So Angry with Americans, It Is Heartbreaking!

SlapMonkey:

I don't embrace anyone just because of their country's history (of which I didn't not participate, for the most part) or because of the border within which they live.

I agree. I made this quite clear in my first paragraph.

...we can come together like no other country can, both for ourselves and to the world.

Most certainly a disputable point, and at the same time, with the irony not going unnoticed, I am not the only one who could be accused of hyperbole.

...focusing on country borders and alliances is what causes massive conflict in the world--is that really something that should be promoted in the name of embracing togetherness?

Of course it should be promoted, how else do you actually lessen conflict rather than promote them? You are thinking in isolationist terms (but I believe you meant something other). Alliances should always be sought upon common need and in such a way that the alliance is an equal benefit. You create alliances with those you know best, with whom you share common ideology, and build other alliances from there by association.

...the reality is that the average American pays no real attention...

Ah, the crux of the matter. The fulcrum around which a lot of America's political and social problems resound, and which supports some of the things I said in my 'OP'.

Tempting as it may be for me to launch into a universe of hyperbole to clarify on this issue, I will resist it. Instead, I will just suggest the following. As inconvenient as it may sometimes be, everyone who lives and participates in a society, is by that very association duty-bound to 'pay attention' to the machinations of others seeking to reach a level of authority and control. Especially so if they want to continue to enjoy their society into the future. From where does that duty arise?

It arises from the requirement of your own happiness, your own safety, and your own economic success, all of which you can only enjoy if those around you share in the same equal opportunity to do so. Why equal opportunity? Simple, for cooperation. Without that cooperation, society may arise, but it cannot last.

The most successful society is one of equal cooperation, but of course, there cannot be a society soley-based on equal cooperative endeavour. Some will only give the least cooperation and expect the most reward, whereas others over-give in their cooperation and unfairly receive the least. Some will persecute, while others are persecuted. Some will steal, while others will freely give. Attention to all these issues should be paid by everyone, and all should be concerned for the welfare of each other in order to give as little room to the exploitation of others as possible. So, duty-bound then.

One last note: Looking at your candidates for the office of president, would you say in all honesty that both candidates suggest a healthy politic in America?

Cheers for the response, and equally to all other posters.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Do you sincerely believe that alliances--many formed under false pretenses or only on the grounds of common enemies--has helped keep peace in the world? Are you really implying/stating that stance?

If so, I will just vehemently disagree with that opinion--I believe that helping others who are in need when it conforms to one's (or a country's general) ideals is a noble thing to do, but that's not how these political alliances work, and it's easily provable that wars are higher in number and longer in duration because so many countries get in on the action simply because of agreed-upon alliances and nothing more.

I don't see that as "lessen[ing] conflict," as you claim that it does.

I understand your point about alliances, but you're looking at it from a best-case scenario, and I'm balancing that out with the reality that having such a worldwide tangle of alliances has done on behalf of war. I have no problem coming across as an isolationist, because honestly, we should be much more isolationist than we are--right now we think that we should be the foreign-aid leaders and world police, both of which really cause neglect within our own borders. How can we be expected to help aid and fix anything on a global scale when we are relatively broken ourselves?

Much like other things in life, we need to fix ourselves before attempting to aid others in such a dramatic way. Becoming more isolationist--even if temporary--is a positive step in accomplishing that, and "isolationism" isn't always a bad word or an ill-conceived ideology.

As inconvenient as it may sometimes be, everyone who lives and participates in a society, is by that very association duty-bound to 'pay attention' to the machinations of others seeking to reach a level of authority and control. Especially so if they want to continue to enjoy their society into the future. From where does that duty arise?

It arises from the requirement of your own happiness, your own safety, and your own economic success, all of which you can only enjoy if those around you share in the same equal opportunity to do so. Why equal opportunity? Simple, for cooperation. Without that cooperation, society may arise, but it cannot last.

I agree with the first paragraph, but not the really the last, mainly because personal happiness, safety, and economic success are not 'requirements,' and they're definitely not rights. What you're doing is pretending that some socialist, totally equal society is a possibility in a society filled with individual human beings with different ideas of what happiness, safety, and economic success really is.

Take me, for example. To many people, I'm economically (fiscally) successful, as I make well more than the average American does annually. But, that's just the view from the surface--I'm currently struggling to get out of debt so that I DO have economic success, which by my definition means not being slave to lenders anymore, and that all of the fruits of my labors (minus those pesky taxes, of course) are mine and my family's. So, I have a nice annual income, but I don't feel economically successful, yet. And, hell, less than a decade ago, my annual income was less than $20K/year--I took advantage of opportunities that I had to seek out in order to better my financial situation.

I do, however, feel relatively safe (if you're talking about personal safety)--I have the right to own firearms for my own enjoyment and protection (personal and for my family), and I own more than one, we'll say. I also have the ability to seek out self-defense and martial arts training, which I do. Plus, we have laws that protect the my right to protect myself with deadly force, if necessary--so I feel safe. Of course, I had to seek out many of these things on my own--the opportunities are there for everyone, though, if only they seek it out.

