Tips & Epiphanies Collaboration Thread

Originally posted by lazy1981
As we say in the states, "I'm a Jack of all trades and master of none." I dabble in a bit of everything.

We say that here too. And I am a little that way inclined myself, a favourite quote of mine sums it up for me.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein

www.elise.com...

Though it is good for spare parts it should never be allowed back on the road as an operational vehicle. They were scrapped for a reason.

I agree, in theory. But have any of those failed systems actually been scrapped.

As for my veiw (and to some extent yours) that tribalism evolved into the damaging forms of government that I tried to enumerate will only recur. I know that people say history doesn't repeat itself but I think Mark Twain put it best, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Again I agree, although I think history does repeat itself. I think that there are any number of lessons that we have repeatedly failed to learn. The example that I gave was only of the dominant system that evolved from tribal. Had that dominant ‘style’ of governance not destroyed all others in it’s path, or rather consumed all others we may have better examples. Perhaps.

My guess is that it will probably be by accident. Not to be taken as a slight but, I think as far as finding that perfect form of government goes we would do well to get away from antiquated mindframes. In the same sense we should learn from past mistakes and maybe infuse good qualities from the old with "fresh ideas."

Do you feel that the current global situation though allows for those fresh ideas? Are the people having those ideas having their voices heard? Should decisions about how we live really be decided by those in ivory towers?

Now I know I sound like my compass is pointed in the wrong direction but I think you should be following me. The point focuses on "one" of my little rules to live by. We can't keep "solely" to the past for a "FRESH" start. We need to strike the balance between "looking behind us" and "down the road" for a fresh idea in order to really walk without falling on our faces as we have so many times before.

Although I am someone who falls flat on their face with great frequency, literally at times, I can appreciate the wisdom of your perspective. The problem though is we are not going to achieve anything looking at this particular problem as individuals. I don’t know, as a self-confessed loner, have much in the way of reference to solve that particular problem.

We will have to agree to disagree on this statement. What I will say is that I view our base instincts as "human nature." I call it the me first syndrome. And that's all I really want to say about this topic.

We will move swiftly along and agree to disagree then.

This is conjecture on many levels and by many people. Whether Man was nomadic, hunter gathers, or a settled farming society people have always accumulated knowlege and it was passed on by word of mouth for thousands of years. Logic would dictated that the eldest of the tribe would be the most learned and therefore hold a place of reverance and postion. Viewed as wise and best able to make the desicions.

Only as long as they were useful to the whole group and there are obviously environmental factors to take into consideration. That is it would depend upon the circumstances of existence, climate, terrain, plus life expectancy in general. What was an ‘elder’ for example to Neolithic man would perhaps only be considered as middle-aged to us in comparison. But otherwise I agree that knowledge was passed by word of mouth, but, that the type of knowledge was constrained within certain parameters.

I really wasn't making a case for a "Central Government" but I see your point. I am actually of the opinion that centralized governments are Inherently dangerous to the liberties (and wallets) of those that they govern.

I am looking at more of a global solution, I don’t think it is avoidable, globalism. And, to be quite honest, I favour it, though not in the hands of some of those that currently propose it. There also needs, in my opinion, for the reason you suggest, personal liberty, for a limitation of influence and control. A central government should only control those things that are central, transportation and communications for example, there is a need in my mind to allow more power to the individual to make decisions for themselves and to have greater influence in how taxation money is spent. I sadly do not see how taxes can ever be avoided, but I do think that too much goes to fund unnecessary suits.

This is very poignant. I have seen this in action. Chicago is a traditionaly diverse city, yet until recently we had all lived (to some extent still do) in small ethnic neighborhoods. You could go a good portion of your life without leaving a certain area of the city unless you felt inclined to do otherwise. It wasn't just a neighborhood thing, it was more of a frame of mind.

Interesting. In the UK community structure, support and awareness of who your neighbours are is very limited. I grew up on a fairly new estate and then we did know everyone in the street, but now I only know my immediate neighbours and perhaps half a dozen people to nod to, but besides that there is an over-riding sense of xenophobia. I live in the North though, and as they say it is grim (at times, not always). I don’t think that the media helps, in fact I sometimes wonder if division is part of the agenda. We are constantly assailed with the notion of difference, and the sensationalism of paedophilia doesn’t help either. We are led to believe that the ‘enemy’ lives next door or across the street. I fear that given the economic slide, especially where I live that things in the short term are going to get a hell of a lot worse. I remain optimistic, but mainly of the hope that I can get myself and my son out before it really goes tits up.

First of all this will not work for large cities.
Secondly I have read Marx and a few others. This quote and the article that you posted on "Eco-communalism" are straight out of Marx. They don't, "sound like Socialism" they are socialism and nowhere in the world has it ever worked. Socialism is a flawed idea of Utopianism and human nature can not allow it to work.

What is it with you American’s and Socialism? I like Marxist theory, and some of Lenin’s stuff too on economics, but they are just theories. Socialism was never given the chance to succeed, or it hasn’t as yet, from the Russian revolution there has been a raging battle to prevent socialism and perhaps more particularly self-determination from taking hold. Socialism in my opinion has never been given an adepquate chance of success, too many of the rich and powerful have seen it as a threat to their profit margin. Have you read any Engels? I like Engels.

Even the Pilgrims experimented with it as early as the 1600's and it didn't work. Just as in the USSR, Cuba, China, ect.

Cuba on the whole I think is a good example of socialism, are their struggles entirely of their own making, surely had they been left alone, and dare I say, received a little more support, they may not have suffered quite so much economic instability. China and Russia, never very socialist. The USSR only managed a few months before it became totalitarian, and again mainly due to meddling from overseas (Germany and Britain in competition), China the same (meddling from Britain and US).

Collectivised farming is not the same as communalism. Look more at the Kibbutzim or Yeshiva systems. And, as I said before pre-Enclosures Act in the UK provide much better examples, as does, bizarrely enough, the example of the Jesuit Republic of Paraguay (although that was a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ but in terms of who individuals skills and abilities are encouraged and utilised it is an excellent case study).

We've been trying to get that straight over here for more than two hundred years. "These" United States of America (not THE) were intended to be a cohesive group of semi-autonomous states in league, haveing a central government "only" to resolve specific issues between the states and foreign powers. It was never supposed to be the governing monster that it has grown into. This is why Americans that actually understand this are offended by the very notion of globalizm, it started with our sates first.

So what went wrong? In your view. How would you change it or have done it differently? You have to remember I live under a Constitutional monarchy, our revolutions never took hold and Cromwell sold us out for his own stab at power. Most of those who fought for equality ended up jumping ship over to your neck of the woods taking their notion of Republicanism with them.

We have the same problem, alot of our land is actually Federal Preserve and the Feds. have (without right, due to the fact that they never asked the true owners "the people") ceded this land to the UN or UNESCO as World Heritage Sites. We have a huge oil feild in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that we can't touch. It's basicly tundra and they only want to drill a small portion. Go figure.

Maintenance of wildlife though is very important, and I would err on the side of preserving important breeding sites over exploiting natural resources (as opposed to food production). Biodiversity is essential to our future, we are already suffering the effects of intensive farming and if that oil supply does become important/essential, they will find a way of reaching it without damaging flora and fauna.

Sadley, I know this all too well. Rep or Dem. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me. I'd prefer an Independent that thinks for themselves but they never get a real chance because it's alway conveniently some kook that gets a chance to run.

It seems to me that in the US it is not what you know, but who you know and how much money they’ll put behind you. It is similar here, but there are much tighter regulations, although at a local level there is a lot of back-handers being passed about. Especially, as it happens, when it comes to planning. If you consider that an acre of farm land will cost about £2,000-£5,000, if that land gains planning permission for residential builds, the cost will rocket to anything upto (and sometimes beyond) £1 million for that same acre. That is one hell of an incentive to corruption.

As before I see the logic here but I have my reservations. What of the day when it becomes expedient to once more use old ways and "set those adrift" as the Eskimo did. This time because they have no real skills and become a hinderance to the rest of the tribe??? It can lead down a bad road.

That is why mobility is important, I do not think that it is feasible to expect everyone born to that tribe to want to keep to that lifestyle in the way that perhaps the Amish do. Or indeed to fit in. Skills that benefit the group can vary though, someone can serve a vital role just because they make the rest of the group laugh if you see my meaning. The point is though allowing the group to make those decisions and for the group to maintain a responsible attitude to the way group members contribute. But I do see your concern and to be honest, I struggle to see how such groups can be sustained for many generations and perhaps that is what needs to be considered, do we really need to achieve permanent settlements in that respect? Perhaps societies need to be more fluid and able to change.

limit spheres of influence without limiting social mobility and individual choice. I also think that you need to encourage dynamism into the system, where new ideas, blue skies research are welcomed and supported in all areas without a basis in creating profit.

Sounds like a great idea, only that this little devil (human nature or greed) comes into play.

Corruption is the inherent problem that seems without solution. All the major belief systems warn against it, but it seems to have little effect. Even in the worst situations that humans have found themselves in modernity at least corruption has always been a factor in increasing the suffering. It seems there will always be someone who will step over others to get what they want. And, although we all seem to be pre-programmed to care and love others, it is interesting to me, as a parent, that we do have to teach our children to share. It is not a skill that we are born with.


[edit on 24-1-2009 by KilgoreTrout]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I really think that your quote from Heinlein puts it nicely. Especially the observation on specialization. I may have to steal that from you.

But have any of those failed systems actually been scrapped

Largely, yes. When you look at the context of my statement. None of them really function as they once did. There are no real Monarchies, Roman Republics, Athenian Democracies, ect. Most have been scrapped (just like old cars) and they are being used for the parts that are still of value. So for the most part none of them are functioning forms of Ggovernment any longer (without some form of change to them).

