11-15-2018, 12:16 AM
Well, at least the old Soviet Union is out of the picture momentarily.
The long and short of it is that the government solves problems. It takes money and laws to solve them. You don't want to pay for someone else's solution.
Take roads for example. You have to build, maintain and police roads to have anything like a modern civilization. Multiply the weight of each vehicle, times the distance traveled, times a dollar constant, and you might have a fee to be paid for using the service. Now, in rural areas, there is supposed to be independence and self reliance. In this case, perhaps fewer vehicles and smaller ones traveling less far. Urban areas require a greater service. Let them pay for it? Could a carbon tax do something similar? Would dredging a harbor or providing air traffic control be essentially different? Could we arrange a structure for breaking down the payment for services that is fair and non political if we paid for services specifically rather than taking from one big pot?
Of course, I started with an easy one. Who pays for the new aircraft carrier? Do I approve of its use? Should pacifists not have to pay even if they are protected?
Long tough decisions have to be considered. I could come back to fee based taxation. However, how to answer every issue all at once? It would take a very long post
Red America remains closer to the Agricultural Age. Problems were solved by violence then. Violence was glorified. If kings had to have their privilege and power reduced, if slaves were to be freed, hold a war. Violence was how it was done. Red America remains a little better at it, though perhaps not as much as you say. Have we moved beyond violence, though? Might it be desirable to not push the violent solution? Is it necessary to demonize, to make anyone who disagrees with you an enemy?
The Agricultural Age was a time of prejudice, pride, authoritarian government, constant war, class, and people kept brute force in their place. A little of that lives on. The S&H crises in the Anglo American Civilization mark a series of transformations from the old way to the new. The Enlightenment values of equality, rights, representation with taxation, and the like were intended to break the old autocratic patterns. I for one am a fan of the process.
It is not perfect. In every crisis era we can only do so much. In this case, as usual, it is the conservatives that are holding us back.
And there is yet a ways to go. There is still prejudice. There is still privilege. There is still inequality. There is still work to do, a new birth of freedom to be expected.
Self centered, yes. Many want problems solved, services provided, and the government has been looking to save the elites rather than the people. Stupid, no. As I said, the people are mad at the Establishment of both parties. The clock is ticking.
Hmm. Last time around I quoted the Neo Wiccan catch phrase as an example of personal morality. 'Do as you will, but harm none.'
The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes rights to sustenance, shelter, health care and retirement.
One is a personal morality. The other is a political document. Yet how can one harm none if one does not believe in the rights in question? How can you claim to be a light on a hill, a Christian?
(11-14-2018, 10:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lets see, we have a portion of a democracy that's voting to keep the entitlements that it's currently receiving and currently reliant upon. We have a portion of a democracy that's voting to receive more entitlements and a portion voting to have their wages raised by government. We have a portion voting to have their rising healthcare cost addressed by government. We have a portion voting to protect their abortion right. We have a portion voting to advance women. We have a portion voting to keep special rules that where put in place to advance particular groups in place. We have a portion affiliated with them voting to keep the federal funds flowing that basically pays their higher end wages and higher end lifestyles. We have a portion voting to keep government work coming their way and voting to keep their union pensions secured by the government. We have a portion voting to address climate change. We have a portion voting to get amnesty for family members or friends who are living here illegally. We have a portion voting against Trump. I'm sure there are portions that I didn't mention.
The long and short of it is that the government solves problems. It takes money and laws to solve them. You don't want to pay for someone else's solution.
Take roads for example. You have to build, maintain and police roads to have anything like a modern civilization. Multiply the weight of each vehicle, times the distance traveled, times a dollar constant, and you might have a fee to be paid for using the service. Now, in rural areas, there is supposed to be independence and self reliance. In this case, perhaps fewer vehicles and smaller ones traveling less far. Urban areas require a greater service. Let them pay for it? Could a carbon tax do something similar? Would dredging a harbor or providing air traffic control be essentially different? Could we arrange a structure for breaking down the payment for services that is fair and non political if we paid for services specifically rather than taking from one big pot?
Of course, I started with an easy one. Who pays for the new aircraft carrier? Do I approve of its use? Should pacifists not have to pay even if they are protected?
Long tough decisions have to be considered. I could come back to fee based taxation. However, how to answer every issue all at once? It would take a very long post
(11-14-2018, 10:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: On the Republican side, you a few large American groups who are voting to keep America, American. BTW, these groups could careless about what blue America eventually becomes. How many blues are willing to die or loose a leg to keep our flag and our Constitution? The blue bloods aren't natural warriors like the red bloods.
Red America remains closer to the Agricultural Age. Problems were solved by violence then. Violence was glorified. If kings had to have their privilege and power reduced, if slaves were to be freed, hold a war. Violence was how it was done. Red America remains a little better at it, though perhaps not as much as you say. Have we moved beyond violence, though? Might it be desirable to not push the violent solution? Is it necessary to demonize, to make anyone who disagrees with you an enemy?
The Agricultural Age was a time of prejudice, pride, authoritarian government, constant war, class, and people kept brute force in their place. A little of that lives on. The S&H crises in the Anglo American Civilization mark a series of transformations from the old way to the new. The Enlightenment values of equality, rights, representation with taxation, and the like were intended to break the old autocratic patterns. I for one am a fan of the process.
It is not perfect. In every crisis era we can only do so much. In this case, as usual, it is the conservatives that are holding us back.
And there is yet a ways to go. There is still prejudice. There is still privilege. There is still inequality. There is still work to do, a new birth of freedom to be expected.
(11-14-2018, 10:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Funny, I keep hearing about the concern related to the influence of the so-called elite. It seems to me, the bulk of so-called elites are now stacked up on your side providing millions upon millions to help Democrats win back seats. So, you should be careful about who actually has influence over you now and who is feeding you information these days. Yes, I hate to say this but the Democratic voters are pretty stupid and self centered these days.
Self centered, yes. Many want problems solved, services provided, and the government has been looking to save the elites rather than the people. Stupid, no. As I said, the people are mad at the Establishment of both parties. The clock is ticking.
Hmm. Last time around I quoted the Neo Wiccan catch phrase as an example of personal morality. 'Do as you will, but harm none.'
The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes rights to sustenance, shelter, health care and retirement.
One is a personal morality. The other is a political document. Yet how can one harm none if one does not believe in the rights in question? How can you claim to be a light on a hill, a Christian?
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.