User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 297

  1. #41
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    My question, simple as it is, I still don't have a satisfactory answer for: What is the proper balance between individual growth and economic protection?
    Easy, whatever legislative paradigm is most beneficial for sustainable growth in the 21st century. Under such a system a balance between growth and protection would arise organically. Whatever that level was, I would say is the proper balance.

    Our current problems are so massive that I couldn't even begin to speculate about what such a balance might look like. We are trying to work on problem 1 right now.

    That is like problem 73.

  2. #42
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nharkey View Post
    I certainly agree with you that electing Romney, ( or any serious conservative candidate) is only a small step in the right direction. I think people see Bill Buckley's idea of the conservative position (rough quote) "standing athwart history yelling Stop", as meaning that conservatives are against all change, in principle, but I think not. In my mind he was reflecting the fact that the history of left and right has been a slow, jerky, but never ending slide to the left, and if there is hope for the future, that has to stop. William Voegeli's book "Never Enough" makes this point very well. What conservatism needs is a thorough going examination of what it would propose as a best possible world of capitalist accomplishment and humane provision of a safety net for those who truly will sink without it. This needs to look honestly at the fact that people (and groups) genuinely differ in intelligence, motivation, etc. and will never have equal results in an equal opportunity world (but what politician wants to touch that), and it needs to recognize that beyond a certain point, having money gives you the great advantage that money can make money, as well as your labor making money--something we seldom admit. Questions like how we help people who genuinely need help without undermining the will to strive in others who merely would like help are all part of this. It is not "what is your fair share" but what is your fair-enough share. We certainly have conservative writers and intellectuals thinking about all of this, but we have no public long-range goals that I am aware of.
    My sentiments precisely.

    Especially that point you made about fair-enough share.

    And also the potential of money to make money.

    If we could have a growing moderate wing within the right, things would be much easier right now.

  3. #43
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Easy, whatever legislative paradigm is most beneficial for sustainable growth in the 21st century. Under such a system a balance between growth and protection would arise organically. Whatever that level was, I would say is the proper balance.

    Our current problems are so massive that I couldn't even begin to speculate about what such a balance might look like. We are trying to work on problem 1 right now.

    That is like problem 73.
    That's one of the core weaknesses in capitalism - perpetual growth is per se unsustainable, as we live on a finite planet. The goal shouldn't be how to further exploit resources at a more rapid pace, but how to manage society within the material constraints that are becoming clearer by the day.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And did he have any choice about what circumstances he was born into?

    Is it any more reasonable to hold his circumstances against him than it is against someone of more moderate means?
    No more than a schizophrenic, and a schizophrenic wouldn't get my vote either.

    Yes, it is more reasonable. Someone of more moderate means is more likely to have experienced real struggle, and therefore be more able to identify with the rest of our species.

    Which is why I posted a thread about policy not Romney.

    The second article is just about the GOP warming up to Romney as a moderate.
    This is about Romney. You're trying to make the argument that he'll be a better president than Obama.

    Campaign finance reform certainly needs to happen and it will, but to say that that alone is the silver bullet that will get us out of this mess is naive at best.
    A silver bullet? Hardly, I never said anything close to that. It's the first step in a long war. But without that first step, all other efforts are wasted. Everything will be turned against us. The second step is, of course, reigning in corporate power (which cannot happen until step one is complete because almost all elected officials are beholden to corporate money to finance their campaigns). Then, and only then, can we actually make progress reforming the rest of government.

    I'm advocating that he's more likely to move us in a pro growth direction than is Obama.
    Unless he's willing to address tariffs (and neither candidate has mentioned tariffs AFAIK), he'll be no different than Obama. It will be one corporate sellout after another. Maybe he could sell the naming rights of the White House to raise a little cash.