Take the American Form of Government (and I use a big G for areason). It is an amalgamation of the British Parlament (naturally), Athenian Democracy, some new ideas, and mainly the Roman Senate system. Some even claim that there are Spartan roots to many of the prcesses in our government. I couldn't tell you which as I heard this argument made a long time ago. But our REPUBLIC (I can't stress that enough) has many old forms that made up a whole new form of government.

Very few places have a Monarchy or some old ide for governance without it having been altered. So yes, I feel thatthey have been scrapped. Only to be used for parts.

although I think history does repeat itself.

No, only things that resemble the past. It's is nearly impossible to reproduce an exact replica of a past event, including a person or people that would make the exact same mistake. That's why I say I like Twain's analogy.

The example that I gave was only of the dominant system that evolved from tribal. Had that dominant ‘style’ of governance not destroyed all others in it’s path, or rather consumed all others we may have better examples.

I think that this is one of the few times that a generalization will make things a bit more clear. We could spend eternity going back and forth about the many forms of governance that Tribalism has spawned, yet it is a bit easier and more simplistic this way. It has been a battle between a form of Autocratic rule and certain forms of Democracies and Republics of sorts. And then there are those that claimed to be Republics andDemocracies yet were Dictatorships. So basically it has been a struggle between the power of a despot and the power of the people. This was the case in Greece, Rome, France, ect.

I would have to agree that there are many leasons that we have repeatedly failed to learn.

Do you feel that the current global situation though allows for those fresh ideas? Are the people having those ideas having their voices heard? Should decisions about how we live really be decided by those in ivory towers?

No, I don't think that the current "global" situation allows for many fresh ideas. It seems to me that the only idea they seem to want is to expand the ever increasingly corrupt ideas upon a "global" scale. I seriously doubt that anyone that isn't a power broker is having their voice heard unless there are powers that have something to gain from it. Twist it in some manipulative way. And I never think that anyone in an ivory tower should make decisions about the average persons destiny for they know not what we live through. If there be an "ivory dweller" in the seat of power they should take directive from the populace.

The problem though is we are not going to achieve anything looking at this particular problem as individuals.

Although it is said on a personto person level, what I was getting at was that I would also apply that to mankind in general.

I don’t think it is avoidable, globalism. And, to be quite honest, I favour it, though not in the hands of some of those that currently propose it.

I would have to say that even though I am I strongly oppsed to "globalism" I feel that eventually it will happen by natural processes. However, I feel that this is far far down the road, far down the road. It's unsafe to rush nature. Besides there are too many differences at this time in human development to push that upon humanity. It would be irresponsible and catastrophic at best. The many Nations have so many individual problems it would only serve to increase them and visit one nation's problems upon another if we push for blobalization. I'm a strong beleiver in cleaning up ones own back yard first. It would be like two irresponsible people getting married. Bad choice.
There is also the idea that what's good for one is good for all, and that's not true at all. People will resist with violent outcomes. It would be destine to fail at this point.

There also needs, in my opinion, for the reason you suggest, personal liberty, for a limitation of influence and control.

No matter when it where to happen freedoms are a prerequisite!!!

A central government should only control those things that are central, transportation and communications for example, there is a need in my mind to allow more power to the individual to make decisions for themselves and to have greater influence in how taxation money is spent.

How very true. Have you ever read the United States Constitution? If not, give it a look.
www.usconstitution.net

I sadly do not see how taxes can ever be avoided, but I do think that too much goes to fund unnecessary suits.

Neither do I, but I think that a "FAIR" amount (and I don't mean large) is acceptable in order for public works and the nececary functions of society.

We are constantly assailed with the notion of difference, and the sensationalism of paedophilia doesn’t help either.

Yes, I agree there is muchto be said for awareness but we have shows like, "To Catch A Preditor" in the US. It's out of hand, then again so are the wackos.

In any event I remember when our neighborhoods were split along ethnic lines (oddly enough) people were closer in the community. We actually talked to our neighbors. That is not so anymore. I think it's the "Yuppi" culture and all that comes with it. We also have a big problem with illegal immigration over here and I noticed that as the years go on and they have become more numorous the neighborhood becomes increasingly introverted where neighbors don't even talk.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Growing up we used to know everyones parents and so on throughout the neighborhood. Now, you don't even know who your next door neighbor is because you haven't even seen them. Even as a teen I remember sitting on the front porch and hanging out with freinds while all the parents were out on the front porch or inthe back yards too havingbeers and socializing. Not anymore.

Have you read any Engels?

Not specificaly. I read the Manifesto and I figured that since it was a colaboration that I get the general notion of his political ideals. I have read Alinsky and some portions of Lenin's and Trotsky's writtings though. As far as I'm concerned, if you've read one you've read them all (as far as their polotics are concerned).

What is it with you American’s and Socialism?

Those of us that "WORK" are tired of paying for those that abuse the system and get away with it. That drive up to a housing project in a $40,000 SUV with spinning rims just because it looks cool. While we act responsible and work a real job day in and day out. Those of us that have an once of self respect will not allow for others or the Government to coddle us when we can take care of ourselves. And we expect others to be honorable and do likewise. I could give you many more reasons but this is what we've seen of "Socialism in America. Not to mention the fact that no man will go to school for 16+ yaers to be a doctor while another doesn't even go to college. Yet they both live in the same crappy apartment building wityh crappy health care for the same pay.

Or may be the idea of Enforced Atheism, free love, the break up of the family unit, ad infinitum. It's blind Utopianism and it just can't work.

self-determination

Where have you seen that in a Communist country? And please don't try to tell me that Socialismand Communism are different for I will have to refer you to "The Manifesto."

Cuba on the whole I think is a good example of socialism

I know that I seem standoff-ish but I'm not trying to be. How many Cubans have you spoken to? I know many. Do youknow of the atrocities perpetrated on the Cuban people by Castro, Che' Guevara, and the Communist regime in Cuba?? Or are the people braving the shark infested waters of the Caribbean for fun? Think about what would make you do such a thing for a moment.

So what went wrong? In your view.

Many things. The struggle between the Federalist and Republicans fomented deep rivalries. The creation of a "national bank" that wasn't really a national bank at all. Theses and other issues suchas states rights were the main cause for the Civil War which in turn granted the Federal Government new powers. The 16th Ammendment (to levy an income tax) passed in 1913 and the new Federal Reserve Bank (not Federal at all). And then there was the "NewDeal" and WW2 which granted the President and Government far too many more powers.

How would you change it or have done it differently?

I would start with most of that if it where a perfect world. But there is a lot more that I 'll talk to you about another time.

Maintenance of wildlife though is very important, and I would err on the side of preserving important breeding sites over exploiting natural resources

True, I'm not saying "animals be damned" just be rational is all. We are in a bad way right now and no solutions are forthcomming. And there are practically no wild life around the area of interest. It's tundra.

If you consider that an acre of farm land will cost about £2,000-£5,000, if that land gains planning permission for residential builds, the cost will rocket to anything upto (and sometimes beyond) £1 million for that same acre. That is one hell of an incentive to corruption.

Now that's is just completely corrupt. How do they justify such plain BS.

It seems there will always be someone who will step over others to get what they want.

That's part of my point about Globalism.

And, although we all seem to be pre-programmed to care and love others, it is interesting to me, as a parent, that we do have to teach our children to share. It is not a skill that we are born with.

Funny that you should mention that, I was just talking to my mother about that the other day. It's a starnge thing isn't it? I would say that not all people are pre-programmed to love one another though. Unless you want to make the nature nurture argument. I think the lack of sharing is a survival instinct.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I really think that your quote from Heinlein puts it nicely. Especially the observation on specialization. I may have to steal that from you.

Glad you liked it. Have you read any Heinlein? He had a lot to say about ‘society’, among other things, there is a lot to like in some of his visions of the future. Some is a bit odd, perhaps too influenced by the free love of the 60s, but interesting none the less. His earlier work is a little more totalitarian, read chronologically, his work demonstrates the evolution of a more enlightened ideology.

Most have been scrapped (just like old cars) and they are being used for the parts that are still of value. So for the most part none of them are functioning forms of Ggovernment any longer (without some form of change to them).

I see what you mean, perhaps what concerns me most is who decides what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’? Are the majority or the minority the beneficiaries of these amendments?

No, only things that resemble the past. It's is nearly impossible to reproduce an exact replica of a past event, including a person or people that would make the exact same mistake. That's why I say I like Twain's analogy.

Sure they are never repeated in exactitude, but there is repetition in terms of similarity, or more specifically, repetitious patterns of behaviour.

It has been a battle between a form of Autocratic rule and certain forms of Democracies and Republics of sorts. And then there are those that claimed to be Republics andDemocracies yet were Dictatorships. So basically it has been a struggle between the power of a despot and the power of the people. This was the case in Greece, Rome, France, ect.

Historically yes, ancient history though. There is though a continuation from the emergence of the Roman Empire. Not an unbroken line, but most definitely a line of intent, namely taxation, and that has spread across the globe and continues to spread. From taxation springs protectionism, that is, or was, in theory what we paid our taxes for, it is a legal protection racket. That is why fear is an integral part of any regime, be it democratic or totalitarian, a threat is needed to justify you paying for the governments protection. It is more complicated now of course, we pay for services too (whether we use them or not), we pay for thousands of suits to make decisions on how that taxation is spent and we pay for the interest on the national debt. What very few people fully appreciate, is that when Orwell wrote 1984, his main concern was not that we would be watched by cameras everywhere we go, but that automated bureaucracy would dehumanise us to the point where we were merely numbers without a physical identity, that life would be reduced to statistics. The cameras to his mind, and to mine, are a mere trifle compared to the way in which our existence itself is nothing more than a balance sheet and a set on binary codes.

