The results when you put liberal democrats in charge! Los Angeles Video

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There have been qualifiers, sensible qualifiers, attached to society which have laid a framework that indirectly addresses what your talking about. That's why we have the understanding of inalienable rights and it's where all of this started to fall apart.

We can agree that every human being has certain rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to enter into contracts, the right to earn a living, the right to educate themselves and better their own life, the right of ownership... the catch is that your rights cannot infringe on another's equal rights. This is where the homeless (among others) issue gets into a region of ideological conflict. They have the same rights as anyone else, but how do factors like wealth redistribution, squatting on public lands, subsidized programs funded through forced taxation and higher rates for the paying public, etc not infringe on the rights of the taxpayers? That's where I'm coming from when I champion social Darwinism... a fair and equitable system in which people thrive or fail on their merits and their merits alone

Enter charities and voluntary assistance funding. I have no issue with people freely giving their own money to charities that assist the homeless. That's their right and it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights at all. It's far too easy to just shift the responsibility to higher earners and the more personally responsible Americans by leaning on the government to fund all of this. Far too many Americans view the homeless as projects and virtue signal points when dealing with other peoples' money to save them... when its left to charity alone, however, we see the real value people apply to the homeless and that reality indicates they're viewed as not being worth much (which is logical, as anyone who consumes exponentially more finite resources than they contribute is, by definition, a burden on society and disadvantages our communities.)

a reply to: Waterglass

Truth is the homeless always pick Calif over any other place and who could blame them,weather is much better,people the most friendly,if your going to live outdoors may as well go where the weather suits your clothes

Your father being homeless makes the subject personal to you, but it doesn't make you the authority. I do hope you can find a way to help him, maybe take him in?
You say the reasons are because pop-culture and good weather? OK what about seattles homeless issue? It's no pop culture Mecca, and it's always raining!!!

a reply to: Lucidparadox

a reply to: burdman30ott6

There have been qualifiers, sensible qualifiers, attached to society which have laid a framework that indirectly addresses what your talking about. That's why we have the understanding of inalienable rights and it's where all of this started to fall apart.

In our minds and apparently at least on paper we and the framers hold that we have this understanding of inalienable rights, yes. However as you say there have been qualifiers. Are we talking about the same qualifiers here? Are we talking about the standards of qualification needed to have a say, a vote in our self government when the nation was founded?

We both know the qualifications I am talking about here. Only land owning white men, were given the vote. And what did they vote on. They voted on not only the laws of social behavior but more importantly they voted on the laws that established the economic principles the new nation would grow around.

I have read of all the push and shove among the framers and how the whole constitution was a compromise of best ideas and achievable goals,goals decided upon by two fundamentally opposed political views. One view held that individual freedom trumped all other rights, the other that those freedoms needed to be harnessed in order to establish a working whole that under the proper leadership the new nation could defend itself and prosper. In the compromise between these two, the second won out. That leadership was to be limited to rich white men. No women, no people of color and no poor people.

I'm sure you know all this though I guess that much of our differences lay in how much emphasis we place on the importance of the period of time that passed before that voting right, the right to have a say in our own governance was granted. It took almost a hundred years for freedom to be granted to people of color and a century and a half until women had the right to vote. Myself, I place a lot of emphasis on those periods of time, time when everything in the nation was decided by one demographic.

It's far too easy to just shift the responsibility to higher earners and the more personally responsible Americans by leaning on the government to fund all of this.

Here, I am going to take this thought a bit out of context if you don't mind.
It hasn't been just a shift of responsibility from those higher earners and responsible Americans but instead it has been a struggle. A struggle to gain a voice in our own governance. And a struggle to establish an economic presence by those excluded from the original club of owners.

I hate even mentioning the color white in all of this because it sounds like whining against white people. But it cannot be helped because that was exactly the way the white men of wealth framed how this country was established and controlled. By and to the advantage of white guys of wealth. I mean, if there are truthes to be held as ''self evident'' this one should be right at the top of the list.

OK, It's time for me to hold up a bit here. I do think that in many ways the coddling of those who have not managed to become responsible Americans has gone overboard, that is tossing money after people who might never step up and become responsible for them selves or for their nation. We are on board with this.

