Where is the answer to this mess?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by spiritgide, Oct 13, 2021.

  1. independentthinker

    independentthinker Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    8,114
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just out of curiosity, let's say you finalized your plan and implemented it. Assuming it would actually work, what would be the time frame of success?

    A few short years?

    Decades?

    Would it happen within a life time?

    Generations?

    Centuries?

    What would be the odds of success?

    It's a long shot.

    less than 50% but it's worth trying.

    50/50

    more than 50/50
     
  2. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe because I have a more secular viewpoint, but this sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook to me. Evolving human consciousness doesn't really mean anything and certainly not in the field of human affairs.
     
    crank likes this.
  3. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Examining what I bolded above... "if everyone took their profits and used them to uplift society" - this assumes that everyone is making a profit. For your vision to become a reality, the unproductive of society would have to willingly change their mindset to become producers that produce a profit so that they could contribute to society. We would have to eliminate those who are net "takers." Is that what you had in mind? From each, according to ability, to each, according to need?

    Or is your thinking more along the lines of: those who are productive and profitable must give resources to those who are unproductive and unprofitable?
     
    crank and Robert like this.
  4. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I compare it to a football game.
    The question from Democrats is how to make the game fair.
    So you take from the winning team enough points to equalize things.
    In other words you negate the game due to hurt feelings.
     
    crank and roorooroo like this.
  5. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Non-negotiable starts with enabling the capacity to reason. This includes the recognition that others have the same basic rights you do; that each of us is responsible for ourselves and all the things we do, and that we have no right to deny those rights to others. Non-negotiable, in the sense that self-destructive concepts do nobody any good; they shouldn't be on the table. That doesn't mean that fools won't put them there- it means they are fools to do so and should get zero traction. Kind of like the idea we cure your headache by cutting your head off.....

    This continues to anyone's right to tell you how to make your personal decisions. Until those decisions impact the people around you, those people shouldn't really have the power to control you. They have the right to not like what you do, to have no respect for such a person, to not keep company or support such a person- but those are things that affect what they do, and do not harm that persons exercise of their rights.

    We have a bad habit of linking our personal fears to our inalienable rights, and that is an invitation to destroy a society. We have a tendency to be eager to tell others what is wrong with them, but refuse to look at what is wrong with us.

    Sports is a fair example. While it's true we cheer for victory of our own and the loss of others- consider the psychology of sports.
    My team wins or loses together. that defines us as a partnership.
    In a game, one side will lose, one will win- and that is adversarial, but not destructive. The fact both teams are part of a league makes them partners in the overall sense.
    Even boxing is this way- the boxers are adversaries in the match, but partners in the sport.

    Very important to understand we can have different objectives and still be partners- such as healthy politics, where we are all Americans and working for the best, but differing in how we go about it and who leads.

    I've often related this to a marriage. The format of marriage is a partnership, and if the roles the partners play matches that, they probable have a good one. However, many don't. Often a couple will behave as adversaries, where in order for one to win- the other must lose. When that happens, they both lose.

    There are a great many such marriages today. My way of explaining this when I taught Lifeskills was this:

    A marriage does not begin with a wedding; a marriage is a celebration of a commitment that already exists.
    If you do not bring commitment to the alter- you do not leave with it.
    A divorce is not the end of a marriage; it is an agreement to recognize that the commitment ended sometime in the past... and clean up the mess.


    Our society is a partnership in America. In that sense, we win or lose together. Regardless of which party is in office, so long as they play their role as partners, the alliance will be sound.
    When they play the role as adversary- they destroy it.
    To me- that is not negotiable. Any person is leadership roles in this nation must be part of our partnership- period.
     
  6. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,254
    Likes Received:
    6,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The former. Yes, it has a communist sound to it, but what I am describing is the good that communism was SUPPOSED to deliver, but failed due to human nature/ego, and resulted in elites taking over everything and hoarding it for themselves.

    The big difference is that it is done voluntarily, with no laws, no outside compulsion other than the desire to see all of humanity benefit. It is of course, completely impossible to achieve this with the current human consciousness. It is an evolutionary process where eventually we see all other humans as extensions of ourselves. It is more a spiritual evolution than a physical one.

    And yes, all those who are "takers" will have to no longer be takers, but contributors. They suffer from the same greed that affects the richest, though they are on the other end of the wealth spectrum.

    We could still be hundreds of years from this, but I believe this is where humanity is ultimately headed. In the meantime, we have a bumpy ride ahead of us.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,254
    Likes Received:
    6,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then we are truly screwed as a species, and certainly as a nation. Materialism cannot fix the problem we are facing.
     