The many Nations have so many individual problems it would only serve to increase them and visit one nation's problems upon another if we push for blobalization. I'm a strong beleiver in cleaning up ones own back yard first.

I completely agree, we should be taking care of our own backyards. But seems that your country, and mine, can’t keep their noses out of everyone else’s.

There is also the idea that what's good for one is good for all, and that's not true at all. People will resist with violent outcomes. It would be destine to fail at this point.

I doubt that there would be too much unified complaint, which means it would be ineffective at best, small skirmishes would only provide the excuse for heavy handed policing or even military intervention. Certainly in yours and my neck of the woods, most would just roll over for their tummy tickling, the west has already been won. Other areas though, those who have not quite been tamed, may kick up a bit of a fuss. When I look at globalism though, I hope that it would be other groups than those currently pulling the strings that make that decision, as you rightly say, until we eradicate the pervasive corruption we have no hope of any such change being representative of progress.

No matter when it where to happen freedoms are a prerequisite!!!

To get a little philosophical about it, what is freedom? If you have read all of the Maban thread, I feel that this is in part what he is talking about when he says that in the future the battlefield will be in the mind. Freedom is a highly relative commodity.

How very true. Have you ever read the United States Constitution? If not, give it a look.
www.usconstitution.net

I will have a read. Thanks for the link.

Neither do I, but I think that a "FAIR" amount (and I don't mean large) is acceptable in order for public works and the nececary functions of society.

The problem is though, is what is deemed necessary? Who decides what is necessary? But, more importantly, in order for taxation to be limited, there is a need to control or eradicate national debt. National debt is levied against the taxations of the state, both direct and indirect taxes. The taxes that we pay, before they can be spent on services and infrastructure, have to meet the interest payments for the loans that our countries have borrowed to meet budgetary deficits. It is a vicious and currently inescapable cycle, and it places most countries in leverage to private interests.

In any event I remember when our neighborhoods were split along ethnic lines (oddly enough) people were closer in the community. We actually talked to our neighbors. That is not so anymore. I think it's the "Yuppi" culture and all that comes with it. We also have a big problem with illegal immigration over here and I noticed that as the years go on and they have become more numorous the neighborhood becomes increasingly introverted where neighbors don't even talk.

I do feel that immigration, particularly mass immigration on economic grounds does create division, and I believe for some that this is the point. I agree that the Yuppi, or ‘me’ culture of the 80s onwards played a part, but I think that if you look at the way social policy and the way in which socio-psychological study has been directed and promoted by big business you will see a clear trend towards dividing us as groups and reaffirming the ‘individual’ since the 1950s. The Kinsey Reports are an interesting case in point, where the bias of those studies and the high profile promotion of them made monogamist seem like they were the wierdos. If you weren’t swinging then there must be something wrong with you.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I read the Manifesto and I figured that since it was a colaboration that I get the general notion of his political ideals. I have read Alinsky and some portions of Lenin's and Trotsky's writtings though. As far as I'm concerned, if you've read one you've read them all (as far as their polotics are concerned).

Not so, you should read them all and extract from them what is good. They are nothing more than ideas, some have been tested, others have not. Engel’s is particularly good at the ‘Working Classes’. Lenin’s writings on Capitalism and Monopolies is amazing in it’s foresight. But, more importantly, and you may not like this, forget politics, there is no such thing as politics, there is only economics. All the rest is window dressing. Read them with that in mind. Trade is king of this world and everything revolves around trade, legal or otherwise.

Those of us that "WORK" are tired of paying for those that abuse the system and get away with it. That drive up to a housing project in a $40,000 SUV with spinning rims just because it looks cool. While we act responsible and work a real job day in and day out. Those of us that have an once of self respect will not allow for others or the Government to coddle us when we can take care of ourselves. And we expect others to be honorable and do likewise. I could give you many more reasons but this is what we've seen of "Socialism in America. Not to mention the fact that no man will go to school for 16+ yaers to be a doctor while another doesn't even go to college. Yet they both live in the same crappy apartment building wityh crappy health care for the same pay.

So socialism to you means welfare. For me, it means for the social, for society. Policies that benefit the majority not the individual. Decision making based on the majority not the needs of the individual. Socialism for me, should be applied from the bottom up.

I see a need for a welfare system within that, and while I agree with you that many, many people abuse those welfare systems, others are genuinely in need and it is only through dependency, a dependency that is sometimes reinforced by government policy, that abuses occur. There will always be, without a hard handed Nazi-style application of eugenics, elements in society who cannot work or who cannot look after themselves, we all get sick from time to time, a system to provide for those people is essential to a functioning society, unless of course you wish to return to a period when people did literally die in the street from starvation, exploitation and neglect. To me there are two fundamental problems with welfare provision (including in the UK health care), one an inability for people to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, perhaps better put, too many people expect others to think for them, and secondly, the systems that govern welfare suffer from too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Too much taxation revenue goes on management wages, unnecessary management at that. Most areas of the welfare systems, in both our countries, have too many paper pushers when what is needed is men on the ground, doing.

self-determination

Where have you seen that in a Communist country? And please don't try to tell me that Socialismand Communism are different for I will have to refer you to "The Manifesto."

Bolshevism was socialist, communism was a theoretical adaptation of socialism, so I agree they are indistinguishable except by application. Soviet Russia may have been called Communist, but communism was not ever meant to be totalitarian. The leadership style of a country can change the shape of any theory and keep the same name. The USSR was corrupt from it’s inception it was never, ever really socialist, even in the brief period that Kerensky lead a socialist government he was only able to do so with regular funds from the British, and those were only offered on the condition that Kerensky keep Russia in the war. Lenin on the other hand received money and support from the bankers and industrialists to wrest control from Kerensky, General Ludendorf, defacto leader of German helped Lenin enter Russia on the grounds that Russia withdraw from the war. Where is the will of the masses in all that do you think? If it isn’t in the interest of the majority, it is not socialism.

I know that I seem standoff-ish but I'm not trying to be. How many Cubans have you spoken to? I know many. Do youknow of the atrocities perpetrated on the Cuban people by Castro, Che' Guevara, and the Communist regime in Cuba?? Or are the people braving the shark infested waters of the Caribbean for fun? Think about what would make you do such a thing for a moment.

There will be always those who will up sticks for better opportunities. Depending how bad it is where you are, depends upon how desperate you are. Social and geographical mobility are entirely relative. If conditions are very bad, if you are starving and there is no welfare availability then yes you will brave shark infested waters. Rats always leave the sinking ship. But why is Cuba sinking, lack of jobs? Unsustainable population growth? Cuba is failing because it is not allowed to participate in free trade. If Cuba had been allowed to trade freely it would not be suffering economic problems any greater than any other nation. Socialism has not failed in Cuba, socialism has been prevented from succeeding.

True, I'm not saying "animals be damned" just be rational is all. We are in a bad way right now and no solutions are forthcomming. And there are practically no wild life around the area of interest. It's tundra.

Flora is as important as fauna. Grasses require pollinators, insect life is an important factor in biodiversity. There is a great importance in maintaining the food chain and maintaining diversity in all the stratas of life on this planet. Everything serves a purpose even if we are unable to immediately recognise that. Plus we are not in a bas way, we are stuck in a rut. We have done things this way for so long we are loath to change. Oil is essential to our future but not as fuel, we need it for the chemicals, plastics etc that it produces, using it as fuel is a waste. The problem is though that we need to completely change our mind set, speed and performance of our motor vehicles being the primary one, not to mention the whole notion of individual motorised transportation. It is unnecessary and wasteful, and therefore unsociable. We are not in a bad way right now, we’re feeling the pinch certainly, some more than others, but is the exploitation of the oil in Alaska really going to help out much? While we should be looking at tending our own backyards, part of that should surely be considering how we impact on others. The current economic difficulties will be ridden out, no amount of oil is going to change the current depression, what we should be doing in this period of economic contraction is considering whether investment in public works, especially by using sustainable energies can not only boost our economies and alleiviate unemployment, but also help move us move towards a new technological evolution. This is an ideal opportunity to be considering revolutionising how we produce energies for our homes, communication and transportation systems. We have everything to gain, and the technology is there, free clean energy is abundant for these applications. There is no excuse in my mind for us not to take this opportunity to make that leap forward into a technological revolution or at the very least to set it in motion.

If you consider that an acre of farm land will cost about £2,000-£5,000, if that land gains planning permission for residential builds, the cost will rocket to anything upto (and sometimes beyond) £1 million for that same acre. That is one hell of an incentive to corruption.

Now that's is just completely corrupt. How do they justify such plain BS.

Because it is so pretty! We are a small island. A large proportion of the land is designated as national parkland. Development in these areas is highly restricted, this pushes up land prices. A single building plot for a 4 bedroom house in a national park, say about 0.10 acre will cost you about £150,000 to £300,000 depending upon location. Land is valued at a third of the completed property value. Each county has it’s own planning guidelines, but they are governed by central government. It is a messed up system that is completely prohibitive to the self-builder. The current slump has opened up the market a little, the big developers are a bit more cautious, many are going bankrupt, but the backhanders still mean that the little people are scared off, too worried about the risk of losing the little money that they have in an unsteady and corrupt market.

I think the lack of sharing is a survival instinct.

I agree. Most parents will give their lives for their children, that is part of the natural order of procreation, but otherwise, when push comes to shove, the genetic lines that have survived have done so over the ages against some quite extraordinary odds. In some cases it would be reasonable to assume that sharing would have meant death of many (which brings us back to infanticide and geronticide).

Hmmm, interesting, perhaps sharing is an adaptation of our inherent desire to trade. There’s a thought to ponder. Perhaps, it always comes down to an innate desire for that which we don’t already have. That’ll be where the ‘thou shall not covet…’ comes in. How many of us are able to follow that particularly commandment with any zeal, religious or otherwise?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

his work demonstrates the evolution of a more enlightened ideology.

