Problems with the U.S Cultural values

[SolitaryWalker]

Disclaimer: This is not a thread about politics and was rightly placed in the philosophy and spirituality sector.

Overview: As coberst once eloquently stated, there are two things wrong with this country, education and health-care. This is a result of the deeply ingrained American values regarding the necessity of a laissez-faire policy. Or loosely, the belief in the necessity of a Free-Market economy.

Thesis: The problem with the cultural values is a result of an attempt to attain democracy by eliminating totalitarianism.


The political system that is desired by the typical U.S citizen: A democracy is desired above all or a society where each person's wishes are honored. Each person as an individual has a right to express his views and to have them honored. His views should not be accepted only if the majority of the population is in a disagreement with him. The 'people' by and large should be best served by all means necessary and the 'people' will exercise their freedom of speech to voice their views regarding what they desire and they shall always have their wishes granted.


Where did this vision start?

In order to answer this question, we must first understand where the viewpoint that is the opposite of this one derived from and more importantly, what exactly this viewpoint is. We shall refer to this approach to political philosophy as Plato's theory.

Plato's theory: The wisest shall rule and the ignorant must obey. The philosopher kings must make all the important political decisions as only they know the truth. Some of the decisions that they will make involve placing all members of the society into social classes. Accordingly, some will be philosopher kings, some will be slaves, others soldiers and so on. No person has a right to act in a way that is inconsistent with the behavior imposed upon his social class. In short, this is a cast system. Everyone is born into a certain 'class', as a result of this he or she must behave only in the prescribed way.

Plato was immensely influential, both as a philosopher and a political theorist. At least implicitly, his views have influenced how politicians have approached power for a long time after his death. Unsurprisingly, even today many societies in the third-world countries endorse a cast system of some kind. For example, India or China. On the other hand, a variety of countries exist where an explicit cast system is not endorsed, yet stringent prescriptions regarding how people of various socio-economical classes should behave are closely observed.

Needless to say, it is widely believed that some people are entitled to better treatment than others only because they belong to a superior social group. Under these circumstances, a ruling class will emerge. The class in question is composed of individuals who have the right to impose their will on those who remain outside of the ruling class. Obviously, the most intelligent and the most able of persons will do all that they can to ensure that they belong to the class of people that is benefited the most. Because it is the case that in any society, the unintelligent significantly outnumber the intelligent, the ruling class will be composed of a distinct minority of individuals. It is likely that they will compose less than 5% of the entire population. Moreover, because their authority over the ruled is unquestionable, there will be a significant gap in wealth and power. The ruling class obviously will have more power than the ruled and they will use that resource as an instrument to procure wealth for themselves, often at the expense of their subordinates.

Plato's theory is deeply troubled because it entails a government that is self-serving and totalitarian. Evidently, it needs to be combatted. But how? Perhaps in order to understand how exactly that is possible, we should consider the opposite of the propounded view, anarchy. Yet, if there is no government, chaos is inevitable, hence this does not contribute to the welfare of society any more than Plato's theory. Hence, the solution, it seems, must be at the intermediate point between the two.

Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

Thomas Paine, 1737-1809

argued that the ruling class must be eliminated. He thought that the government is a necessary evil, hence, it is necessary. He vehemently opposed monarchy and had a distaste for the government akin to the kind espoused by Plato. In Paine's views, every man was equal in the eyes of God and therefore deserves equal opportunities. If that is true, Plato's cast system was fundamentally wrong-headed.

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) Biography of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

shared Paine's beliefs regarding the necessity of equal opportunity. It was he who coined the phrase of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'. In Bastiat's view, a law should be endorsed only if it allows all individuals a right to pursue life, liberty or a pursuit of happiness. The founding fathers were deeply influenced by both authors and as a result of their own work and their political descendants, a system of political operations has been constructed where the government members are not allowed to abuse power as much as the philosopher kings could. By the same token, it has been observed that intelligence is frequently employed for self-serving ends.

Communists who held similar elitist views to those of Plato were often highly educated and for this reason have always been reviled. This has been most clearly evinced in McCarthy's Red Scare. (</title> <META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="history, genealogy, maps, civil war, revolutionary war, george washington, virginia, fredericksburg, stafford, spotsylvania, westmoreland, port, census"> </head> <body background="/images/gold-dot.gif" marginhe)

Today even, the Republican party tends to be anti-intellectual and it is no surprise that George W. Bush who is clearly an imbecile managed to hold office for eight consecutive years. It is also no surprise that universities and schools receive very little funding from the government. In addition to that, movie actors, athletes and artists are more admired than intellectuals. There can be no doubt that more young men today would much rather be more like Albert than Arnold.