I support a national service period for everyone. If that is in the military, great. If that is some form of community service, just as well. My problem here though is just what would they do? Would corporations support internships? Would government fund public projects? I don't know here but I do think that a period of two to three years of focused service to the nation as a whole would go a long way to developing those responsible Americans we both see as necessary to holding our nation together.

Ok, now I"m done,,,, for now. Your turn.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Simple daddy. One, socialism is nowhere in sight. There is no socialism in the US, only capitalism and varying degrees of how it is utilized to make it work without collapsing in on itself.

No socialism in the US? What do you think welfare is?

And again - there are many different variations of capitalism - the fascist leaning system we have now is nothing like the laissez faire economic system envisioned by Adam Smith.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Who has told you that welfare is socialism. Socialism is workers owning the means of production.

Right, what we have now is a top down fascist form of capitalism I agree with you.

That said, again I will reiterate a point I have been making through out this thread and others. The ''who'' that is telling people that what we have is socialism, is, that corporate fascist propaganda structure. To keep people from focusing on the real situation that we are under a fascist corporate structure, the propaganda machine takes peoples focus on the false villian, socialism, and away from the weaknesses in capitalism itself'

Welfare? Welfare is the ''handout'' that corporate America uses to keep the poor from all out rioting. Welfare is also a way to keep the moderately poor and the struggling earners of the nation fighting against each other and not on the corporate structure that is the real culprit here.

And of course laissez faire would be much better except for one thing. In capitalist philosophy and practice, Mr. Smith did not address how the run-away control of the economic structure was to be avoided . What he took on faith was that competition would prevail and any capitalist organization would automatically fail if it did not abide by the idealist principles espoused with in his vision of the market place. In this he was short sighted and what we have now is as you say a fascist corporate system of economics. Not socialism

Lots of deflection over the homeless issue trying to blame it on the warm weather Cali has.

Plenty of other warm weather cities that don't have 20k homeless people and tent cities fill of crap.

Must be more to the story.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

it is the failed side of our capitalist economy

You are kidding, right? You are aware, are you not that these people are drug addicted bums? Capitalism can hardly be blamed for people who refuse to participate.

One of the hallmarks of liberalism is to obsess over the perpetrator and ignore the victims.


"But homelessness is a victimless crime!" the faithful piously intone.

Check out "Seattle is Dying" on youtube for the homeless guy that has over 30 assaults on sidewalks and street corners in just one neighborhood. Now picture trying to get your child to her elementary school, and yourself to work on time, while a dude like that is literally frying some crystal while you find the nearest parking space a couple of blocks from the school. He begins to pummel the crap out of another car that was left in "his spot." The cops pull up and wait with folded arms while he wears himself out, before taking him to the hospital for a hot lunch at taxpayer expense, before doing his laundry and releasing him back to the neighborhood.

When you lie down to sleep in your bed at night, you can hear people repeatedly trying the back door....

If you call the cops, they'll be sure to take 20 minutes to get there, trigging in at 3 miles an hour with sirens blazing, so that even the most intoxicated burglars can escape--that way the cops don't have to fill out more paperwork, and maybe risk their lives if Billy feels belligerent towards the cops tonight.

Look at the arson rates in areas with high homeless populations. The homeless build a fire out of the wind to keep warm or just sit around and chat; so they build the fire right up against the wall of your house, in your yard, to hide from the wind. Yeah, people literally setting fire to your house while you sleep. And even if nothing bad happens, there's a huge soot stain on the side of your house, and property values drop another point.

But pity the poor beggars, who cannot afford a steady supply of their favorite drugs. Such hopelessness! such despair! They are the real victims. Or at least the ones who matter.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I am going to need to think on this for a bit.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl
Who has told you that welfare is socialism. Socialism is workers owning the means of production.

True enough, I replied without thinking, my apologies...

Right, what we have now is a top down fascist form of capitalism I agree with you.

...snip....

