect ones.
In much the same way, I think that a country must recognize that it is not right about everything--but at the same time that it cannot know with certainty what things are right and what not. It is the more complicated with a country, because we are a conglomerate of disparate individuals. I have read numerous critiques of the Obama health care proposals, but little written by its advocates. The critics quote sections of the proposal which seem rather clearly to suggest that anyone who is no longer working should be focusing on dying as quickly as possible so as to cease to be a burden to the medical system, and that the government will make such life-and-death decisions for everyone on a cost-benefit analysis basis. I'm very uncomfortable with what I read; at the same time, I am also concerned that at current trends twenty percent of the gross national product of this country will go to medical care in perhaps another decade. Something has to be done, but I do not think this is it. This is the sort of problem countries have: we can probably agree that there are problems with our health care system, but efforts to correct it are pulling in different directions, most of which look worse to someone.
I have never been strongly patriotic; growing up in the Viet Nam era had that effect on much of my generation, and even those a few years older or younger than I are much more so. Thus I am not one to defend America or American attitudes or actions. I think we might be the best nation in the world in a lot of ways, but I don't know that that's all that much of a claim--like being the most sane inmate in the asylum or the most decent criminal in the prison.
I apparently have been tossed another errand for tonight, so I'd better run; hopefully I will return in time to finish.
--M. J. Young
Wed Sep 9 2009 1:46 am # -
On healthcare: a Google search on "Death Panels" should turn up many pages devoted to the death panel myth/rumor/what-have-you, which is what I think you're referring to when you talk about passages quoted by opponents. It's polemical rumor-mongering; as I understand it, what was actually being proposed was a provision for family counseling concerning the financial aspects of end-of-life medical care.
I too have other things to attend to, so apologies to folks who were expecting me to reply to them here. Perhaps later.
Wed Sep 9 2009 2:52 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI heard economic tax cuts described thus.
Ten guys go out to dinner. They are of different classes and of different wealth. The bill is $100 every time. One guy pays $59, one guy pays $10, Four guys pay $5 each, and one guy pays $1. The other three eat for free.
Then the manager of the restaurant decides to give them a break, since they're good customers. He cuts $10 off the bill. The guy paying $59 now pays 50, the guy that paid $10 now pays $9, and the rest keep paying the same. They don't like that. "The rich get all the breaks." they say. So they take the rich guy and beat him up. He decides not to dine with them, they're fine with it.
So the 9 of them go out to eat, but there's a problem. They're $50 short when the bill arrives.
It was something like that, anyway......
(Doing Therapy)
Wed Sep 9 2009 3:15 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberIts interesting. Palin is a !!11!!Quitter!!11!!, and a horrible, disgusting, nasty person because she didn't go to Harvarrd. And yet with just a Facebook page she defeated the One, the Messiah, the brightest man who's ever been president (smarter than James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Richard Nixon...woo hoo!). If only MJ and I knew her trick, we'd be able to take our limited net presences and sell a million books...each. Its probably because she sold her soul to Big Pharma. Probably. But what's confusing is that Big Pharma is supporting the Chosen One, and not the Hick from Wasillia. Probably a Macchiavellian scheme by the Populist Princess, not that she knows how to spell Machteer, uh Make-up. Anyways. And this notion that government would let a bunch of bueraucrats loose with a table that balances how useful you are to the government, and how much longer you probably have to live....sheerest nonsense. I mean, I trust my government. Don't you? Its like George Washington said...government is like fire, a useful servant, but a fearful master. Oops. Well anyways, who are you going to trust, GW, a DWEM, who is Dead and White and European and a Male, or our incredible post-racial biracial godlike being who is so sexy smoking that cigarette that he makes a tingle go down Chrissie Mathews' leg? Trust the Computer. The Computer loves you.
More seriously, or at least more staid...
John, your illustration is quite good.
There was a luxury boat industry up in New England or thereabouts. And so the local Mafi...err Congress or other pols wanted to loo--I mean tax them so they could have money to buy vot...help the people of the US. So they raised the extor...tax, and who would have thunk it? Rich people pay attention to money. Wow. Nobody bought boats. The radical raise in looting yielded less money.
And Reagan's tax cuts doubled the money available to the government. Unfortunately a Congress controlled by the Party That Loves the People quadrupled expenditures, or so I've heard.
Wed Sep 9 2009 2:03 pm # -
Can we just stop having political "discussions"?
Wed Sep 9 2009 2:19 pm # -
I just created an "Off Topic" forum and moved this thread there. I'd like to keep Gaming Outpost Talk for discussions about the Gaming Outpost.
Wed Sep 9 2009 3:03 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberI need to make a New Year's Resolution: As most people are less reasonable than me, and I'm not very reasonable, the point of political arguement is to establish boundaries or engage in intimidation. It rarely is to persuade someone by logic or facts, or alert someone to new possibilities. The forms of intimidation amount to 'I'm smarter or cooler than you' or 'Your viewpoint is disgusting or ignorant or you're a paid hack.' Thus I resolve in the New Year to bravely greet each partisan of a viewpoint differing from mine with 'OH, shut up, you Nazi'.
Cynical enough?
Notably, I found myself agreeing with at least one point of my opponent.
Wed Sep 9 2009 3:59 pm # -
I think MJ has a good point, which I tried to also say. I don't know everything.
If I spoke arrogant, which in hindsight, I may have, whether it is/was truth or not, I apologize. And thus, I think this discussion can be put to rest. There would be more thinks I could say, but I fear that they might start another argument. They will be present in "America v.1.X" though.
Wed Sep 9 2009 4:55 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know, I just realized. I did the math wrong on that economic tax cuts example. It only adds up to $90. So, make that one guy paying $59, one guy paying $10, six guys paying $5, one guy paying $1, and one guy eating for free. I think that's closer to how the original story was told to me anyway.
Thu Sep 10 2009 12:58 am #
Reply
You must log in to post.