This explains the problem of education in this country. Yet the problem of health-care has not yet been explained. It is connected to a deeper dilemma, or of the belief in the myth of the free-market economy. Obviously there is a deeply rooted fear of a tyranny or the monarchy that Paine polemicized against. Hence, the solution to this problem that has been employed is the laissez faire policy. Conventional American people reason as follows; if the government cannot interfere with the economy, they cannot monopolize it. Unlike in the communist regime, the government simply will have no say regarding the business lives of the inhabitants of the U.S.

This is simply false. Although the government cannot easily pass laws regarding how the market is to be operated, they are free to exploit the ignorance and extraordinary stupidity of the public. Politicians are well aware of strategies that could be utilized to control the population without making it obvious that the population is being controlled. The common citizen is unaware of such circumstances for two reasons. (1) Education is undervalued and people simply lack the reasoning skills to understand complex circumstances. This is merely one of them. (2) The 'Free Market' economy compelled the average citizen to be concerned with acquiring an income first and foremost. That is the case because the government is prohibited from offering the adequate financial support for individuals (as means to the end of ensuring that the government does not behave ina totalitarian fashion).

The problem of health care is the following: exorbitantly high prices are assigned to medical services. Why is that the case? Because in the 'Free Market' economy, those who produce services that are in demand have the liberty to grant the services in question for a price of their choice. Because the common man is first and foremost financially oriented (because he is vulgar and simplistic as he has neglected education and also due to the fact that he can count on no one but himself as the government is unable to help), he will strive to acquire as much money as possible.

It seems to me that the solution to this problem is the following: endorsing the ethical principles promoted by Paine and Bastiate regarding the necessity to avoid tyranny, however, allowing the government to be more economically involved. The common American Republican man fears that if we do this, tyranny is inevitable. This is a slippery slope logical fallacy. This country is far away from a totalitarian regime. Allowing the government slightly more influence does not at all amount to allowing the leaders enough influence to become autocratic. The basic principle holds, all men should be allowed equal opportunities, however, ensuring that the government has as little influence as possible with regard to the lives of the citizens of this country is not a tenable solution.

The first step to solving this problem is eliminating the anti-intellectual climate in the United States. It is simply impossible to construct any coherent course of action if one's reasoning skills are as feeble as that of a typical Republican party member. Secondly, when this has been accomplished, it is both possible and desirable to steer this nation away from the Conservative regime and closer to the Liberal. This will be the first step to ensuring that the 'Free Market' economy superstition is debunked and the common man will receive the necessary support from the government in order to have the liberty to pursue goals other than a mere acquisition of wealth.

The vision of a typical American man will broaden as a result because he will simply have the time and money to focus on something other than mere financial concerns (note, Western Europeans spend significantly more time away from work than Americans and report engaging in recreational activities more than Americans. No doubt this is connected to the support they receive from the government). Secondly because education will be tolerated more than it is now, Brittney Spears, Jerry Springer, Seinfeild, Monday night Football and a variety of other non-sense entertainment enterprises will be less influential. This is the case because if people are to become more inquisitive (even slightly), they would begin to develop an interest in activities that do require contemplation, as opposed to a mere response to immediate stimuli.

At the bottom of it, most people spend hours watching these shows because they lack the intellectual faculties and because the strenuous work regime deprives them of the energy they need in order to pursue the loftier activities. As a result they are too obtuse and indolent to question the current regime. The Republican quite correctly recognizes their lack of judgment and stupidity, therefore it mercilessly exploits the guileless populace by convincing them that they are doing God's work. And if people support the Republican party, they are endorsing the deeply held American values of autonomy and equality. In reality, nothing can be further from the truth. The ruling class is alive and well. The difference between the current ruling class and that of Plato is that the authorities impose their will on the citizens by intricate means of political propaganda and economical policies. Political propaganda allows them to convince the citizens of the U.S to vote for the policy that is pernicious to themselves, but serves the purpose of the government.

 

[Mole]

there are two things wrong with this country, education and health-care.