Have you read any Heinlein?

No, I have not read any of his work but from what you say he seems to make good sense. There are alot of things that I would like to read but I just can't. I'm like a sponge for knowlege but there is a too much water and I haven't figured out that problem yet.

But as far as Heinlein goes, if he shows an "evolution" in his outlook on issues then he is (or was, I don't know which is appropriate) on the right track in a manner of speaking. I have always felt that a person should be fluid in most of the positions that they take. The more you learn and experience in life the more clearly you see things and your position should change in some ways. If not, your bull-headed, and live life without examination. "The unexamined life........"

Are the majority or the minority the beneficiaries of these amendments?

I think that in some cases the minority (rich, governing, buisness) are the beneficiaries of such Frankenstein type governments. As they are usually the ones at the helm and can manipulate it. However, as of late the majority (people at large) are the largest beneficiaries due to the fact that around the world in one form or another Monarchies, Dictatorships, and similar Autocracies have largley faded or at least given some concessions in the way of individual liberties. A Democratic ideal in a way. Even handing over some measure of power to the population.

So I would say that maybe in a monetary way the minority will always keep it's advantage but to this point in time we a people (the majority)have gained that which we have always struggled for.

Sure they are never repeated in exactitude, but there is repetition in terms of similarity, or more specifically, repetitious patterns of behaviour.

That's why I use the analogy that, "it rhymes." Though it cannot be reproduced to exactitude it can be mirrored in effect (i.e. rhyme). I think that we agree here but you don't see it for some reason.

What very few people fully appreciate, is that when Orwell wrote 1984, his main concern was not that we would be watched by cameras everywhere we go, but that automated bureaucracy would dehumanise us to the point where we were merely numbers without a physical identity, that life would be reduced to statistics.

I have to say that I agree with you emphatically on the issue of taxation. That has been the issue in the US sinse the very begining and was the reason for our nation to begin with. People say it was about rights but it was mostly about "taxation without representation" and over taxation. It's all about the billfold. I also agree with the issue of dehumanization, as you can see we are all being turned into "just another number" as time goes on. But I don't know how you don't see the parallel with the cameras? You have been to London, I assume. I see it here in Chicago. Cameras are going up everywhere. We are comming into the proverbial "fishbowl" as we speak.

But seems that your country, and mine, can’t keep their noses out of everyone else’s.

In a perfect world my freind, in a perfect world. I have been saying that for a long long time. I think some times we should and some times we shouldn't. The worst part is when we do things like this, (example) Hồ Chí Minh askes us to help get the Imperial French out of what was then "French IndoChina" accourding to the N.A.T.O. giving all peoples reign over their own destiny and effectively ending Imperialism. Yet we withold our influence because France is an "allie." And then Pres. Truman goes and makes a dumb proclimation that he, "will stop the spread of Communism." Effectively locking us into a position where we end up fighting those that only asked for us to keep our word. Was it any wonder they turned to the Red Chinese in order to gain control of their own country? If we would have stepped in and kept our word thousands of lives could have been saved.

I just had to make that point, but I agree with what you're saying.

unified complaint

That would be too much to ask for.

heavy handed policing or even military intervention.

We are already in the midst of such tactics.

the west has already been won.

I would have to say, that is a foregone conclusion. Here in the US there has always ben a strong sense of nationalism. If you assume that my "avatar" represents some fringe element of American society you are sadly mistaken. Though there are those that spout off about "how grand and noble" the UN is, but not a soul dare utter a proposition for global governance in any official capacity. Some that "claim" the high road in the big cities and universities make speaches that broach the issue but with no real substance. Only making mention of a North American Union, (such as Robert Pastor) and North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), and other pet projects of the elite that would serve to strip us of our sovereignty.

Even now they meet a feirce opposition. What do you suppose would happen in the US if UN or any other troops or even American troops were sent into the populace to impose a forign powers authority? I don't think I need to tell a Britsish Citizen about Americans rebellious nature. I'm sure that there are some that still send us to hell everychance they get over old animus. It didn't go well in 1776, 1812, the Wiskey rebelions against our own Federal Government's taxes, countless other reballions, the Civil War, post Civil War infighting, and much much more. Not to mention that this country was almost torn apart in the 60's and 70's due to Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement. And I don't mean that figuratively, most people don't realize how bad it almost got, we were tearing ourselves apart. This country isn't known for taking things easily "if we are opposed to them."

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Also, the vast majority of Americans are Nationalist, no matter what the media would have you believe. At best there would be a revolt. The people wouldn't allow themselves to loose all that our fathers and forefathers had sacraficed for us and this country. In a best case scenario many in the military would partake as is part of their duty. The oath follows,

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Baring the Caveat in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. UCMJ, Art. 92 (1) A. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

I add this law.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Worst case scenario, some soldiers ignore these sorts of laws and we end up in another Civil War. One thing is for certain, it will not go smoothly.

I hope that it would be other groups than those currently pulling the strings that make that decision

In all honesty, although I fully agree with this sentiment I hope that I'm not alive to see any attempt. I'm sure it will be all the same, "good old boys." And I don't care to live in a world like that.

I feel that this is in part what he is talking about when he says that in the future the battlefield will be in the mind. Freedom is a highly relative commodity.

The mental battlefeild was established long ago. Mankind has been fighting there for thousands of years. Religion, finance, political ideaologies. All matters of where you stand, perceptions of what's right and wrong. Terrorism for example, "War on Terror!???" That's like having a "War on Flanking Tactics," of a war on punching. It's a tactic, try and beat it, it's futile. Better yet you can't kill an idea. They need to combat the root of the problem, the terror "tacticts" are just that. Tactics.

In the same light, freedom IS an idea. And a noble one if you ask me. But ask yourself a question that should permeate to the essence of your being. Would you be happy without your freedoms? Even if you feel that they aren't as many as they should be or may have been? Man has always struggled to rise from the muck of seritude and oppression, I think that freedom IS the ultimate goal, even if it is an idea it seems to be the instinctual and natural order of our being.

The problem is though, is what is deemed necessary? Who decides what is necessary? But, more importantly, in order for taxation to be limited, there is a need to control or eradicate national debt.

I will say that what's necessary are the functions of sociecty atlarge. Police, Fire& Rescue, transportation, Schools, Deffence, and (though I see myself as an INDEPENDENT Conservative) a saftey net for those that have fallen on hard times. With the petition that they are not abusing the system. As for national debt I would only say that my Conservatism permeates every scope of polotics. National Debt is a sin in my political view! I can't renmember who said it but, a country that doesn't control it's currency doesn't control it's own destiny. I will leave it at that or else I will rail on for hours.

But, more importantly, and you may not like this, forget politics, there is no such thing as politics, there is only economics. All the rest is window dressing.

Simplistic, yet insightful. I have always (more or less) taken the adage that "money makes the world go round" but I have forgotten to apply that to world polotics as far as ideaologies go. I'll keep that in mind if I ever get around to actually "reading" some of Lenin's and Engles FULL work. So far I have five other books on my shelf that I have yet to crack, and six that I have yet to buy. Not to mention one in particular (The Forgotten Man) about the Great Depression that I may well move to the front of my list. It cought my eye. See what I mean about the sponge thing? It's horrible!

I see a need for a welfare system within that, and while I agree with you that many, many people abuse those welfare systems, others are genuinely in need and it is only through dependency, a dependency that is sometimes reinforced by government policy, that abuses occur.

I agree with you here to a certain extent. My own family was on it as a child because I had a deadbeat father and my mother was terrified that something would happen to my brother and I in the hands of a daycare. Yet at schooling age she went out and "GOT A JOB." And when my brother reached 15 he "GOT A JOB," likewise when I reached 15 "I GOT A JOB!" My brothers and mine were part time to help with the bills but I think that you see where I'm going with this. I understand and support RESPONSIBLE programs to help RESPONSIBLE people that need help for a while, NOT FOR LIFE!

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

I knew people that lived with their "baby's father" and still got full medical, food stamps, cash, plus the Child Support Checks. All while the man lived there and paid the bills. And then you have those previously mentioned that live in housing projects (not all) but some live better than working class stiffs. All off of good faith government money (i.e. the working stiffs tax money) while the same working class guy tries to figure how he's goingto make ends meet? Or put food on the table himself!

Beleive me it's mot a thing of, "let them rot." It's just that this is the only version of Socialism that we have seen and it's no good. You can't take from a hard working person who struggles also and give to a person who cares not for their own future expecting for things to be fine an dandy. As I said before if it's HELP that's another story, when it's SUPPORT its a whole new ball game. That's besides the notion of the Nanny state and craddle to grave care taking. But I think we agree on that issue.

Bolshevism was socialist, communism was a theoretical adaptation of socialism,

Preface: The Communist Manifesto pg.50 (in my copy)
"Thus, socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement. Socialism was,on the continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite."

It was only a differential between the so called "upper" and "lower" classes. Being that the Communist loathed the middle-class so, they took the "Communist" name. But it is one in practice.

but communism was not ever meant to be totalitarian.

I'll give you some lattitude only in as much as it was'nt meant to be totalitarian "for long."

Proletarians and Communists: pg.93 (my copy)
"Of course, inthe begining, this cannotbe effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeoisie production."

Totalitarianism takes many forms, and can be more than one person at the helm.
I have to agree with you about the way that Lenin and others were controlled. here's a quote.
Lenin: "The State does not function as we desire. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not move in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes."

If it isn’t in the interest of the majority, it is not socialism.

True. How funny that the same can be said about my Republic, your Parlamentary Monarchy, and many Democracies.

There will be always those who will up sticks for better opportunities.