And of course laissez faire would be much better except for one thing. In capitalist philosophy and practice, Mr. Smith did not address how the run-away control of the economic structure was to be avoided . What he took on faith was that competition would prevail and any capitalist organization would automatically fail if it did not abide by the idealist principles espoused with in his vision of the market place. In this he was short sighted and what we have now is as you say a fascist corporate system of economics. Not socialism

It has been a long time since I read TWON, and I was admittedly high much of the time I was reading it, so may have missed it, but I would be very surprisaed if he didn't address this in some form by alloiwng that the proper role of government in a laissez faire economic system is simply the protection of individual Rights and Liberties.

this would of necessity mean that large corporations would not have 'limited liability' in the sense they have it today. There would have to be a limit to that limited liability. Board Members should absolutely be both financially and, if warranted, criminally liable for illegal acts committed by corporate employees under certain circumstances (damaging Citizens, engaging in unfair trade practices contrary to law, etc).

a reply to: TonyS

Your reply demonstrates little to no knowledge or speculation into the relationship between society and the individual. The two are inextricably interwoven.What you may think of yourself, or of myself, is part and parcel of a whole gestalt of being.

Have you asked yourself why they are drug addicted bums and you are not? Is it because you are so superior? What is it they are lacking within themsleves and why is it lacking. And how did you get it while they did not.

a reply to: tanstaafl

some form by alloiwng that the proper role of government in a laissez faire economic system is simply the protection of individual Rights and Liberties.

And admittedly it has been a long while since I have read it as well. But my recollection is that he and other philosophers relied upon the ''Hidden Hand'' all to strongly, that being the benign forces of the market place to automatically make adjustments so that balance would remain, well, balanced yet I think we can both see that that balance is completely askew.

And absolutely corporations should be held completely accountable for their misdeeds in environmental protection, employee safety and such, but they are not. From my perspective one of the reasons for this is as I put forward earlier, the corporate state has put forth the notion that the entirety of our economic problems today are the result of people taking advantage of a fictional socialist state while in reality that welfare state is little more than a bandage put in place to staunch the flow of blood left in the corporate wake.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

OK, you got a bit more esoteric than I was thinking with my previous statements. I'll admit that the past has seen scenarios in which certain groups were held out of "inalienable rights" BUT the rights, themselves weren't in question, only who was eligible to exercise those rights. This homeless situation strikes me as not being a case of that. Homeless people have the same rights as everyone else does, but they should have to put forth the same quantity of effort towards those rights as are needed to exercise them, again same as everyone.

Throughout history, we've infringed on the rights of others... and to date that has always reached a point of rectification. Mistakes are made, the real test of character is seen in admitting the mistake and correcting it. Thus, the vote is no longer granted to only white land owners, slavery is gone (and many, many white Americans lost their lives trying to end it), women have equal rights to men, etc. Again, though, none of these issues involved the taking of an earned tangible from someone else to hand over to a group unwilling, but able, to provide it directly to themselves.

I don't see wealth as an evil, and that isn't going to change. I say that as a man who is by no means materially wealthy... I recognize that I've voluntarily passed on chances to be so, preferring to make enough money to fund the life I have laid out for myself while avoiding the pursuit of wealth negatively impacting the time I've needed for my other interests. I've always valued the time spent with my wife, later our children, fishing, hunting, tying flies, playing video games, I have two pet rabbits that I'd rather play with than sit at work outside of the time I need to accomplish what's required by my job. In many regards, that's the root of my irritation over taxes, hand outs, and redistributive policies... I exchange time which is by far the most precious thing I personally possess for an agreed to amount of money because I have responsibilities to house, feed, clothe, and entertain my family and myself. I find it abhorrent that there are those who advocated taking an evergrowing portion of what I agreed to exchange my time for to freely cover the responsibilities of those who lack a sense of self responsibility and serve as nothing but takers in this world.

The wealthy man is not my enemy. I am not paying more in taxes, higher rental rates, and higher doctor bills to subsidize their wealth, I'm paying it to subsidize those who refuse to take personal responsibility and have found saviors inside of politics who are free and easy with other people's money, giving hand outs, subsidized housing, subsidized medical coverage, etc to people who provide NOTHING of value to the world beyond a possible bought and paid for vote every 2-4 years. If a company is run by a fat cat who gets too greedy and decides, suddenly, to start charging $1,000 for an item I purchased the previous version for $500, I am a free willed man, I can choose to simply not purchase that item. I can't exactly tell Uncle Sam to piss off when taxes go up, though. If a wealthy man screws me over, I can take him to court, file a civil lawsuit, and if I make my case I will see restitution... try suing a homeless guy that steals from you, damages your vehicle, or causes a dangerous situation where their negligence causes you to get injured. I've heard it argued that there's little difference between a wealthy man running an ad trying to get you to buy something and a bum panhandling and begging you for a handout, except there's an obvious difference... the wealthy man is trying to exchange my money for a tangible good or service, I walk away from the exchange with something I valued at the price I paid for it, when a beggar begs the generous sap that pays walks away with less than they had before and nothing even remotely tangible to show for the value of their money. This is why I will not join in the wealthy bashing game... they aren't my enemy, they're not stealing from me, they're looking to use me, and they actually value me as a customer rather than look at me as a source of entitlement fulfillment.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I appreciate the manner in which you hold to the major topic of the thread all the while extrapolating up to larger and more complex aspects of the problem. I often forget the main point of a discussion and get lost in those more cause and effect parts.