American bureaucracy is truly awful. So Americans rightly avoid their bureaucracy and regard it with suspicion bordering on paranoia.

So it is not so much that Americans don't want a socialized State, it's that they are incapable of running one.

Whereas my country is so harsh and lacking in water and fertile land, we needed to depend on Government in order to survive. And as a consequence we have become very good at bureaucracy.

So Americans are always disappointed to discover we are not a frontier society but rather we are a suburban bureaucracy.

Even our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is the epitome of a suburban bureaucrat - that's why we elected him.

And he has done the job for us - he has ensured we have sailed through this current economic crisis.

Like a good bureaucrat he is dull and boring and he does the job. Kevin is heaven.

 

[Eric B]

The first step to solving this problem is eliminating the anti-intellectual climate in the United States. It is simply impossible to construct any coherent course of action if one's reasoning skills are as feeble as that of a typical Republican party member. Secondly, when this has been accomplished, it is both possible and desirable to steer this nation away from the Conservative regime and closer to the Liberal. This will be the first step to ensuring that the 'Free Market' economy superstition is debunked and the common man will receive the necessary support from the government in order to have the liberty to pursue goals other than a mere acquisition of wealth.

The vision of a typical American man will broaden as a result because he will simply have the time and money to focus on something other than mere financial concerns (note, Western Europeans spend significantly more time away from work than Americans and report engaging in recreational activities more than Americans. No doubt this is connected to the support they receive from the government). Secondly because education will be tolerated more than it is now, Brittney Spears, Jerry Springer, Seinfeild, Monday night Football and a variety of other non-sense entertainment enterprises will be less influential. This is the case because if people are to become more inquisitive (even slightly), they would begin to develop an interest in activities that do require contemplation, as opposed to a mere response to immediate stimuli.

At the bottom of it, most people spend hours watching these shows because they lack the intellectual faculties and because the strenuous work regime deprives them of the energy they need in order to pursue the loftier activities. As a result they are too obtuse and indolent to question the current regime. The Republican quite correctly recognizes their lack of judgment and stupidity, therefore it mercilessly exploits the guileless populace by convincing them that they are doing God's work. And if people support the Republican party, they are endorsing the deeply held American values of autonomy and equality. In reality, nothing can be further from the truth. The ruling class is alive and well. The difference between the current ruling class and that of Plato is that the authorities impose their will on the citizens by intricate means of political propaganda and economical policies. Political propaganda allows them to convince the citizens of the U.S to vote for the policy that is pernicious to themselves, but serves the purpose of the government.

It's true that our system is a lot like Plato's, with both business and government executives as well as entertainers in the place of the "philosopher-kings". And then, you have those conservative and libertarian govt. bashers who argue those on the top "deserve" it, and many still argue the govt. is taking their taxes and wasting it on programs for the "undeserving"!
Then just this morning, I saw a discussion elsehwere (and in an intellectual NT group!) suggesting that people who do complain about this are "delusional ingrates"; for what would we do without the corporations. It may be true that we do depend on them, but this attitude still shows a class mentality; that these people can do whatever they want just because we do depend on them ('might makes right'; which we criticized the Communists for), and we don't even have a right to complain. That right there ought to raise concern, because it does sound almost like the grounding for some sort of caste system or dictatorship. All that's lacking is the authority to actually do the silencing.

 

[The Decline]

tl;dr. I'll stick to answering to the concise thread title.

I have a problem with quite a few of the cultural values that find their imposing way to my doorstep by ways of the various agents of socialization (media, family, peer group, education, etc). First and foremost is the myth of meritocracy which enables the country at large to believe that the wealthier among us found their way to the higher-tier classes completely through their own efforts, and the poorer by a lack of effort. The flaw to this argument lies in the tremendous strength of an unmentioned variable: discrimination deeply embedded within our social institutions.

All of the socially constructed identities (cultural identities & stereotypes such as gender roles) enable impoverishment and enrichment trends to impose themselves upon the individual in society. It is in this way that our culture has allowed us to blame the poor's woes on their own merit, or to refuse immigrants their rights as human beings. Narcissistic fixations on an ideal image or the spending of all of one's money on high-classed material goods is not considered a problem since our value system encourages upper socio-economic mobility as a definition of "success", even if it's only a façade.

There are plenty more elaborations to be made, but I'm tired.

 

[Thalassa]

American cultural values are embarrassing. I'm moving.

