Are eroding values compromising our freedom AND our economy?

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were the universal ENTITLEMENTS for a meaningful existence that were deemed “inalienable rights” in our DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Our CONSTITUTION was the result of a dedicated and determined effort to preserve these rights for posterity.

As our economy began to flourish, we came to accept the business sector as our liberator and protector, and we succumbed to the enticements of the “AMERICAN DREAM”, necessarily shifting our ethical and moral values to a secondary, or even irrelevant position.

However, lately, the factor of money has become a formidable obstacle to both our unity and our values. To counteract this effect we must reaffirm our belief that money, while essential to our progress and stability, must not be allowed to interfere with our basic rights and our freedom. Economic wealth and progress have been the by-products of our unity, but we must take care that what we do to protect our achievements does not supersede our commitment to our values, or our own creations will destroy us.

Many among us passionately defend the right of an individual to amass an unlimited quantity of capital, and furthermore, support this individual’s right to lowered taxes because of his or her “trickle down” capabilities. However, statistics compiled by numerous reputable reporting agencies show rapidly increasing wealth inequality which, if left unchecked, could eventually eliminate the middle class. According to the Federal Reserve Board, the richest 1% of our nation possesses 37% of its wealth, while its bottom 40% possesses only two-tenths of 1% of its wealth. This means that fewer and fewer consumers will have enough available income to make substantial purchases. How would you expect this to affect our GDP?

A common voice in government is not possible without a common voice, and without it, of what value is democracy?

 

Love the spirit of this thread. It's premise is correct. Eroding values are compromising more than our freedom and economy. Corporate MEDIA serves masters that are working for absolute Tyranny. The more media a person brings into their life, the less able they are to identify action that will support the best values they can source. And that is the design of media today.

And, it does not matter what media you use. They are all infected. It is time to return to our human roots, whatever we may define that is not media will suffice. And that includes video games.

 

The media traditionally have had some very important functions in society which only they have been able to perform; namely, increasing public awareness and promoting social justice, but the media are presently intimidated by the considerable financial influence of the corporate sector, which is also the primary sorce of its revenue However, regardless of financial considerations or loyalty issues the media might have, they hold the key to the only solution to our problem, which is effective widespread communication. We must inspire them by letting our collective interest be known in order to get them involved. As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and WELL ENOUGH INFORMED to maintain its sovereign control over the government."

 

Our country is presently facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Engulfed in a quagmire of self-interest, deceit, and hypocrisy, we no longer look to our government for solutions, and economic differences among us have caused such a division that government “by the people” seems to be an outdated philosophy that no longer works. What we seem to have forgotten is that common values are needed to transcend situational differences in order to achieve the unity necessary to make government “by the people” successful. The power of wealth has seriously corrupted our system, and our empathy for others has been replaced by our love of money. Unfortunately, greed is incompatible with compromise, and without more or less universal agreement on issues, our voice in government is merely an inaudible whisper.

The heritage bequeathed to us by our founding fathers did not consist of a promise, but of hope. Kept alive by the sacrifices of many generations of inspired patriots, we are now allowing that hope to fade away into oblivion as we quarrel bitterly over our capital resources. In order to revive that hope, we must revive the fundamental values shared by these founding fathers and prioritize "promote the general welfare" over promoting corporate empires. . . . . But we must all share these values to inherit that hope.

 

At the time of the Declaration, the average American was anything but lazy. Laziness got you killed. You couldn't survive being lazy. There was no welfare system to subsidize your laziness. We more closely resembled wild animals, which, when lazy, become devoured by predators. Being productive and industrious were not just virtues, they were the standard for behavior.

 

Ah, I see! The reason why unemployment is so high is because there are all those lazy moochers who don't like work and become dependent on welfare. Now, if that hypothesis were correct, would't the free market take care of it and force increased compensation so that the lazy moochers would be enticed to rejoin the labor force?

Somehow, though, I can't see the long line of employers advertising higher wages to fill the countless open job opportunities they have.

In contrast, the number of job applications someone has to send out to even get an interview is at a record high. Therefore, something must be wrong with your hypothesis.

 

There is such a serious disconnect going on in this country between those who see what is going on and those who embrace partisan ideological fantasies that the gulf cannot be breached with reason alone. It's going to take a seismic shift greater than what we saw in 2008.

 

A lot of politicians in both parties want to use the government to force citizens to abide by their will.

The Democrats, in particular the liberals, don't believe in many of the causes they champion, but they think that niche special interest groups should be more important than religious freedom first amendment rights. They also want to put all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership despite the second amendment.

The Republicans, in particular the social conservatives, want the government to define and enforce a particular religious faith-based moral code upon citizens. For example, they don't feel that two consenting adults should be allowed to marry if they're of the same sex.

We're supposed to be free of these sorts of things as Americans, under the constitution, but both parties are guilty of violating it from time to time, to serve their political interests. Civil liberties are secondary to many of these politicians.

To me that's the problem, not eroding personal values. We should all be allowed to live our lives free of government interference, providing we're not harming anyone.

 

. . . . or maybe the media, if we could pay them enough to print the truth.