I think that my insistence in relating the homeless issue to capitalism is my dislike of dismissing people out of hand for their misfortune. Much of my reluctance to just blame homeless people stems from my early Christian upbringing and the Bibles exhortations to do unto others, to be the Good Samaritan, and of course the old standard trope, ''there but for fortune''. It was these motivators that I found I shared with the emerging liberal movement of the first half of the twentieth century.

Looking back now, I can see how so much of that liberal belief system was way off base because it based itself on those premises. I truly believed that what was necessary for our society to improve, to be rid of those qualifiers that were placed on us way back was to be accomplished in two ways. One was to be a template for change, to be the visible change that was being strived for by liberalism. Secondly was the notion that in order for all people to be able to see the fallacies of the past was to deliver information and then, within themselves, all people would be able to see and understand these things in the same manner. Does that make much sense to you, can you understand that vision of liberalism?

I don't believe that any more. From my perspective liberalism has failed because it was based on premises thatjust do not hold true for what we are coming to understand our human condition to be. See? I did it again, ddrifted off.

I agree that the approach to our homeless problem is obsolete, no, not obsolete but rather, misguided. Maybe it will need a more dramatic and forceful approach if we are to solve it. But I reject that that solution, whatever avenue it takes should be taken with gusto, relish and glee. Because, after all, ''there but for fortune'' and do unto others......

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Sure. Just look up the population of the world according to race, not religion and tell me who the minority is. Then take a look at the homeless and who the is majority among them living along the streets in California. Whites?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I some what understand what you are talking about, but you fail to recognize that being a drug bum is, at least in the US, more of either an accident of having been made so by a doctor presecribing pain meds or of a life style choice. And in the US a large component of the life style choice arises out of the abysmal failure of the medical profession to treat pain.

As for the gestalt thing; you wouldnt know it if you dont live in the US, but there really is no "over clture" to produce a general "society". There is no one culture; its gone extreme multi-cultural to the point that there is no agreed upon shared values to construct a "society". The individual is the central focus followed by that individuals tribal affiliation. Put another way, its less a case of the "center will not hold" than it is more the case that "there is no center".

a reply to: TonyS

Tony. First let me warn you that sometimes when an other member tosses things at me that spark my curiosity and what they say worms it's way into my ''wondering'' I can tend to explore within myself avenues of thought that have until that moment been merely vague and undefined ''senses of things''. When that happens I then attempt to delve into those thoughts and find something coherent that I can hold onto before it slips away again. This often ends up making little sense to either myself or the person I am trying to discuss with.

The individual is the central focus followed by that individuals tribal affiliation. Put another way, its less a case of the "center will not hold" than it is more the case that "there is no center".

Some of my thinking is currently being formed around this notion, that the older established tribal contexts within which peoples consciousness is formed are evaporating do to the plethora of diverse information now available to any person who wants to launch his or herself onto the sea of individuality.

I suppose that that ''center'' used to be locale oriented, that is people raised by any specific culture developed along the lines of that culture. But now even though a person may live in a certain locale, the information available to them should they wish to take charge of their own individuality is so expansive that the pull of locality mores and styles are loosing their grip on emerging consciousnesses.

I can see this then in the drug epidemic as you point out, a life style choice. In a more conservative environment where choices are limited to the choices established in tradition, the choice of a drug life style does not arise. It's do this and do that and don't do that other. But what we have today with all the information available to us the, do's and don'ts,are all mixed in with all the other choices that any individual can make, often I suppose be fore any center within that individual has been established.

So that 'center'' within an individual can be established by the center of that persons culture or it can be established by that person within themselves, which is risky at best and I suppose not all that often accomplished to societies satisfaction.