 

[statuesquechica]

The first step to solving this problem is eliminating the anti-intellectual climate in the United States. It is simply impossible to construct any coherent course of action if one's reasoning skills are as feeble as that of a typical Republican party member. Secondly, when this has been accomplished, it is both possible and desirable to steer this nation away from the Conservative regime and closer to the Liberal. This will be the first step to ensuring that the 'Free Market' economy superstition is debunked and the common man will receive the necessary support from the government in order to have the liberty to pursue goals other than a mere acquisition of wealth.

The anti-intellectual climate, as you posted above, is unfortunately prevalent on many American campuses as well. I had a friend who was an economics professor at a well-respected, but conservative campus, and he was actually monitored by his students as to how "liberal" his views were. He was a strong believer in pointing out the fallacies of a free market economy, resulting in privatization of public services, loss of social services and rampant deregulation. He also taught a course on the economics of wealth and poverty.

I will say firsthand, having taught science to middle school children, I was always disappointed by how ingrained my students were to never question or analyze a hypothetical problem, but rather to just get a quick answer. Even at that age, they had difficulty accepting that there was value in wrestling with a problem, maybe even having to reformulate the problem. I always taught the scientific process (formulate a hypothesis, get supplies, conduct the experiment, gather data, make observations, and make a conclusion related to the original hypothesis) because I think it provides a solid foundation to introducing and developing reasoning skills. I agree that this is a skill that is sorely lacking in our education system. My ex also used to teach Calculus in college and found the same lack of initiative to use reasoning skills and felt equally frustrated.

 

[Blank]

I think a fundamental difference between Paine and Plato's theories are that with Plato's caste system, the ruling elite tended to be monarchs.

In Paine's more capitalistic theories, that are "meritocratically" based, the ruling class tends to be the monopolies or corporations (who are lining politicians pockets...) because people aren't born into the world equally. The rich have many more opportunities to attain, or at least retain their wealth, while the poor have less viable options. The difference between this system and the caste system is just that class mobility is solved in nonviolent ways.

 

[chasingAJ]

tl;dr. I'll stick to answering to the concise thread title.

I have a problem with quite a few of the cultural values that find their imposing way to my doorstep by ways of the various agents of socialization (media, family, peer group, education, etc). First and foremost is the myth of meritocracy which enables the country at large to believe that the wealthier among us found their way to the higher-tier classes completely through their own efforts, and the poorer by a lack of effort. The flaw to this argument lies in the tremendous strength of an unmentioned variable: discrimination deeply embedded within our social institutions.

All of the socially constructed identities (cultural identities & stereotypes such as gender roles) enable impoverishment and enrichment trends to impose themselves upon the individual in society. It is in this way that our culture has allowed us to blame the poor's woes on their own merit, or to refuse immigrants their rights as human beings. Narcissistic fixations on an ideal image or the spending of all of one's money on high-classed material goods is not considered a problem since our value system encourages upper socio-economic mobility as a definition of "success", even if it's only a façade.

There are plenty more elaborations to be made, but I'm tired.

I'm not in the right head space to comment on this but I love this answer and I'm subscribing... b/c I just figured that out.

Oh and most of my professors hate the "stupiding" of America... No Child Left Behind etc. Their Freshman Physics books are being used in Grad School now...

 

[Blank]

I'd really like to learn more about the so-called "stupiding" of American students and whether or not there are any truths to such claims.

 

[Mole]

The anti-intellectual climate is unfortunately prevalent on many American campuses as well.

It is risible to complain about anti-intellectualism when MBTI is a scam plagiarized
by an old lady and her daughter from a reifying guru who supported the other side during WW II.

And it is risible to complain about anti-intellectualism when this site is devoted to recruiting school girls and school boys to the cult of MBTI.

And it is risible to complain about anti-intellectualism when MBTI has the same truth value as astrology.

No astronomer in the world believes in astrology, just as no qualified psychometrician believes in MBTI.

This site is as anti-intellectual and pseudo intellectual as the New Age itself.

In fact this site is part of the New Age.

 

[Venom]

tl;dr. I'll stick to answering to the concise thread title.