I doubt that it was the lack of jobs. The reasons that I was given range from murder at the hand of the government to political imprisonment and worse.

Plus we are not in a bas way, we are stuck in a rut.

You make all valid points, but I was eluding to the fact that at the moment we (the US) are at the mercy of Oil Producing Nations OPEC and we can't tap our own resources. Lunacy! The only issue that I take is that I don't think that we have the battery storage capabilities as of yet to tranfer to wind and solar power. And if we go to electric cars then we will be placing that much larger an order on an already taxed COAL burning electrical system for auto fuel. If we build more Nuclear plants we are the bad guys???? Hydrogen is too expensive as of yet. The best we can do just yet is hybrids.

You have to understand that the jobs in the US aren't as they were in the 50's and 60's. No longer can you walk to work. Most companies have pulled out of the cities and pushed out to the Suburban areas. That can be anywhere from 13 to 40 miles to travel for some. My commute on a bad day is an hour with road conditions. Not that I'm snubbing you but you have to realize that this is a huge country and the transportation needs are different here. We have trains here but not as extensive as they are in Europe, not that anyone would want to travel from NY to LA that way. It's just that sometimes it seems that people try to apply (as I said) what's good for one is good for all logic. Plus people slamm us for consumption and our exports never make it into the equation. Like food. We are still the largest food exporter in the world, unless somthing has changed. How would the people of the world like it if we with held food like they with hold oil???? Can't harvest without oil, gas, and diesel?

For example I'm a truck driver, lets see how we can haul 37 to 44 thousand pounds any distance on a fuellcell, hybrid, or electric motor?

That’ll be where the ‘thou shall not covet…’ comes in. How many of us are able to follow that particularly commandment with any zeal, religious or otherwise?

Not many I'd imagine. Besides if you don't covet how can you know what you want in life? If I think your house is nice that's coveting. But it's the direction that my coveting tkes that matters the most, I think. I think if it's constructive why not? As long as Thou dost not covet mine CHEESECAKE!

reply to post by lazy1981

Originally posted by lazy1981
So I would say that maybe in a monetary way the minority will always keep it's advantage but to this point in time we a people (the majority)have gained that which we have always struggled for.

It can just be a matter of perspective, I can see why you may feel that the majority have gained through struggle, I perhaps feel that very little has truly been gained. I would maybe even go as far as to say far more freedoms have been lost.

That governments can be bought and sold. That position and power, and decisions by elected bodies, can be bought and sold does not to me represent a worthy end to any struggle. If a system is corrupt then it has failed and it continues to fail the people until that corruption is cut out.

Originally posted by lazy1981
That's why I use the analogy that, "it rhymes." Though it cannot be reproduced to exactitude it can be mirrored in effect (i.e. rhyme). I think that we agree here but you don't see it for some reason.

I think you are right we agree, understood now, loud and clear.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I have to say that I agree with you emphatically on the issue of taxation. That has been the issue in the US sinse the very begining and was the reason for our nation to begin with. People say it was about rights but it was mostly about "taxation without representation" and over taxation. It's all about the billfold. I also agree with the issue of dehumanization, as you can see we are all being turned into "just another number" as time goes on. But I don't know how you don't see the parallel with the cameras? You have been to London, I assume. I see it here in Chicago. Cameras are going up everywhere. We are comming into the proverbial "fishbowl" as we speak.

The issue with the cameras is difficult, they aren’t really watching us, they are simply recording events for future reference. That is certainly the case in the UK. That is why I feel it differs from the notion of Orwell’s Big Brother. In the UK the cameras are for security and crime prevention/detection, they are not indicative of a police state. It may be a subtle differential, but cameras are not yet utilised in such a way as to indicate behavioural monitoring . Yet.

Originally posted by lazy1981
In a perfect world my freind, in a perfect world. I have been saying that for a long long time. I think some times we should and some times we shouldn't. The worst part is when we do things like this, (example) Hồ Chí Minh askes us to help get the Imperial French out of what was then "French IndoChina" accourding to the N.A.T.O. giving all peoples reign over their own destiny and effectively ending Imperialism. Yet we withold our influence because France is an "allie." And then Pres. Truman goes and makes a dumb proclimation that he, "will stop the spread of Communism." Effectively locking us into a position where we end up fighting those that only asked for us to keep our word. Was it any wonder they turned to the Red Chinese in order to gain control of their own country? If we would have stepped in and kept our word thousands of lives could have been saved.

This is what is so frustrating though. It is basically stated that it is the right of every country to pursue self-determination, at the end of the first war, Wilson stated that the US would in fact support any country wishing to pursue it’s own self-determination. Wilson quite swiftly got slapped down for making such a ridiculous proclamation. He put the Imperial Power’s, well Britain’s, nose well and truly out of joint. Behind every agreement or negotiation that we hear about and that gets recorded for posterity, there are half a dozen more that get swept under the carpet only to be spoke of in retrospect.

The US forces could hardly have supported the Mihn and go against Britain and France, some agreements are more important than others, some are easier to break in the short term. As you draw the parallel, the Vietnamese turned to Communist China, as they had no other remit, just as, the Cubans were forced to trade with the Soviet Union when the US drowned it in embargoes.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I would have to say, that is a foregone conclusion. Here in the US there has always ben a strong sense of nationalism. If you assume that my "avatar" represents some fringe element of American society you are sadly mistaken. Though there are those that spout off about "how grand and noble" the UN is, but not a soul dare utter a proposition for global governance in any official capacity. Some that "claim" the high road in the big cities and universities make speaches that broach the issue but with no real substance. Only making mention of a North American Union, (such as Robert Pastor) and North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), and other pet projects of the elite that would serve to strip us of our sovereignty.

I honestly made no assumptions about your avatar, I’m not one to judge, let alone on appearances alone, so no fear on that score. As far as the UN is concerned, I have little to say other than I believe it is functionally ineffective. It certainly fails to protect peace. I do think that certain facilities, like Agenda 21, are important though, although I am unsure how they would be implemented. We WILL be facing global food shortages in the short to medium term future, globally. And I do think that provisions have to made given that certain members of the global population have a greater proportion of food than others. As I said though, I have some doubts about whether fairness can be implemented by force, kind of a contradiction in terms.

Originally posted by lazy1981
Even now they meet a feirce opposition. What do you suppose would happen in the US if UN or any other troops or even American troops were sent into the populace to impose a forign powers authority? I don't think I need to tell a Britsish Citizen about Americans rebellious nature. I'm sure that there are some that still send us to hell everychance they get over old animus. It didn't go well in 1776, 1812, the Wiskey rebelions against our own Federal Government's taxes, countless other reballions, the Civil War, post Civil War infighting, and much much more. Not to mention that this country was almost torn apart in the 60's and 70's due to Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement. And I don't mean that figuratively, most people don't realize how bad it almost got, we were tearing ourselves apart. This country isn't known for taking things easily "if we are opposed to them."

I think that it is for this very reason that the rumour mill is most effective in the US. No action is really necessary to spread dissension and more importantly division. As long as they can keep the population divided, or more importantly, fighting amongst themselves, then the Powers that Be have little to worry themselves about. It is only when there is firm social cohesion, the majority is moved to act together, that there is any cause for their concern.

It is no better here. Given the comparative size of the UK, we are a very small country, but we are divided considerably, geographically, religiously, socially, racially, ethnically and in terms of age too. The chance of us unifying against a common foe is minimal. Over the past few years, since the former Soviet Block European states joined the EU, we have seen considerable influx of eastern European workers. These workers have been given favourable treatment by social services, housing, loans, benefits and this, in some areas, is generating a sense of resentment. The anger in some areas is palpable and I do not think that, combined with the less significant, anti-muslim feelings, it would take much to set these ‘estates’ off destructibly. I sometimes get the feeling that that is what many people are waiting for. It wouldn’t be the end of the world, or even the end of the country, but it would cause considerable damage to the social structure of the country. I hope that things don’t get to that point, and given the space and a better division of resources I don’t think it has to, but, I do have the nagging suspicion that some people would like a little rioting to get the ball rolling. Intuition, not the most reliable of my sources.

reply to post by lazy1981

Originally posted by lazy1981
Also, the vast majority of Americans are Nationalist, no matter what the media would have you believe. At best there would be a revolt. The people wouldn't allow themselves to loose all that our fathers and forefathers had sacraficed for us and this country.

I am not trying to be facetious, but how many of those forefathers are spinning in their graves? Many, many wars have been fought, and one or two of those were genuinely about freedom.

When I look at the world that my great grandmother lived in and compare it to this one, I feel that we have gone backwards. Women died so that I could have the vote. In retrospect, they died for nothing, just as John Lilburn died for nothing. I am a subject of a constitutional monarchy, I am bound to this country through an accident of birth. I am legally tethered to the laws that this country imposes upon me. This country is in turn bound to protect me and ensure that I can travel unmolested. I pay taxes for a few additional benefits, I pay whether I use those services or not.

My vote, enables me to partake in the selection of the party that will lead the government, or choose the government. My vote does not select the monarch, though my taxes support her. My vote does not select the defacto rulers of the country, the Civil Service, though my taxes pay their wages too. My vote most certainly has no bearing upon how this country is run or how my taxes are spent. The older and more cynical I get, the more I am inclined to feel that it is all a silly school boy prank that no one remembered to call. It is a ridiculously silly, archaic, antiquated and morally corrupt system. If they ever make the error of allowing me office I know precisely where I would stick my boots. It would not be pretty. So much money is wasted on ‘management’ or ‘suits’, and yet, nothing seems to be getting managed. Everything, especially the infrastructure, is failing. It is like the entire country has been left in the hands of cowboy builders and that they are only now assessing the damage. It is pitiful.