I suppose that Frost's ''A Road not Taken'' was a simple enough decision to make. And Peck's ''A Road Less Traveled'' likewise. But now it seems to be more ''All the roads and all the paths that one can choose from.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There's a whole lot of truth in that which you have said.

I sometimes have difficulty expressing what I "see" happening around me. Therefore, I sometimes find it useful to present examples from the past.

So, here's an example. Back in the day, 1914 after the start of WWI, flags were flown and posters were put up urging lads across the land to "do your bit" for King and Country! Now, most all the lads came from simple families living simple lives in simple towns and villages across the land. Their world had been and was "ordered" around a few seemingly immutable and good "core values" and "beliefs" most as taught by the Church of England from the pulpit on Sunday's and at the local schools in courses about "Civics". At their core, they were proud, "English" lads, citizens of the UK. And so they signed up and marched off to be slaughtered in the fields of France and Flanders to serve God, King and Country!

And, England won the war and the "Centre" held and all was more or less good except for the piles of bodies being buried in France and such.

Today, everything's different in the sense, as I said, there is no "Centre". Keep in mind, I'm talking about the US having no Centre; its possible there still is one in merry olde England...............I don't really know about England.

There is no center (US spelling) in the US because there's no agreed upon shared core values and beliefs. None. The churches are empty, the schools are indoctrination centers that produce young adults who, having recognized that they've been propagandized for 18 years, believe NOTHING; they don't trust the institutions of "Democracy" (while living in a Republic), they don't trust anything the Government says about anything, they don't trust anyone or believe in any thing of importance except..........the importance of the Individual and the Individual's pursuit of happiness, health and wealth. If there's one thing they may believe in it is that "he who dies with the most toys, wins". Gordon Gecko, "Greed is Good".

Ever wonder what precipitated this or contributed to it? One big factor and its a simple one is "Madison Avenue Advertising agencies and Television. From birth kids are exposed to advertizing; mass quantities of advertising. "Coco Puffs" are the most nutritious cereal". Then five years later, article comes out and points up the fact that Coco Puff's have no food value. (don't sue me, I made that up to prove a point). By the time a US kid reaches the age of 18, they don't believe ANYTHING they see on the TV advertising. Nothing! They don't even believe the flu vaccine works. They don't bother to get their kids vaccinated simply because the Government PSA's say its a good thing to get the kids vaccinated, because they think every thing the Government says is as much a lie as the Madison Avenue Advertising. Now, in their minds, "Measles" vaccine is "Coco Puffs".

Anyway, all that to explain my point.

a reply to: TonyS

Ever wonder what precipitated this or contributed to it? One big factor and its a simple one is "Madison Avenue Advertising agencies and Television.

NO NO NO,,,,One freeking HUGE factor....

And Madison Avenue goes right to the heart of my original point. Once enough capital wealth had been established in the hands of a few who would use it to increase that wealth occurred, industrialist began to modernize their manufacturing plants. Automation began and the advent of mass production created the conundrum of being able to manufacture product way beyond the demand for it.

In order to maximize profit and not have product sitting around taking up space, something had to change. Either slow down the plants or somehow create MORE demand, and waaaa laaaa, Madison Avenue. If you do not already know the story of Edward Bernays which likely you do, he was a major factor in advertising rise to prominence. Bernays was a double nephew of Sigmund Freud, that is his mother was Freud's sister and at the same time, Freud's wife was sister to Bernay's father. So this kid grew up being surrounded by all the new discoveries in the field of psychology.

Rather than using this information to the benefit of his fellow man, Bernay's recognized that this information, could be very useful in manipulating people subconsciously into any manner of decision making.

From this Madison Avenue began promoting a shift from multi-generational housing to single nuclear family dwellings. Rather than producing one toaster for granny, mom and daughter to use together the market shifted to the need for three toasters. That along side of it's incessant push to turn people's purchasing from ''needs'' to ''consumers'' purchasing from ''wants'' the topography of the market place changed in the matter of a decade.

I think that is is a major reason that there is no center as you suggest. What center there is now is determined by what products will become the next fad, creating that unconscious consumer to follow it from fad to fad seeking to full fill their empty beings with the latest and the greatest. Once there were enough yo yos produced and the novelty wore off it was time to invent the hula hoop. etc etc etc......