I have a problem with quite a few of the cultural values that find their imposing way to my doorstep by ways of the various agents of socialization (media, family, peer group, education, etc). First and foremost is the myth of meritocracy which enables the country at large to believe that the wealthier among us found their way to the higher-tier classes completely through their own efforts, and the poorer by a lack of effort. The flaw to this argument lies in the tremendous strength of an unmentioned variable: discrimination deeply embedded within our social institutions.

All of the socially constructed identities (cultural identities & stereotypes such as gender roles) enable impoverishment and enrichment trends to impose themselves upon the individual in society. It is in this way that our culture has allowed us to blame the poor's woes on their own merit, or to refuse immigrants their rights as human beings. Narcissistic fixations on an ideal image or the spending of all of one's money on high-classed material goods is not considered a problem since our value system encourages upper socio-economic mobility as a definition of "success", even if it's only a façade.

There are plenty more elaborations to be made, but I'm tired.

the bolded part is this biggest problem with the reactionaries that are currently in power. Were the conservatives wrong to say that wealthy people are always more wealthy because they deserve it? yes.

However, the idea of wealth redistribution makes the same mistake the other direction: assuming that no wealthy person made their money fairly. Its a ridiculous notion to try to then go "figure out" who's made their money fairly or unfairly and only take away money from the unfairly rich... assuming that all rich people made their money unfairly and taxing them all to pay for people that are assumed to have all been unfairly poor is JUST as retarded as the previous paradigm.

...

Blue Wing very much lost credibility with me because he picked sides. Liberal/conservative republican/democrat are very much like training wheels in that they are there to help people whose views cant stand on their own.

 

[Take Five]

American bureaucracy is truly awful. So Americans rightly avoid their bureaucracy and regard it with suspicion bordering on paranoia.

So it is not so much that Americans don't want a socialized State, it's that they are incapable of running one.

Whereas my country is so harsh and lacking in water and fertile land, we needed to depend on Government in order to survive. And as a consequence we have become very good at bureaucracy.

So Americans are always disappointed to discover we are not a frontier society but rather we are a suburban bureaucracy.

Even our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is the epitome of a suburban bureaucrat - that's why we elected him.

And he has done the job for us - he has ensured we have sailed through this current economic crisis.

Like a good bureaucrat he is dull and boring and he does the job. Kevin is heaven.

This is not it at all really.

 

[iamathousandapples]

Zealots are the problem and will continue to exacerbate the problem. They further isolate us from the world and teach us that we are the only people we can trust. They then use this fear and paranoia to push their own hateful agenda and bring this country further and further into the brink.

 

[The Decline]

However, the idea of wealth redistribution makes the same mistake the other direction: assuming that no wealthy person made their money fairly. Its a ridiculous notion to try to then go "figure out" who's made their money fairly or unfairly and only take away money from the unfairly rich... assuming that all rich people made their money unfairly and taxing them all to pay for people that are assumed to have all been unfairly poor is JUST as retarded as the previous paradigm.

It is assuredly a temporary cure to a holistic ailment to "redistribute" wealth through tax tiers, but essentially the taxing of the rich moreso than other classes (especially the incredibly rich) is a good step to keeping the impoverished from suffering while the system is being repaired (or not). I will not go into too much depth on the problem with wealth accumulation in the current system, but a fundamental of it comes from wealth begetting wealth, which does skew the unfairness incredibly for the impoverished. Higher-classed people can therefore accumulate wealth much more easily than their lower-classed counterparts. The poor get trapped in a cycle of impoverishment because they lack many resources (cultural and material capital) to maintain any wealth ). Most cultures don't like to witness poor people starving to death in the streets, so the notion of progressive socialized welfare for the poor is born.

You bring up another gripe I have with U.S. culture, which is a sense of entitlement. This spans classes, though clearly if you have any empathy you could at least see why the poor would want to maintain what little resources they have. U.S. culture has imbued Americans with a sense of entitlement to whatever obvious things they have the right to, obviously starting with the Constitution and other government documents that mandate protection over individuals' civil and material rights. Clearly everyone's in agreement that this is a black-and-white positive thing, however what if this stark Libertarianism impedes in the way of progress, ie environmental protection put on the back burner because citizens feel they have the right to materials and services no matter the environmental cost? This sense of entitlement brings to mind an image of a spoiled child who's been spoonfed all its youth yet will refuse to tackle heavy work or settle for less because it feels that sort of life is less dignified.

