06-24-2010, 08:51 PM
Hi,
I agree. But remember, "art of the possible." Can you envision any way of this happening short of all out revolution?
First, no one is speaking of who 'must' work. Just because there is no mechanism (that we know of) doesn't make it a bad idea. It might make it an idea we haven't been able to implement yet, but that's another thing entirely.
Never said that everyone would be equally wealthy. I said that we (the nations of the world) are in the position to ensure that every person living has food, clothing, and shelter sufficient to survive. I think we can also afford basic education and health care. "Penalize productivity" and "reward the unproductive" are concepts so obsolete in a world of automated manufacturing plants. How do you reward the productive? Do the robots that do more work, or break down less often, get more oil or power? Who gets the benefits of their productivity?
I hate it when that happens.
That is an assumption on your part. I think there are more than enough people to do what needs to be done. Why does manufacturing follow the labor market? Because it is cheaper, for a while, to make products using Third World labor than it is to automate the factories (and union contracts often are also a barrier; it's easier to build a new plant in Mexico than it is to slightly transition to robots in Detroit). But the cost of Third World labor is increasing as these jobs improve their economy. At some point (already reached in many industries) the cost-benefit will favor automation. What do the displaced workers do now? Get a job in another industry?
Reminds me of the story of a man who took shelter from a rainstorm under a tree. When asked what he planned to do if the tree got saturated and started dripping on him, his answer was, "Move to another tree."
I'm not going to get in an argument about Puritanical roots. I already said that I agree with you. That those values were indeed predominant in the USA and that they served us well. As did the western migration. As did the family farm. As did slavery (although it wasn't good for the slaves). Hanging on to ancient customs *just* because they are ancient is foolish, just like discarding them for the same reason is foolish. But I do believe that inquiring minds do need to consider those customs, why and how they originated, and whether they're benign, harmful, or indifferent now.
And, in your opinion, this is best achieved by increasing the power of the most local branches of government? Isn't the failure of the central government what often, if not always, leads to Balkanization, local bosses, and finally war lords?
Let's not forget a huge increase in area and population. Or the internal combustion engine. Or air travel. Or nuclear weapons.
Fine. I have no problem with that. Reducing the power of government at all levels is usually a good idea. But taking power away from a higher level and bestowing it on a lower is usually not.
Sure. Interesting. As in the curse, "May you live in interesting times." If you'll just post the 2011 schedule of hurricane landfalls, eruptions, earthquakes, and other unforeseeable events, I'm sure the budget committee would take it into consideration.
Again, so what? That is not our government, it is the present implementation of our government. We have the power to change that, both in theory and in fact. That we don't shows that we are getting precisely the type of government we deserve. I think it was Lester Maddox who said something to the effect that the problem with Georgia prisons was that they needed a better class of prisoners. We don't need a new government, we just need a better class of voters.
And I'm hopeful that I'll have a full recovery and break 80 in my golf game. But I'm not planning on it. It didn't work in the '60s when people were involved, indeed obsessive, about the government. What makes you think it's going to work in the mostly apathetic, partisan, modern political scene?
Sure. Not all programs need to be big. But I don't think a few inspirational speeches are going to do much toward solving international problems, the economy, the BP oil spill, our failed education system, etc.
--Pete
(06-24-2010, 01:47 PM)kandrathe Wrote: We could make full-citizenship something earned, predicated on passing a secondary school test, and some amount of community, or military service. It might also be something you can lose, if you don't vote, and continue to occasionally serve the community.
I agree. But remember, "art of the possible." Can you envision any way of this happening short of all out revolution?
Quote:(06-23-2010, 09:50 PM)--Pete Wrote: But it is not. This is the fallacy of the 'honest work ethic'. Sometime in the last century, the human race reached a level of productivity such that the output of every member of the race was no longer needed for survival -- or indeed, for a comfortable life style.
Yes, and no. There is no mechanism, other than accumulated wealth, for who must work, and who gets to lay in bed and get fat.
First, no one is speaking of who 'must' work. Just because there is no mechanism (that we know of) doesn't make it a bad idea. It might make it an idea we haven't been able to implement yet, but that's another thing entirely.
Quote:The system needs to be fair and equitable. Therefore, it is counterproductive to penalize productivity (with substantial taxation), and reward the unproductive with handouts and free programs. By equitable, I don't mean the redistribution of wealth to ensure everyone is equal.