The UKs major export is financial services, there is little or no industry, some food manufacturing, not much in the way of finished goods. Our primary employers are services providers of one form or another. We have completely unsustainable population growth. In the worst case scenario, whole shebang hits the fan, the UK has the ability to provide food for a maximum of 30 million people. Our current population is around 60 million. We are highly reliant on imported food, textiles and manufactured goods.

Now billions of pounds pass through the banks and trading houses of this country, people from all over the world come to the City to bank or rather to have their banking managed. That money only passes through though. There is no direction of investment into the UK, only money passing through. No industry. High unemployment, economic immigration encouraged…nice! It gets better, the rail network needs massive investment, it is effectively decaying. Nice shiny carriages belie rails that need replacing some time before a derailment. Water and sewage infrastructure is failing, millions of gallons of treated water is being wasted, money is literally being flushed down the toilet.

I really feel for those bright eyed bushy tailed types, like Blair may once have been, who fresh from the euphoria of victory, enter their office and get briefed by Gus O’Donnell or their ilk, to find out what a real pile of # they have found themselves in. The UK is a juggling act, sooner or later the balls are going to start falling. Everything about the UK is a slippery slide. Blair bounded into office like a puppy and drooped out like an old blood hound.

I’ve wittered on so much that I had to go back and find out what point I was trying to make. I’m none the wiser so I will quietly move on.

Originally posted by lazy1981
In a best case scenario many in the military would partake as is part of their duty. The oath follows,

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Do you think that it is likely that will be upheld? The fundamental difficulty with any military is that they are trained/programmed to follow orders, while I think that it is unlikely that an army can be used effectively against its own people, I am equally doubtful that it would stand up to protect the ‘people’ either.

Originally posted by lazy1981
Worst case scenario, some soldiers ignore these sorts of laws and we end up in another Civil War. One thing is for certain, it will not go smoothly.

What confuses me, when I look at your system of government is, that if you can generate sufficient popular support, theoretically, to envision a civil war, then surely then you can generate the personnel needed to use the constitution to make those changes peaceably. Democracy, or republicanism rather, has not failed, it is diseased and that disease can be cut out. Do you see what I mean? You don’t need to have an actual war to fight for your rights, they are yours, you just have to make them give you them back.

Originally posted by lazy1981
In all honesty, although I fully agree with this sentiment I hope that I'm not alive to see any attempt. I'm sure it will be all the same, "good old boys." And I don't care to live in a world like that.

I’m supposing you don’t have children. It’s not so easy when you have children, a lot of effort goes into raising good people, it is wasted effort, if the world that we leave them is a cess pit.

Originally posted by lazy1981
The mental battlefeild was established long ago. Mankind has been fighting there for thousands of years. Religion, finance, political ideaologies. All matters of where you stand, perceptions of what's right and wrong. Terrorism for example, "War on Terror!???" That's like having a "War on Flanking Tactics," of a war on punching. It's a tactic, try and beat it, it's futile. Better yet you can't kill an idea. They need to combat the root of the problem, the terror "tacticts" are just that. Tactics.

It is all the same thing, religion, finance, politics. It is all about rule, about who sits on the top of the pile. We are a heirarchial species. That is why I favour a meritocracy, where individuals aspire to achieve their full potential and in doing so are given the opportunity to serve. There always needs to be some kind of heap for us to scramble to the top of, we need peaks, but we can design it, so that the greatest rewards go to those who are of the greatest benefit to the whole.

I can almost hear the bluebirds myself…somewhere over the rainbow…it is hopelessly idealistic I know, but mainly because it is simple, and I feel that the solutions to all our problems are very simple. Radical but simple.

If you think about it, our greatest failing is the fact that we need to be ruled at all. Why is that? I think it is partly because, by now, we have been generationally programmed to be complacent, but I think fear is the big thing. We’re wired to feel fear almost constantly in the conditions that most of us live in, unless you can sapiently over-ride that fear, we are basically sheep, trapped by a bio-chemical response to our surroundings. We’re ruled because we have to be. For tax purposes. We let them rule us because we’re scared what’ll happen when we only have ourselves to blame.

Originally posted by lazy1981
In the same light, freedom IS an idea. And a noble one if you ask me. But ask yourself a question that should permeate to the essence of your being. Would you be happy without your freedoms? Even if you feel that they aren't as many as they should be or may have been? Man has always struggled to rise from the muck of seritude and oppression, I think that freedom IS the ultimate goal, even if it is an idea it seems to be the instinctual and natural order of our being.

I think that it must be instinctual, how else can you explain the seeming need for some to step over others to get to the top? Why are we warned of greed, avarice, sloth and envy? Just a few of the age old problems that cause and perpetuate, corruption. I don’t feel particularly ‘free’. I am certainly, relatively, free. But I don’t think I am free, not to do as I please or to make decisions that don’t involve considering the laws I am bound to. I am frequently constrained by my obligation to various taxations. Given my socio-economic status, I have little geographical or social mobility. I am free to make choices but my progress is constrained by limitations beyond my control. It is still to my mind servitude, or a paid indenture even. Though I agree with you that I would be unwilling to give up the freedoms I possess, I don’t think it is real freedom. Not yet.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I will say that what's necessary are the functions of sociecty atlarge. Police, Fire& Rescue, transportation, Schools, Deffence, and (though I see myself as an INDEPENDENT Conservative) a saftey net for those that have fallen on hard times. With the petition that they are not abusing the system. As for national debt I would only say that my Conservatism permeates every scope of polotics. National Debt is a sin in my political view! I can't renmember who said it but, a country that doesn't control it's currency doesn't control it's own destiny. I will leave it at that or else I will rail on for hours.

The only solution to the national debt issue, in my mind, is the clearance of it all. I don’t see how any half-measure would be effective in the long term. I don’t however see that as feasible at this time. We could go round in circles with this one.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I agree with you here to a certain extent. My own family was on it as a child because I had a deadbeat father and my mother was terrified that something would happen to my brother and I in the hands of a daycare. Yet at schooling age she went out and "GOT A JOB." And when my brother reached 15 he "GOT A JOB," likewise when I reached 15 "I GOT A JOB!" My brothers and mine were part time to help with the bills but I think that you see where I'm going with this. I understand and support RESPONSIBLE programs to help RESPONSIBLE people that need help for a while, NOT FOR LIFE!

Obviously an important issue to you. I think that there is some conflict as to what welfare is or should be. Dependency on hand outs is a social issue and one that cannot be easily tackled. Hitler rounded up those unwilling to work and forced them to work. He had the concentration camp as leverage. Not ideal but it worked for Germany. That is the only easy solution to the problem, but I don’t think a desirable one. Not in my view anyway.



[edit on 7-2-2009 by KilgoreTrout]

reply to post by lazy1981

Originally posted by lazy1981
I'll give you some lattitude only in as much as it was'nt meant to be totalitarian "for long."

Don’t give me any latitude, that’s no fun. You’re knowledge of political ideology far outstrips mine, I have more of an overview. I will henceforth, defer to your opinion on such matters happily.

Originally posted by lazy1981
You make all valid points, but I was eluding to the fact that at the moment we (the US) are at the mercy of Oil Producing Nations OPEC and we can't tap our own resources. Lunacy! The only issue that I take is that I don't think that we have the battery storage capabilities as of yet to tranfer to wind and solar power. And if we go to electric cars then we will be placing that much larger an order on an already taxed COAL burning electrical system for auto fuel. If we build more Nuclear plants we are the bad guys???? Hydrogen is too expensive as of yet. The best we can do just yet is hybrids.

It is not so much that there is one source of power that can solve all our problems, it is more of a matter of adapting now to other sources of power. In my opinion, all new development should be built to sustainable standards, including using sustainable energy. Major changes can be introduced by increments. Nuclear power is unnecessary and far too dirty, hydro-electric is by far the cleanest and most efficient source of power currently available. Vast dams are not necessarily required, units can be small, localised and yet produce sufficient energy to power several homes.

Originally posted by lazy1981
You have to understand that the jobs in the US aren't as they were in the 50's and 60's. No longer can you walk to work. Most companies have pulled out of the cities and pushed out to the Suburban areas. That can be anywhere from 13 to 40 miles to travel for some. My commute on a bad day is an hour with road conditions. Not that I'm snubbing you but you have to realize that this is a huge country and the transportation needs are different here. We have trains here but not as extensive as they are in Europe, not that anyone would want to travel from NY to LA that way. It's just that sometimes it seems that people try to apply (as I said) what's good for one is good for all logic. Plus people slamm us for consumption and our exports never make it into the equation. Like food. We are still the largest food exporter in the world, unless somthing has changed. How would the people of the world like it if we with held food like they with hold oil???? Can't harvest without oil, gas, and diesel?

I understand, but the problems don’t go away simply because they are really big problems that seem insurmountable. Nothing is insurmountable. I have a little country, yours less little. Same problems, poor communication links that have not and cannot cope with rapid progress. If companies move out to the sticks, they can only do so, knowing that their employees will have to drive. That company is responsible for the carbon emissions created by those commuters. If the company, actually was held responsible, then they would make changes. They would provide a bus, they would locate closer to their workforce. Everything spins around in circles, you have to just go for it sometimes and thrust in a stick.

Food exports are wasteful. Food produced locally is far more efficient in terms of cost to the environment, transportation and fuel use. It also simply, makes better sense. As I said combined, these are radical changes, but taken as baby steps, we can radically alter the way we live in the long term by making minor changes in the short.

Originally posted by lazy1981
For example I'm a truck driver, lets see how we can haul 37 to 44 thousand pounds any distance on a fuellcell, hybrid, or electric motor?