 

[Venom]

It is assuredly a temporary cure to a holistic ailment to "redistribute" wealth through tax tiers, but essentially the taxing of the rich moreso than other classes (especially the incredibly rich) is a good step to keeping the impoverished from suffering while the system is being repaired (or not). I will not go into too much depth on the problem with wealth accumulation in the current system, but a fundamental of it comes from wealth begetting wealth, which does skew the unfairness incredibly for the impoverished. Higher-classed people can therefore accumulate wealth much more easily than their lower-classed counterparts. The poor get trapped in a cycle of impoverishment because they lack many resources (cultural and material capital) to maintain any wealth ). Most cultures don't like to witness poor people starving to death in the streets, so the notion of progressive socialized welfare for the poor is born.

You bring up another gripe I have with U.S. culture, which is a sense of entitlement. This spans classes, though clearly if you have any empathy you could at least see why the poor would want to maintain what little resources they have. U.S. culture has imbued Americans with a sense of entitlement to whatever obvious things they have the right to, obviously starting with the Constitution and other government documents that mandate protection over individuals' civil and material rights. Clearly everyone's in agreement that this is a black-and-white positive thing, however what if this stark Libertarianism impedes in the way of progress, ie environmental protection put on the back burner because citizens feel they have the right to materials and services no matter the environmental cost? This sense of entitlement brings to mind an image of a spoiled child who's been spoonfed all its youth yet will refuse to tackle heavy work or settle for less because it feels that sort of life is less dignified.

again. you are making the SAME mistake going the OTHER direction. Yes the super rich often have a sense of entitlement to their property, opportunities and wealth (wether right or wrong). However, is it not also a sense of entitlement to demand that everyone gets free education, free healthcare, free retirement, etc.

You would be mistaken to think that im a looney right-y. I simply think EITHER direction, someone gets unfairly treated or unfairly entitled. When you come upon a system as such, I find the best thing to do is simply leave it alone (let it lie in its regular state).

Secondly, I find that solidarity of culture is rather important. Its almost like conservative relativism: liberal vs conservative has no real right answer, but making too great of a culture change one direction or other has the potential to be upsetting to the fabric of a culture.

America was once a white protestant nation that shared racial, cultural, lingual and philosophic values. many of those values were inspired by the calvinist/protestant idea that "doing well" here on earth meant you were favored by God (ie, work hard and earn well = you are probably alright in Gods eyes).

slowly these things that made america rather homogenous are disappearing. Its racially, linguistically, motivationally diverse. Can a country really be bound by utopian ideology? If the American culture you hate disappears, i fear there is nothing left to take its place...

 

[pure_mercury]

It is assuredly a temporary cure to a holistic ailment to "redistribute" wealth through tax tiers, but essentially the taxing of the rich moreso than other classes (especially the incredibly rich) is a good step to keeping the impoverished from suffering while the system is being repaired (or not). I will not go into too much depth on the problem with wealth accumulation in the current system, but a fundamental of it comes from wealth begetting wealth, which does skew the unfairness incredibly for the impoverished. Higher-classed people can therefore accumulate wealth much more easily than their lower-classed counterparts. The poor get trapped in a cycle of impoverishment because they lack many resources (cultural and material capital) to maintain any wealth ). Most cultures don't like to witness poor people starving to death in the streets, so the notion of progressive socialized welfare for the poor is born.

You bring up another gripe I have with U.S. culture, which is a sense of entitlement. This spans classes, though clearly if you have any empathy you could at least see why the poor would want to maintain what little resources they have. U.S. culture has imbued Americans with a sense of entitlement to whatever obvious things they have the right to, obviously starting with the Constitution and other government documents that mandate protection over individuals' civil and material rights. Clearly everyone's in agreement that this is a black-and-white positive thing, however what if this stark Libertarianism impedes in the way of progress, ie environmental protection put on the back burner because citizens feel they have the right to materials and services no matter the environmental cost? This sense of entitlement brings to mind an image of a spoiled child who's been spoonfed all its youth yet will refuse to tackle heavy work or settle for less because it feels that sort of life is less dignified.

Your understanding of libertarianism is misguided, to say the least.

 

[The Decline]

again. you are making the SAME mistake going the OTHER direction. Yes the super rich often have a sense of entitlement to their property, opportunities and wealth (wether right or wrong). However, is it not also a sense of entitlement to demand that everyone gets free education, free healthcare, free retirement, etc.