  8. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I appreciate your response and your thoughts. I'm leaning more to the pessimistic side of human nature though... there will always be those looking to take advantage of others due to greed, and as you said, that greed exists at all levels of the wealth spectrum. And there is also the "tragedy of the commons." If everyone is working for each other, and all needs are taken care of, who is going to volunteer to scrub the toilets?
     
  9. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,254
    Likes Received:
    6,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At this point in time I am inclined to agree with you, but I think advances in communication, internet, social media, etc, has begun a change in collective consciousness that will continue to snowball with human progress. Corruption is being uncovered at a bewildering rate, and in the short term is generating a whole hell of a lot of finger pointing on whose fault all of this mess is. As a species, and a society, we can barely process the amount of information that is thrown at us constantly. And this would be bad enough if all that information was truth, but so much of it is also misinformation, lies, propaganda. Those without the capacity yet to discern truth from lies are going to be very confused.

    As they begin to realize that they are being fed so many lies, I think people will begin to turn to eachother as well as inward for the truth of things. This too will snowball, and ultimately the old power structures will be dismantled as truth is uncovered and people are looking to eachother for running society, and not a central authority.

    Anyways, I am just kind of rambling at this point, throwing ideas on the screen. As far as who scrubs toilets, well, I don't think different levels of human capability will go away, though a lot of those jobs will probably be automated soon anyway. Thats another big concern we have approaching soon. Automation. It will have a lot of positive effects, but also a lot of destabilizing effects. Will there even be jobs for everyone? Maybe there won't even be jobs for the majority of people. Where will that leave us? Lots of questions, and so few answers, lol. Change is coming fast as hell, and I think it is going to get crazy before it all settles down.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  10. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's nothing to lose, except the time we have all spent working on these things. Not just my people, but all those around the country who have looked beyond their personal complaints and tried to think of a solution.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it absolutely does nothing even slightly like that.

    It's like claiming anyone could lead an expedition to the South Pole - because some did that.
     
    Josh77 likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, there are people who live on our city streets in their cars.

    There are people living in tents in our public space, too. And, some WANT to continue living that way for a number of specific reasons.

    If we find that to be an acceptable use of our public space in our cities then we need to supply regular and adequate garbage collection, toilet facilities, etc.

    However, I'd suggest that those living in our cities almost never see this as an acceptable use of our public space.
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree it does have the potential to destroy the nation but our country went through this in the 60s and also in the twenties. I just don't think the people have the energy for it it will have to fizzle out eventually.

    There have been values crisis before.

    It's only a matter of time before the people throwing tantrums to get their way aren't going to get their way anymore if they even do.
     
  14. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I wasn't here for the 20's but I think that was much more an economic crisis than a moral one. My parent were there as young adults, and we discussed that situation many times. I was here through the 60's, and much of that was a moral dilemma- but contained within the groups that chose to embrace it. Not forced on society at large, and not at all supported by media deception. The current situation is far more dangerous right now- and getting worse. The people who are not in charge of themselves have gained a major foothold in charge of governmental power- and they are encouraged by that, not tired of it. I think it will get worse before it gets better, and it won't get better if nothing changes.
     
    crank and roorooroo like this.
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think generally people have had enough of this forcing crap on them and we are starting to see the beginning of the end.

    The 20s wasn't an economic crisis that was the 30s the 20s was what led to an economic crisis in the 30s. But there was quite a bit of stuff going on there you should read about it's an interesting time.
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hanna Straight does not leave laying around her trash. She is very protective of the environment.
    There are an amazing number of people who do not mind small quarters. Some even construct tiny houses and live in those.
     
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obsession with individual satisfactions, is completely at odds with the 'collectivism' these same Progressive types claim to want.

    The caveat is best employed in these glaring conflicts. IOW .. it's too glaringly stupid to be accidental.
     
  18. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well said.
     
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hannah has not made any videos of her living on the streets. She has a Pharmacists degree. She actually is making a good living making videos where she t ravels around America.

    Another young couple lives in Canada in their Yurt and are out in the boonies. Another group of women also live in campers or travel trailers or vans. It amazes me what others will do. They are earning money on YouTube channels. Some also use Patreon to collect money. There is a young man who rakes in cash from his videos where he hands others cash and asks for nothing in return. https://www.patreon.com/
     
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's like hoping the fairies will save us.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, but PRAGMATISM can.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  22. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope you are right about people having had enough, because that would go a long way on the right path. The left is distorting things,(damn near everything) and it seems getting away with it a lot- thanks to a media that has lost it's moral compass. For example, the label "Anti-vaxers". I don't think the people in that position are anti-vaccine at all- they are pro-choice, and anti having their right to chose trampled by authoritarian government.
    Imagine if the next crisis the left decided to rant on was over-population of the world, and that by having a child you were "killing others" by adding that burden to the planet, so you must get an abortion....