I don’t drive any form of motor vehicle, although I am considering a motorbike of late, so I don’t have any reasonable answer to that. In the UK, vast sums of money have been spent cleaning and rejuvenating our canal network. Though this work is mainly benefitting the leisure industry, it would not take too much of stretch to move haulage, in part, back onto the canals. Additionally, our rail network is vastly underused by hauliers, ridiculously so in fact. There is no need for all haulage to use clean fuel, or all road users, we only have to consider the need of the user. Some vehicles will need to be petrol run, but others can use fuel cells or electrics. Do we wait until we have no oil left or do we learn to use all our resources efficiently? While we still have room for compromise shouldn’t we at least give it a go.

Not many I'd imagine. Besides if you don't covet how can you know what you want in life? If I think your house is nice that's coveting. But it's the direction that my coveting tkes that matters the most, I think. I think if it's constructive why not? As long as Thou dost not covet mine CHEESECAKE!

I’m getting quite austere the older I get, apart from my books, I’m letting go most of my possessions. I wish we lived in a world where we all had pretty much the same stuff and didn’t want to keep up with the Jones’s, that way we could go back to leaving our front doors open and I wouldn’t have to worry about losing my keys. And, presumably, you wouldn’t have to worry about someone, most likely me, eating your cheesecake.

I don't know if this qualifies as an epiphany or not, but today I was thinking that trying to explain a world-shaking mystery to a human mind that is not ready for it would be like trying to explain the color red to a fish.

I don't know what the mysteries are, but it's possible we aren't quite ready to understand them.

Another interesting one that I read the other day (I am not sure why this blows my mind) talked about how 'time' is a construct that only exists for physical beings stuck in this four-dimensional world.

The lesson was that when 'time' ceases to exist (IE when our physical existence ends and we return to spiritual existence) then procrastination is no longer possible.

One of the lessons that we are supposed to learn in our physical existence is that procrastination in dealing with a problem never makes it better and more often than not makes them worse.

I believe that we as a species are procrastinating our duties to each other because it's much easier to just kill each other off than it is to try and understand and care for each other.

[edit on 2/9/09 by emsed1]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


they actually paid 9.33 each- its all in the math =)) 25/3 =8.33 plus 1 dollar each = 9.33*3 =27.99(close enough) plus 2 dollars to the bell boy =29.99 so maybe zero = .01 hmm

here is my epiphany that occurred to me a few day ago. I thought I was one of the awakened ones before, now i am just realizing i just found the tip of the iceberg.

Salutations,

I've started a thread on the recent belief that something is amiss with the sun and I have some pictures that are not being explained but being explained away. As this thread is dealing with collaboration, I was hoping that some people here would be able to steer this to someone that may not have seen the thread, thereby getting some collaboration.

Here

Some recent info I have discovered on the corona monitoring system has me seeing something strange that links my OP in the above.

My new data is available on page 18 and 19 of the thread. Maybe someone can take a look and suggest someone or something to me to continue the research instead of disregarding it as nothing because they don't believe in UFOs etc... I'm calling on people who believe here to admit something that I guess is scary to the general public of ATS.

Rgds and thanks

I was thinking of getting John Lear to look but he hasn't been on since Feb08... ????



[edit on 18-2-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

reply to post by lazy1981


I came across this quote while looking for another from the same book and thought it quite brilliantly summarised what you and I have discussed in terms of political ideology so far...

"We find that at present the human race is divided into one wise man, nine knaves, and ninety fools out of every hundred. That is, by an optimistic observer. The nine knaves assemble themselves under the banner of the most knavish among them, and become 'politicians'; the wise man stands out, because he knows himself to be hopelessly outnumbered, and devotes himself to poetry, mathematics, or philosophy; while the ninety fools plod off under the banners of the nine villains, according to fancy, into the labyrinths of chicanery, malice and warfare. It is pleasant to have command, observes Sancho Panza, even over a flock of sheep, and that is why the politicians raise their banners. It is, moreover, the same thing for the sheep whatever the banner. If it is democracy, then the nine knaves will become members of parliament; if fascism, they will become party leaders; if communism, commissars. Nothing will be different, except the name. The fools will be still fools, the knaves still leaders, the results still exploitation. As for the wise man, his lot will be much the same under any ideology. Under democracy he will be encouraged to starve to death in a garret, under fascism he will be put in a concentration camp, under communism he will be liquidated."

— T.H. White (The Book of Merlyn: The Unpublished Conclusion to The Once & Future King)

www.goodreads.com...

Otherwise, waiting patiently(ish) for your reply....

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

I would maybe even go as far as to say far more freedoms have been lost.

I guess that all depends upon your idea of which freedoms where gained and which were lost as we have progressed through differing forms of governance. Freedom of passage, speech, religion, press, right to bear arms, ECT. So in a way it is relative to ones perception of freedom once more. And better yet which freedoms are relevant to which peoples.

That position and power, and decisions by elected bodies, can be bought and sold does not to me represent a worthy end to any struggle.

That my friend is unfortunately a struggle that mankind will endure until our end. So in essence we will never find “the end of our struggle.” A revolution should never die; it should be continued in the halls of reason daily!
“The price of liberty (freedom) is eternal vigilance.”
Thomas Jefferson

The issue with the cameras is difficult, they aren’t really watching us, they are simply recording events for future reference.

That may not be the case in the UK, but is sure is the case over here. In the USA I think that it's a little bit of both. However, I'm sure that they are using them for active police work as they place them in high crime areas and the cameras are interactive (police can maneuver them). They have already used footage in criminal cases.

Wilson stated that the US would in fact support any country wishing to pursue it’s own self-determination.

Little known facts to those outside of the US, Wilson’s “14 Points” were never taken up by the Congress (passed by The House and Senate) and then signed by the President into law. I’m sure that’s what you’re talking about. Even better the US never joined the League of Nations after WW1. And here’s the best of all (that many do not know), Congress never ratified the Treaty of Versailles passing it into law. So, we were officially “still at war” even up until WW2.

en.wikipedia.org...

The US forces could hardly have supported the Mihn and go against Britain and France, some agreements are more important than others, some are easier to break in the short term.

I understand, but my point is that we didn’t even as much as try to apply any pressure on the French to adhere to the standards set in the NATO treaty.

just as, the Cubans were forced to trade with the Soviet Union when the US drowned it in embargoes.

I really don’t think that there would have been many embargos placed upon Cuba if Castro hadn’t listened to Che’ and went completely “left” by nationalizing American held assets in the country……..?

fairness can be implemented by force, kind of a contradiction in terms.

That's at the head of my problems with socialism.

It certainly fails to protect peace. I do think that certain facilities, like Agenda 21, are important though, although I am unsure how they would be implemented.

I think that the "UN" is all but impotent when it comes to keeping the peace. Without countries like the UK, Russia, China, and the US they have no real power to do much. And I’m sorry, but it seems that whenever there is a “world policing action” or “UN Resolution” passed the US always ends up putting forth the main body of troops and equipment for the task. Korea, Bosnia (Yugoslavia), Somalia. Quite frankly I feel that we (the USA) have no Constitutional right/authority to engage in such a treaty and are unfairly taken advantage of. When ever the UN has dirty work to be done they call us. I don’t mean to minimalize the contributions of others because I know that others States were involved as well in the fighting and dying but we always seem to take up the lions share.
As far as Agenda 21 is concerned, I have mixed feelings. I think that there is an inherent need to preserve what we have left of our wildlife and habitat, yet I feel strongly about a nation’s sovereignty.

I think that it is for this very reason that the rumour mill is most effective in the US. No action is really necessary to spread dissension and more importantly division. As long as they can keep the population divided, or more importantly, fighting amongst themselves, then the Powers that Be have little to worry themselves about. It is only when there is firm social cohesion, the majority is moved to act together, that there is any cause for their concern.

How very true.

These workers have been given favourable treatment by social services, housing, loans, benefits and this, in some areas, is generating a sense of resentment. The anger in some areas is palpable and I do not think that, combined with the less significant, anti-muslim feelings, it would take much to set these ‘estates’ off destructibly.

I think that your (UK) problems are much the same as tose in the US. It all stems from the new age "PC" crap. People are affraid to speak the truth for fear of being labled an isolationist, protectionist, and even a racist. I think that it’s no crime to want to feed your family (countrymen) before you let strangers eat. However, to voice that opinion is “TABOO!” One day it WILL boil over on one side or the other.
The bigger problem in the US is that we are a country of immigrants, so this compounds the problem. Those of us that are citizens and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation American (and so on) grapple with striking a balance because we do have to say enough is enough already, “shut the door for a while.” When the argument on the other side is, “who are you to talk?” Both arguments are valid, but it really boils down to the fact that we are a nation of laws. The law says that if you’re here illegally (well, that says it all)?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

I am not trying to be facetious, but how many of those forefathers are spinning in their graves? Many, many wars have been fought, and one or two of those were genuinely about freedom.

Touché!

I have asked myself that question time and again. The founding fathers of this great nation would indeed turn in their graves if they could see what has become of their beloved Republic that they fought and sacrificed for. I could enumerate the many ways in which they might find things displeasing but that would take far too long. The only solace that I take is that “at present” I know that I have more rights in America than anywhere else in the world.
As for the wars that were fought for freedom, I would suppose that you could say the first Civil War (Revolutionary War) was one. There were many underlying reasons for it but freedom was one reason. 1812 was about keeping our independence. And then the second Civil War had freedom as a goal (towards the middle). I say towards the middle because I don’t let the world tell me what’s fact and fiction (freedom for the slaves was never an immediate war aim of Lincoln). The Spanish American War was more of a retaliatory act and had tints of imperialism to it. WW1 was, well let’s just say that we got dragged into that one unless the Lusitania was actually carrying munitions. WW2 is up in the air. That’s anyone’s guess. Did Roosevelt let it happen? Did we back the Japanese into a corner? Would we have found ourselves at war with Hitler anyway (yes)? One thing is for sure, I think we’d be having this conversation in German if the US hadn’t gotten into WW2. Korea and Vietnam were about freedom in a way, just not ours. Did that warrant our involvement? Yes and No. I don’t like the choices.
Afghanistan had to be done. Iraq? That’s a “no go.” There was no reason for it. By the way I’d like to say from an American to a Brit. (even if you are against Iraq like me) it means allot to people like myself that when we (The US) needed an ally The UK never forgets her allies. You may have a different outlook, but that showed a lot of class to me. How quickly the French forget. Anyway, some of our wars were fought for freedom and some were not, but the men that died in them had freedom at heart and that cannot be mistaken (even if they had been misled).