You would be mistaken to think that im a looney right-y. I simply think EITHER direction, someone gets unfairly treated or unfairly entitled. When you come upon a system as such, I find the best thing to do is simply leave it alone (let it lie in its regular state).

Secondly, I find that solidarity of culture is rather important. Its almost like conservative relativism: liberal vs conservative has no real right answer, but making too great of a culture change one direction or other has the potential to be upsetting to the fabric of a culture.

America was once a white protestant nation that shared racial, cultural, lingual and philosophic values. many of those values were inspired by the calvinist/protestant idea that "doing well" here on earth meant you were favored by God (ie, work hard and earn well = you are probably alright in Gods eyes).

slowly these things that made america rather homogenous are disappearing. Its racially, linguistically, motivationally diverse. Can a country really be bound by utopian ideology? If the American culture you hate disappears, i fear there is nothing left to take its place...

Who is to say that the current system should be left alone? If you truly believe in allowing an even playing field where unfairness ends for everyone, then the embedded injustices within the system that allow certain people more opportunities than others should be abolished or reformed.

Your understanding of libertarianism is misguided, to say the least.

I apologize, I meant to reference classical liberalism instead.

 

[chasingAJ]

I didn't have a chance to really read everything that's been written, I apologize but my head is going to pop...

The "stupiding" of America was a funny in my head. We have these great catch phrases that are supposed to represent some complex and important idea and these are typically all that get passed around.

The education system in our country is in decline. I have witnessed this over 12 years of college (long story) and now as a parent. Aptitude tests in our schools were never meant to ensure quality education, they were a business deal that gives test scoring companies an unlimited supply of new business and sends money from the government to this industry. They started in Texas (I was a kid during the initial testing phase and we had to have observers from the state come into our school to re-test when 100% of our gifted class scored 100% on the exams... yeah, I knew it was bunk then) and the link between the people pushing this agenda and the industry is fairly obvious. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to selling out school children. Ultimately, children who are socially well adapted and are willing to follow instructions to the letter are rewarded. Critical thinking is not required and children who are not well adjusted socially are shuffled around and put through crap even if they are simply not inclined to accept things at face value. Social acceptance in school is generally related to following the social norms that kids get from television/media. Advertising and trends are set in boardrooms and children do as they're "sold." The "No Child Left Behind" system encourages children to do as much as they have to and nothing more. Because the class will only progress when every child is at level, there is generally educational "socialism" where everyone stays in the middle. (another funny, don't kill me) These children graduate from public high school and public universities are legally required to accept them as students. They fully expect to receive a degree with the same level of commitment and effort as they showed in high school. Universities are ran like a business now and having a huge portion of the incoming students fail would be a horrible business move, so professors give them crutches. Some genius in New York threatened to cut funding to NYU if students could attend and receive credit without even going to class. They adopted an attendance policy and EVERY public university in the country quickly adopted one too for fear of budget cuts. Now, attendance points are given in most classes that penalize those who cut class and give college credit for just showing up. I took a class last semester that I loathed (grad student professor was not bright enough to answer my questions and we had conflict) I scored 100% on every exam and 80% on every assignment (she took off 20% because it wasn't double spaced b/c of open office/.doc/.docx issues!) and received a C for the semester because of the attendance penalty. I complained to another professor (Chemistry professor with 20+ years experience) and he ranted about the diluting of public education. We were in his office and he showed me a book (okay, threw it on the desk in disgust) that he used for his Freshman Chemistry class... the updated version of the same book is now being used for his Graduate students. The same book. Yes, really. It kills me to know that my degree will not mean as much when I graduate because those around me have done what it takes to get by. Will I graduate Magna Cum Laude? No. I've taken a stand on principle more often than was in my own best interests. I cherish my education and loathe my degree.

I don't think that the problems in our culture are political. Fear mongering, ideological/spiritual/value based divisions and ignorance perpetuating are not limited to any political party. I think that many of our problems stem from economic inequalities and corporate greed. There is a myth that people have a greater chance of upward social mobility in the United States than anywhere else. The "rugged individualism" ideology is so much a part of American social attitudes that we believe that social programs or public policies that help other people will actually harm us, even without any further investigations. People believe in "trickle down economics" even though statistics have shown that these policies actually cause economic harm to the lower 3/4ths of the population. (that's a generous figure btw). We believe that we have to step on others to make it to the top and that hard work and sacrifice are enough to make it. We work more hours and are more productive than any other industrialized nation, but we aren't any better for it. 1 in 4 American children went to bed hungry tonight (these are old statistics, it's worse than that now). 10% of all American families receive Food Stamp benefits. Roughly 25% of all homeless families include at least 1 working adult (I believe the statistic is full-time but not sure).