 

How can denying civil liberties be anything BUT erosion of values?

 

The reason why wage scales are so low in most occupation is the desperate competition for the few available job openings, allowing employers essentially to auction off jobs to applicants who are willing to work for the lowest pay and also are the most qualified. That's how the law of supply and demand works.

In comparing us to wild animals, were you implying that applicants should fight for available jobs? Also, does lack of employment in itself constitute laziness?

 

Sadly, all of that is true. Personally, I do not think they will help us at all. They would not have corrupted and mislead as far as we are if that potential was not present.

Therefore I recommend we assume the worst, an be prepared to use the courts, after we dominate them with our definitions of constitutional intent; which only we can define; to compel them to act in the public trust they inherently have.

That is the reason the revised first amendment I have drafted reads as it does. The bolded portion is the part that does that.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

You can see how this fits into "Preparatory Amendment" here at the thread about our lawful and peaceful revolution.

 

Much of this is due to the war on religion and yes people are far lazier than in the past

 

All other things being equal, there is a dependent, lazy class of people that would be picking fruit and digging ditches if their laziness wasn't subsidized. They'd either work or die. It just so happens this number of people is almost the same as the number of illegals doing their work.

 

Our subsidization of the corporate sector is much greater, and this includes entire families living a hedonistic lifestyle who are REALLY lazy.

 

We didn't have this problem back when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, but conservatives didn't like it so much, so it's gone now. Now we see the fruits of that.

 

The problem with our information network is that it is actually part of the corporate sector, but THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS MEANT TO PROMOTE FREEDOM, NOT TO PROMOTE PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF FREEDOM. However, until unity is actually achieved and citizens are in general agreement, ANY modification to the First Amendment would be counterproductive and an invitation to disaster. No attempts to reform government can be initiated peacefully until general agreement regarding expected changes is reached, but I really believe that it would be to our advantage to correctly identify and collectively acknowledge the sources of our problems before attempting to implement solutions.

This was my purpose for starting this thread. Our country achieved its greatness because our founding fathers endorsed idealistic standards and values that placed country over self, exemplifying the highest aspiration of patriotism. This concept was not meant to undermine our value as individuals, but was a product of their realization that only a country united could guarantee and protect the rights of each individual, and if the rights of each individual were not protected, then true unity could never be attained. Our unity is the strength of the nation standing behind us that defines and increases our value as individuals. This idea is best illustrated by the phrase “ALL FOR ONE, AND ONE FOR ALL” from THE THREE MUSKETEERS by Alexander Dumas. "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL" was meant to be a rallying cry for our nation, not its epitaph.

I am sure that you realize from the varied viewpoints expressed in POLITICAL FORUM that we are far from being unified, but our best chance to reach out to other people is on the internet: these forums, social networking, blogs, and even ebooks, if you are so inclined.

Our political and idealogical division is the result of a corporate-orchestrated movement to cripple our democratic process by flooding us with propaganda through the media, but until they are personally affected, people typically ignore conspiracy theories. The American public, if ever unified, can regain control of the media. Be persuasive . . . and have patience.

 

LOL. If you think the democrats are not in it as thick as thieves as the GOP, then you have a very off-kilter view of the american political landscape.

 

As on who sees money as a formidable obstacle to both our unity and our values, why is GDP important to you? It just gets in the way of our unity and our values.

 

Hmmm, where in my statement did I call out Republicans? It seems you filled in the blanks with your partisan bias. Thanks for proving my point.

 

You are the one who referred to a " seismic shift greater than what we saw in 2008" not me champ.

 

I was referring to the economic Wall Street debacle, not the politics. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

My point was missed by a "Longshot". I brought up GDP as an argument to win over investors, showing that if the entire population shared a healthy economy to some extent (of course, not equally), then a sustainable market would be achieved and periodic recessions would be avoided (assuming no artificial distractions generated by the stock market).

 

To further clarify my position, if you look in my post a few lines above the line you quoted, you will read: "money, while essential to our progress and stability, must not be allowed to interfere with our basic rights and our freedom."

The point that I am trying to make is that money needs to be regulated ENOUGH to maintain a SUSTAINABLE economy . . . . I am not a Socialist.

 

Do we really have "eroding" values or has the digital age just shown us that our values were never quite as rosy as we all thought they were? I tend to think it's that in combination with the natural flow of societal evolution. And I think the Television and Internet ages have sped up that evolution simply because we all exchange and experience information at a massively increased rate. We now learn about every heinous act, every minor transgression, every scandal, every gaff, every fool, every creep, every greedy bastard, and every kooky sonofa(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) almost as soon as the information is created or the beans are spilled. I think people are disillusioned. I think America has a collective identify crisis brought on by the huge influx of previously unknown information about our neighbors locally and nationally. Most of us, if not all, grew up and were taught that things are a certain way, people are a certain way(s), and morality is a certain way. The internet has shown us that none of that was actually as true as we were told. Only we're not learning it over the course of a lifetime at a tepid pace, we've learned it all in the last decade and a half as a solid brain blitz of information.