I am legally tethered to the laws that this country imposes upon me.

Preach on friend!

If they ever make the error of allowing me office I know precisely where I would stick my boots. It would not be pretty.

I often have the same thoughts. The scary thing is that I sometimes feel that the “strong man” (dictatorial powers) solution is the only way to fix such problems as those in your country and mine. As much as I despise such governance. And we are aware what happened to the last Republic when a man took Dictatorial rule “for a period of time.” “Beware the ides of March.” And then Civil Wars and Emperors. I often feel that if we had at least one person that could go through this government and make the necessary changes to restore our Republic to its Constitutional place then we could do away with the abuses of power, mismanagement, corruption, and bs legislation. But that would be wrong. And dangerous. The scary part is, if I’ve thought of it how many others have? And how long until one actually does it?

In the worst case scenario, whole shebang hits the fan, the UK has the ability to provide food for a maximum of 30 million people. Our current population is around 60 million. We are highly reliant on imported food, textiles and manufactured goods.

Yeah, that was the big problem in WW2.

there is little or no industry,

So then I guess you're far ahead of us in the outsourcing crap. How did it get so bad, and why didn't the people try to keep the jobs at home? We are trying to put uo a fight here.

We have completely unsustainable population growth.

We'll be there soon also with our immigration issues. They all seem to feel the need to procreate rapidly upon arrival.

Do you think that it is likely that will be upheld? The fundamental difficulty with any military is that they are trained/programmed to follow orders, while I think that it is unlikely that an army can be used effectively against its own people, I am equally doubtful that it would stand up to protect the ‘people’ either.

That's why I think that in the event of such a scenario we would end up in Civil War. Some would refuse to subjugate their own people and others would go along blindly (ignorant to the law I should say). In the end the perpetrators of such an illegal act should be tried for treason (best case scenario).

republicanism rather, has not failed, it is diseased and that disease can be cut out. Do you see what I mean?

Well see, the notion of a Civil War is about as close to heart in this country as the Constitution itself. See the first one that we had wasn’t “against” England (The Crown) it was amongst ourselves. Some believe that the entirety of the colonies rose up in unison. It wasn’t as much of a rebellion as it was a Civil War. At that time Americans were mainly “transplanted Englishmen.” Some wanted independence and others wanted to remain loyal to the crown. They fought each other as much (and as fiercely) as they did any British Troops. In fact the worst atrocities were perpetrated amongst Loyalist and Continental Militias upon one another. What I’m getting at is that Civil Wars and infighting have been a part of it from the onset.
As for “making the changes peaceably” (as you say) that is in effect every time the Congress is in session. It’s just a matter of how many are actually aware of the oath that they swear, “to uphold the Constitution…..” Very few. So it’s a problem of electing those that honor the document and their oath more than their “political parties” and “bribes” (in the form of contributions by lobbyist). Not to mention simply acknowledging when it’s “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” and therefore illegal (even though it sounds like a good thing to do).
I certainly see what you mean about Republicanism not being dead, just diseased. It’s more of a matter of getting the country as a whole to see that. It can in fact be cut out. Those of us that “CARE” try to spell this out to others all the time. It has just become more and more apparent that too many are “fat and happy” so they care not what may come from its destruction until it’s too late to fix it. It’s just as you said divide and conquer (in a way). Some are kept happy and they remain oblivious to the state of the nation of which they depend upon and in turn depends upon their vigilance to remain great.
As far as the rights go, if said people would even take the time to familiarize themselves with these rights they might realize that they are losing them. Our rights are inherent to all men (and I mean all everywhere on the planet) you can’t take what is natural. You can only deprive a person of what is theirs by natural right. The reason why I say we will have to fight for them unless there is an awakening soon is because it is a rarity that a right is ever restored once it is allowed to be deprived. And if it is deprived it is usually by a malevolent person/people. By then it will be too far gone for talk, those sorts only know force in the end.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

I’m supposing you don’t have children. It’s not so easy when you have children, a lot of effort goes into raising good people, it is wasted effort, if the world that we leave them is a cess pit.

At present I have none, for a great many reasons. I see your point, and that’s partly why I have none.

We let them rule us because we’re scared what’ll happen when we only have ourselves to blame.

For many I think that you're dead on spot. As for me give me a source of income (job) in order to provide formyself. As for the rest, Give me my Bible and pass the ammunition. I'll be just fine by my lonesome.

I don’t feel particularly ‘free’. I am certainly, relatively, free. But I don’t think I am free, not to do as I please or to make decisions that don’t involve considering the laws I am bound to. I am frequently constrained by my obligation to various taxations. Given my socio-economic status, I have little geographical or social mobility. I am free to make choices but my progress is constrained by limitations beyond my control. It is still to my mind servitude, or a paid indenture even. Though I agree with you that I would be unwilling to give up the freedoms I possess, I don’t think it is real freedom. Not yet.

Very well put.
To over simplify, "it could be worse, but it could be better."

I will henceforth, defer to your opinion on such matters happily.

Nobody has all the answers. And others opinions and insight is always a window to learn new things and take in a new point of view. Thanks for the compliment, but defer to nothing. How else will I learn new things?

It is not so much that there is one source of power that can solve all our problems, it is more of a matter of adapting now to other sources of power. In my opinion, all new development should be built to sustainable standards, including using sustainable energy. Major changes can be introduced by increments. Nuclear power is unnecessary and far too dirty, hydro-electric is by far the cleanest and most efficient source of power currently available. Vast dams are not necessarily required, units can be small, localised and yet produce sufficient energy to power several homes.

I think that we agree here, It's just that I sometimes feel that people throw stones at us over here on the other side of the pond. Patience we'll get there. We just have lots things to work out in the manufacturing, auto, and home areas. It's just not going to happen overnight and some (not directed at you) feel that we should revert back to the stone age in order to make it happen.

I understand, but the problems don’t go away simply because they are really big problems that seem insurmountable. Nothing is insurmountable.

Understood. American ingenuity isn’t dead “yet.”

That company is responsible for the carbon emissions created by those commuters.

I have to ask, what responsibilities does the local government hold for raising the taxes so high that these companies moved their plants to a place that was more business friendly? And that is the case in Chicago at least. Now it’s starting to happen again in the surrounding suburbs. The Communities grow so large that they raise taxes so high businesses must move in order to stay competitive. And then the Cities/townships cry about a lack of jobs. See the paradox? It’s really screwy, they don’t think before they act.

Food exports are wasteful.

Wait for it.....

the UK has the ability to provide food for a maximum of 30 million people. Our current population is around 60 million. We are highly reliant on imported food, textiles and manufactured goods.

We WILL be facing global food shortages in the short to medium term future, globally. And I do think that provisions have to made given that certain members of the global population have a greater proportion of food than others.

My point????
America supplies this demand in alot of cases. But the world (at large doesn't see this when they are spouting off about our energy needs in relation to our exports and what we supply to the rest of the world. I'm still withyou on cleaner sources, "in time." I just had to make that point. Think of some of the Latin American countries andpces like Somalia. They'd starve for sure, 'completely" (I know there are still starving in those countries).

Additionally, our rail network is vastly underused by hauliers, ridiculously so in fact.

There is only a certain amount of hauling you can d in such a way. However, keep this in mind (unless it is produceed "very localy" like inhouse) everything that you want, need, eat, and use has at some point in time been on a truck.......

Do we wait until we have no oil left or do we learn to use all our resources efficiently? While we still have room for compromise shouldn’t we at least give it a go.

Most certainly, I just don't enjoy "fear tactics" that are loosely based upon Science (big S for big buisness science). I'm all for preservation and conservation. I just don't buy the "Man-made Global Warming" malarkey. Not but twenty years ago they said we were going into "the next ice age" and now we are melting!? They can't tell their #s^hol3 from a hole in the ground. Not to mention that their monitoring stations are placed in area's that they shouldn't be (too close to roads, ventilation areas, rooftops) and the ones that were out in the wilderness have been removed for a long time now leaving mainly inner city monitoring devices. Ever heard of an Urban Heat Island? Well if most of your readings are comming from inner cities then 1+1=2.
en.wikipedia.org...
Not to mention that some Scientist now think that Mercury was once like Earth and "green house gasses caused it's down fall" I don't think that there were any humans on Mercury. Or the fact that the sun drives our weather patterns and it has been pretty active as of late. I'm just saying the "Science" is imperfect as to whethter it's us or not. And some people want to give the powers that be more power to fix a problem that "they" told us exists, with shakey proof at best. Food for thought.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Very apt summary of the way things are. There are few deep thinkers like that around anymore. I like the way the wise man steers clear of all the politics and warfare, choosing instead to pursue more scholarly things. Sheepeople! (Ha) Unfortunately, it’s a true and false the end of his observation (if you will) in the end. Such people have thrived in all manner of governments. I get the idea though. I think he put it very nicely. Good find. That’s the sort of thing that you jot down in your Composition book to reflect upon from time to time.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Not to mention that some Scientist now think that Mercury was once like Earth and "green house gasses caused it's down fall" I don't think that there were any humans on Mercury.

Sorry about that I meant to say VENUS.

en.wikinews.org...

www.spacedaily.com...