The Maelstrom of Violence

[Eric the Green]

(10-04-2017, 12:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not an entitlement, though. I chose to take advantage of the discount, yes. There may be a federal program associated with it. I don't know if this is federal taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for sure, but am pretty sure it's not. Our electric company has its progressive aspects, since it serves northern CA, so it feels the need to appeal to the predominant attitudes here in the region that does more energy conservation than any other region in America. And CA is also the #1 welfare state in America.

My opinion is, that welfare and the social-insurance state serves your interest, but you don't realize it, since you think you can be self-reliant enough to avoid using it, and others should be too. Self-reliance is a key value for you, rather than reliance on the state. You consider it "the American way of life." Liberals and the majority within the blue states and the urban and many suburban regions do not consider self-reliance to be exclusively "the American way of life," as opposed also to the value of mutual help and interdependence as the need arises. Liberals and Democrats consider state welfare a prudent social insurance system which any of us may need at any time. These needs were not satisfied before the New Deal and Great Society, and so people suffered. So, it's a "blue" and "red" disagreement as to what constitutes "the American way of life." We liberals think we ought to catch up to the rest of the developed world in regard to such things as social insurance and green values, and not remain in a regressive condition as we have now for 40 years. And subject to the counter-awakening that dates from 1964, and triumphed in 1980.

btw I have as you know been a self-employed business owner for a number of years, although it's not the kind of business you might like. But it supports many independent businesses.

Would you vote to keep your subsidy if you were able to vote to keep it? Would you be upset if you lost it (it was taken away from you) or go broke if it were no longer available? The only interest that I have in the welfare state is the tax dollars that come from me to fund your interests and the interest of blues in general. Just so you are clear, I don't mind some welfare being available as a temporary safety net as it was intended at the time it was passed. I can see where an urban dweller like yourself would view it as social insurance or a means of social pacification to keep the beasts at bay. The blacks who rioted and burned down portions of blue cities acted like they were mean, uncaring, unlawful and largely uncivilized people.

The blacks who rioted in the sixties are not a suitable scapegoat for the problems of today. These things happened when you were a child or earlier. I don't fear the black rioters. I don't now, and never did. I don't agree with riots. I also think that riots might happen if centuries of oppression and slavery leave their mark on a people, as they have on African Americans.

If you don't mind some welfare as a temporary safety net, that is fine. I agree, and although I don't like time limits, since depressions can come at any time, welfare is not meant to be a permanent way of life for most people. But I do not consider welfare as a pacification program to keep the blacks from rioting. A prudent welfare program is in the best interests of everyone as social insurance, and to some extent it helps keep the economy flowing OK by putting money in the hands of people who spend it on necessities. There may be some who become dependent on it, and that may not be a good thing, but this is exaggerated by politicians who want your vote.

I don't know if I would vote to keep a subsidy I get, or not. Greed is not something from which anyone is totally immune, including me. I think that I tend to vote in the general interest rather than my own narrow interests alone, but that is not always the case. It can be wise to vote in your own interest, rather than in propaganda nostrums of culture wars and outdated values, IF you truly understand how things work, and what is really in your interest. Ultimately, it often tends to be the case that what is in the best interests for all, is in the best interests for me and each individual too. That seems contrary to the libertarian or classic liberal/neo-liberal ideology, which says that people pursuing their own economic self-interest creates an invisible hand that supports the economy for everyone. But, it depends on how you define your interest.

I am not interested in an economy of most people struggling to make ends meet and a few getting rich. That society is not fun, innovative or creative, but sullen instead, and it tends to lead to people into being preoccupied with working and making enough money, which is not in my interest, and it often leads to drug dependency for many depressed and hopeless people today. My interest is in a society of attractive, fun, creative, inspired, spiritually-aware, healthy people interested in progress and renewal, and in the health of life on Earth; a renaissance in our time.