Never said that everyone would be equally wealthy. I said that we (the nations of the world) are in the position to ensure that every person living has food, clothing, and shelter sufficient to survive. I think we can also afford basic education and health care. "Penalize productivity" and "reward the unproductive" are concepts so obsolete in a world of automated manufacturing plants. How do you reward the productive? Do the robots that do more work, or break down less often, get more oil or power? Who gets the benefits of their productivity?
Quote:I'll respond to the rest later... Work intrudes.
I hate it when that happens.
(06-24-2010, 06:26 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I believe that everyone should be a contributor and earn at least what they consume. There really are so many things that need to be done, and not enough people to do them.
That is an assumption on your part. I think there are more than enough people to do what needs to be done. Why does manufacturing follow the labor market? Because it is cheaper, for a while, to make products using Third World labor than it is to automate the factories (and union contracts often are also a barrier; it's easier to build a new plant in Mexico than it is to slightly transition to robots in Detroit). But the cost of Third World labor is increasing as these jobs improve their economy. At some point (already reached in many industries) the cost-benefit will favor automation. What do the displaced workers do now? Get a job in another industry?
Reminds me of the story of a man who took shelter from a rainstorm under a tree. When asked what he planned to do if the tree got saturated and started dripping on him, his answer was, "Move to another tree."
Quote:. . . Puritans . . . Ben Franklin . . .
I know you don't give a crap about Puritanical roots, but culturally, it was a basis for the American culture, and has become one of our core principles, and values.
I'm not going to get in an argument about Puritanical roots. I already said that I agree with you. That those values were indeed predominant in the USA and that they served us well. As did the western migration. As did the family farm. As did slavery (although it wasn't good for the slaves). Hanging on to ancient customs *just* because they are ancient is foolish, just like discarding them for the same reason is foolish. But I do believe that inquiring minds do need to consider those customs, why and how they originated, and whether they're benign, harmful, or indifferent now.
Quote:I believe our underlying objective should be to have an orderly society based on the principles of justice, not one that devolves into one of war lords where those who have the power take what they want.
And, in your opinion, this is best achieved by increasing the power of the most local branches of government? Isn't the failure of the central government what often, if not always, leads to Balkanization, local bosses, and finally war lords?
Quote:Deviations from those principles have fundamentally altered the implementation of our Federal government.
Let's not forget a huge increase in area and population. Or the internal combustion engine. Or air travel. Or nuclear weapons.
Quote:You don't like Presidents dragging us into expensive wars and nation building? Take away the power of our federal government to easily do this. You don't like the patriot act authorizing domestic spying and warrant-less wiretapping? Take away the power of our federal government to easily do this.
Fine. I have no problem with that. Reducing the power of government at all levels is usually a good idea. But taking power away from a higher level and bestowing it on a lower is usually not.
Quote:Wouldn't it be interesting if all entitlement programs needed to be paid off, and reauthorized every 4 years? How about making federal borrowing limits directly tied to taxation?
Sure. Interesting. As in the curse, "May you live in interesting times." If you'll just post the 2011 schedule of hurricane landfalls, eruptions, earthquakes, and other unforeseeable events, I'm sure the budget committee would take it into consideration.
Quote:You see, our politics is the game of experiencing the benefits, and making the next President experience the pain.
Again, so what? That is not our government, it is the present implementation of our government. We have the power to change that, both in theory and in fact. That we don't shows that we are getting precisely the type of government we deserve. I think it was Lester Maddox who said something to the effect that the problem with Georgia prisons was that they needed a better class of prisoners. We don't need a new government, we just need a better class of voters.
Quote:I'm hopeful that recent grass roots movements may be starting to choose people to represent us who are good people, with leadership skills, who are not lawyers, life long government activists, and political science majors.
And I'm hopeful that I'll have a full recovery and break 80 in my golf game. But I'm not planning on it. It didn't work in the '60s when people were involved, indeed obsessive, about the government. What makes you think it's going to work in the mostly apathetic, partisan, modern political scene?
Quote:Lastly, when it comes to our federal government, not all solutions need to be expressed in the form of multi-billion dollar programs, or a litany of laws. President Eisenhower's "President's Council on Youth Fitness" didn't become wildly popular until Kennedy actively promoted it, and incorporated fitness into an expectation from the top down. I still remember doing calisthenics in the gym everyday in gradeschool. Obama needs to push this kind of stuff more into the forefront.
Sure. Not all programs need to be big. But I don't think a few inspirational speeches are going to do much toward solving international problems, the economy, the BP oil spill, our failed education system, etc.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?