    Given that the vaccine does not protect you from getting infected, or from passing the infection, or from dying, and that we now know that what protection is does afford diminishes substantially over the following 12 months- the typical results we all expect from vaccines are not there. This isn't an "empty sack" situation, but it's damn sure short of the benefits to justify what's happening. The real motivation just screams the need to force the people to obey the commands of government.... AKA, Tyranny.

    People object to that. We should ALL object to that.
     
  23. independentthinker

    independentthinker Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    8,114
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Both sides already know how to fix the problem. All that has to happen is for one side to get enough control and then they can force their policies on the entire country. For example, right now Democrats own the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. All they have to do is get rid of the Senate filibuster and then they would be home free. Once they do that then they can basically do almost anything they wanted, including add blue states to the Union such as DC and Puerto Rico so that they could never lose. This would add 4 Democratic Senators (and they wouldn't have to worry about the filibuster) and several more Democratic Congressional representatives. In addition, they would be able to pack the Supreme Court so that any legal challenges would go their way.

    Both the House and the Senate would be totally free to abuse their power in any way they saw fit with kangaroo investigations and kangaroo courts and they would be able to do it with simple majority votes. While McConnell refused to eliminate the filibuster even with Trump's begging, I'm not so sure the future would be the same if Republicans gained power in the midterms - a distinct possibility. Since they would know that if Democrats had enough power in the future they would certainly do it, Republicans may decide at midterms that they had better do it first before it was too late. Then they could add red states to the Union and get rid of that filibuster and they would be able to have the entire country follow Republican policies.

    Since both sides seem to know that they can have the entire basket for themselves, how would you convince them of changes and that bipartisanship is more preferable? I don't see how you would ever convince the party that smells blood.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2021
    Adfundum likes this.
  24. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't see it?
    This is more of a problem with the right. If the left is capable of destroying things of value without a fight and hasn't been a fight then the right clearly didn't value it.

    Think of the people who fought in the revolutionary War they were going against an empire. With nothing but a ragtime group of farmer minutemen.

    These days things can be taken away from a right-wing person or whatever under threat of being called a name.
    this is an example of it you're afraid of being called a name.
    These names have power because people give them power if you all of a sudden didn't care if people call you anti vaxxer, racist and whatnot. You would totally defang that predator. These people are nothing more than bullies and the only reason they bully is because it works the person who decides that it works is you and me.

    If they're stupid words don't do anything anymore maybe they'll escalate but I doubt it.
    [QUOTE[
    Imagine if the next crisis the left decided to rant on was over-population of the world, and that by having a child you were "killing others" by adding that burden to the planet, so you must get an abortion....[/QUOTE] and if you take that order without a fight you agree with them.

    The only reason the vaccine authoritarianism work is because people obeyed it. They were afraid not of the virus but a big bad government coming to shut them down.

    What would the government do if they ordered a lockdown and nobody obey arrest everyone in the state?

    Think about that every time someone demands you put a mask on and you do it instead of saying "make me" what if everyone said make me you really think these panty wastes could do it. You're going to call your names they're going to tell you you're killing people you just cough on them if they don't run away from you you aren't scared of the virus you've exposed to them.

    You can't kneel before the superiority and then complain about them being Superior you made them that way.
    okay people are willing to walk off of their jobs over this vaccine nonsense and I'm not talking about Mcjobs I'm talking about high paid high skill level jobs with benefits even pensions. This is what it takes if you are too scared then they've already conquered you it's over.

    Even if they win at getting there not to get them would you rather be the person that just lay down and let them or would you want people to think of you as someone who fought and died to stop them?

    Freedom Is Lost in a whimper. People know this. Right now our country is a breaking point over this vaccine mandate. To the point our president might just have a stroke over stress. He is raging at us because he is losing this is good. It is a reminder to politicians that they must know their place and it's not as emperors.

    If you've been your need to them you are making them emperors. Don't do that.
    are you prepared to walk off your job are you prepared to face hardship? Is there questions you need to ask yourself and if you're not I think I would give up this whole line of reasoning and just acquiesce.
     
  25. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,254
    Likes Received:
    6,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What are your pragmatic solution thoughts?
     

Share This Page