I know that we can all think of explanations or justifications for the statistics and we are all intelligent enough to understand that statistics can paint whatever picture you want but too many people are not educated enough about the corporations around them.

WalMart is the largest employer in the nation. Many of their employees make so little that they qualify for public assistance (food, housing, medical...). Because we are unwilling to force them to pay a living wage (fear of higher prices, fewer jobs, etc.) we are subsidizing their labor force while they make HUGE corporate profits. They offer health insurance but because they pay so little, most employees cannot afford the benefits. If they can afford the benefits, they cannot use the policy because they cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles. Statistics cannot show the number of people who are insured but allow their conditions to reach a critical level and use the ER for health care because they cannot afford doctor copays. WalMart's insurance company only pays what they have to for the care and the rest is "absorbed" by the hospital in the form of higher fees. They are FAR from the only company doing these things.

We see manufacturing jobs being shipped to other countries and we see the people around us having to work more for less pay. Why don't we do something about it? Because our media tells us a different story. We're not working hard enough. The illegal immigrants are the problem. It's because too many people are on welfare. It's because the unions wanted too much money. It's because of whatever current popular catch phrase. The people who have good jobs, decent benefits and somewhat stable lives are obviously not going to get on board with any changes. Any ideas for helping the rest of the country have come with the IDEA that they have to be at the detriment of those few who "made it." The reality is that our country is not running low on money. Our GDP is something like $14trillion. We have tent cities popping up with people who have jobs and are willing to work but we believe that there is nothing that can be done. No one on the television mentions that in the first quarter of this year we had BILLIONS in corporate profits (that's right, money made after every expense and taxes are paid). Where do we think that this money comes from? It's not magic. It's a direct result of all of this work we're doing. Maybe I'm taking a slightly Marxist view but the corporate class are obviously controlling our culture through direct control of the means of production. We may have laws in place that prevent corporations from directly manipulating the markets (uhm.. lets go with this) but laying off a few thousand employees to cut costs is nothing unusual. These corporations may be turning huge profits but they'll lay off people anyway. A few corporations get together and lay off a few hundred thousand and in a couple of months when those people are on the brink of starvation, they'll hire them back at a lower wage. Corporations actually profit from high unemployment. Let's say that you spend $400 on gadgets from company X each year. If they can get 1 employee to work for $4000 less per year, they can afford for 10 of their customers to be unemployed. (This is overly simplified but paints a picture). Maybe having stocks trade higher and unemployment increasing simultaneously isn't so mystifying after all... The ugliest part of this is that corporation X will continue to run advertisements that tell you how much you need their gadgets so when you do find work, you'll work harder (or maybe take a lower wage to work right away) so that you can buy them and "feel normal."

I could keep typing forever but the problems with the American culture (in my opinion naturally) are directly related to "selling out." Some people believe that we can change this through reinforcing values that will be more important to people than consumption, while others believe that we can change policies that encourage consumption. We are a nation full of addicts (health care reform and taking away our Prozac is scary as hell!) and we have been fed one intoxicating thing after another while a select few were robbing and pillaging. I think that education is the answer, but that we have to find a way to introduce it like every other "drug" packaged for our masses.

Victor- It is for this reason that I believe that psuedo-intellectualism is much better than outright intellectual apathy. We could have a debate about the merits of peanut butter but the very fact that we're debating means that we're on the right road. I am Descartes' "thinking thing," as ignorant as Socrates and as immortal as yourself. If "new age" is the drug I need to free myself from Weber's "iron cage," I'll take whatever lines you're not buying.

 

[Mole]

Victor- It is for this reason that I believe that psuedo-intellectualism is much better than outright intellectual apathy. We could have a debate about the merits of peanut butter but the very fact that we're debating means that we're on the right road. I am Descartes' "thinking thing," as ignorant as Socrates and as immortal as yourself. If "new age" is the drug I need to free myself from Weber's "iron cage," I'll take whatever lines you're not buying.

Bravo. A tour de force. How could I not support you?