I have a wonderful wife (14 years so far) and two awesome children, and we have a plan for the future and we're all relatively healthy. I'm happy with that, even if there are trivial things outside of my control that I'm unsatisfied with (we'll use arbitrary alliances and ill-conceived world views of Americans as examples). But the point is that, I have many things in my life for which I'm thankful and that I try not to take for granted, and I have the love and kindness of many people around me, to include friends and family. Hell, the motto to the city in which I currently live is "The Friendship City." I know, it's cheesy, but it is what it is.

My point is that all of those things that are personal to me may differ in another person's opinion. I work with someone who seems to think that job titles and prestige will make him happy. I have friends who make less than half of my salary, yet live debt-free and tend to have more expendable cash after bills than I do currently--I consider them fiscal successes, even if the eyes of the government only sees their income as borderline poor.

But the binding truth in all of this is that everyone does have equal opportunities to achieve success in the areas that you listed, even if one person's path to success has more or less speed bumps or hurdles along the way. But too many people refuse to believe that or take advantage of the opportunities--opportunities that often need to be sought out and don't just land in people's laps.

So, you are wholly correct in asserting that communism doesn't work, because you never get equal output for equal reward from everyone (I mean, really, communism [lower-case "c"] is what you're describing), but I do agree that people SHOULD hold up their end of the bargain for voluntarily living within a society, but reality often dictates otherwise.

As for the candidates, you're phrasing your question as if there are only two--there are more, but the fact that they are being suppressed out of national debates should tell you everything that you need to know concerning the current American politics. Like last election cycle, I don't see anything that will stop me from voting third-party again this time.

SlapMonkey:

Do you sincerely believe that alliances--many formed under false pretenses or only on the grounds of common enemies--has helped keep peace in the world? Are you really implying/stating that stance?

I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it explicitly. It is irrelevant how alliances turn out to be (being something we can only look back on and analyze in hindsight), the essential aspect is that they are formed. Everyone throughout their life will form many alliances (you have highlighted some in your post) for a variety of reasons, many will work and many will fail, but those that fail, do not stop us from forming new alliances, because they are important, not only for our psychological health, but also for our survival.

We cannot know for certain at the time of forming a new alliance whether it will be a successful one or not, nor can we know if it is being used under a pretext for exploitation or for our destruction. Past experience can inform us to be aware and perhaps cautious, but it all depends on what the alliance can give us, how it stimulates us, and how we can benefit from it? I am not looking at alliances from a ‘best case scenario’, I simply perceive them in the pragmatic way in which they function

The more countries that agree to come under the same umbrella of alliance, and abide by that alliance's stipulations, the less likely those countries are going to fall into conflict with each other. This is one aspect of globalization that is right, but wrong in the reason for the alliance. Alliances actually reduce the quantity of conflicts, but do not eliminate them fully, one will always have adversaries, and that is the reason for conflict. From your reasoning, the more friends you have the more you will be in conflict with non-friends. I’m sorry, it doesn’t equate. Military and economic alliances do not cause conflicts, adversarial mindsets and opposing economic policies of self-interest do.

I have no problem coming across as an isolationist, because honestly, we should be much more isolationist than we are--right now we think that we should be the foreign-aid leaders and world police, both of which really cause neglect within our own borders.

With all due respect, in terms of GDP, America is at number 21 for giving foreign aid. Britain is number 6, and Sweden is the leader at number 1. As for being the world’s police, that is a self-claim. Your military is in other countries purely out of the self-interest of its own policies. Of course, that self-interest is not a fault of the ordinary American, what is the fault of the ordinary American is the application of those policies of self-interest…they allow it, because as you stated earlier, the ordinary American ‘pays little attention’.

I agree with the first paragraph, but not the really the last, mainly because personal happiness, safety, and economic success are not 'requirements,' and they're definitely not rights.

Substitute ‘requirements’ with ‘needs’, and when you live and abide and participate in a society, it is prudent to codify such benefits as personal happiness, personal prosperity, personal safety as ‘basic rights’, in order to deny oppression, exploitation, inequality, and other serious abuses free reign, and to be answered with punitive punishment as justice. It’s quite simplistic really, a common sense way to gain a consensus of behaviour with one another. Without those societal codifications, society would be quite anarchical.

What you're doing is pretending that some socialist, totally equal society is a possibility in a society filled with individual human beings with different ideas of what happiness, safety, and economic success really is.

I’m pretending nothing, nor am I advocating a ‘totally equal society’, such a thing could never be achieved. You can however, codify society around principles of equality, even though they will not be fully adhered to. You have to be able to respond to and answer abuses committed on people, hence the codification of equal rights.

I took advantage of opportunities that I had to seek out in order to better my financial situation.

You were able to do this exactly because of the way society’s principles of equality have been codified, and made statute and made law, and because of this codification, everyone can respond to their personal situation the same way you have (kudos to you). Of course, in legal terms, you can only respond with lethal force only if the threat warrants it. Even the idiotic bad guys need to be protected from their own contemptuous stupidity.

(I mean, really, communism [lower-case "c"] is what you're describing),

You’re assuming I am, because this is how you perceive communism. I have no political affiliation at all, none whatsoever. I have only affiliated myself to society, and I actively agree to abide by its codifications. I also stay informed and alert to the machinations of politicians, who only ever operate through personal self-interest. Now and again, their self-interest does go hand in hand with society’s interest.