    Of course I can't predict what he would do in office, no one can about any candidate.
    There is one prediction we can make. Whoever wins this election will continue to sell us out to corporate power.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #45
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's one of the core weaknesses in capitalism - perpetual growth is per se unsustainable, as we live on a finite planet. The goal shouldn't be how to further exploit resources at a more rapid pace, but how to manage society within the material constraints that are becoming clearer by the day.
    Not only that, manual labor is becoming progressively closer to being obsolete by the day. The current version of capitalism cannot survive in a world where manual labor is not necessary because most people would have no source of income. The implications of this are enormous and it's something that we're just now starting to experience with this slow economic recovery. Many of the jobs that have been lost this past decade will never come back (regardless of who is elected, including Ron Paul), not just because some have been shipped to China/India/etc, but because of technological advances. They're simply no longer necessary.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #46
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    In fact given the vagueness of your platitudes, I wonder whether you've understood anything we're talking about here at all.
    Yes, forgive me for my out-breaking. I got carried away.

    I still stand on some of the things I've said about Romney, however. If Levin thinks that Romney is fixing anything, he should think again.

    Until we have a candidate that can buck the system in their own party and the other parties' at large, I really don't see too much fixing on this system anytime time soon.

    As much as I don't like half of what Ron Paul espouses, that is what we really need in both parties - To break the system. He was the only candidate I actually payed attention to in the GOP race, every other candidate were still very much part of the system that stalled this mess. Romney, Santorum, Gingrinch, Bachmann, etc, they were still part of that status quo of stagnation.

    The whole notion of Romney not being part of the status quo (and that he'll make things better) and stagnation is fictitious at best, and deceptive at worse.

  7. #47
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's one of the core weaknesses in capitalism - perpetual growth is per se unsustainable, as we live on a finite planet. The goal shouldn't be how to further exploit resources at a more rapid pace, but how to manage society within the material constraints that are becoming clearer by the day.
    I do agree that finite resources pose a problem and our growth centered economic model poses problems.

    But before we can deal with that issue, we have to pull ourselves out of this mess.

    We wont be able to do anything about it if we are perpetually worried about another crash.

  8. #48
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post


    Ah American "politics", it always goes to "it were the liberals wot dun it" like a bad game of cluedo or poorly written murder mystery.
    yes and any moron who thinks we were doing great up until a liberal stepped into office is ignoring everything that led to the market crash in the first place (8 years of neo-conservative irresponsibility with finance) and that the market indeed crashed while Bush lingered in his last months of office...

    Furthermore to harp on entitlement programs without addressing military overspending and corporate welfare is utterly irresponsible

    in that regard I at least acknowledge Ron Paul for his honest assessment of both sides and historically accurate long view, although I find some of his policies much too idealistic and hands off

    as Rachel Maddow once said (in paraphrase) I am surely a liberal, which means I also strongly resemble an Eisenhower era Republican

    If these creatins would acknowledge that the Republican party has been nowhere in the ballpark of fiscally responsible since neo conservatism and corporatism slowly began to take a strangle hold in the 70s and finally choked America with far right, elitist corporate propaganda in the 1980s, they'd realize that sane and moderate liberals have quite a bit in common with old school conservatives and we don't hate capitalism or worship Marxism

  9. #49
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    yes and any moron who thinks we were doing great up until a liberal stepped into office is ignoring everything that led to the market crash in the first place (8 years of neo-conservative irresponsibility with finance) and that the market indeed crashed while Bush lingered in his last months of office...

    Furthermore to harp on entitlement programs without addressing military overspending and corporate welfare is utterly irresponsible

    in that regard I at least acknowledge Ron Paul for his honest assessment of both sides and historically accurate long view, although I find some of his policies much too idealistic and hands off

    as Rachel Maddow once said (in paraphrase) I am surely a liberal, which means I also strongly resemble an Eisenhower era Republican

    If these creatins would acknowledge that the Republican party has been nowhere in the ballpark of fiscally responsible since neo conservatism and corporatism slowly began to take a strangle hold in the 70s and finally choked America with far right, elitist corporate propaganda in the 1980s, they'd realize that sane and moderate liberals have quite a bit in common with old school conservatives and we don't hate capitalism or worship Marxism
    The left dealt with its militant tendencies, the right morphed into its militant tendencies.

  10. #50
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    One of the points I also think needs to be addressed is the simple problem that there are too many damn people, and I call myself a moderate now because I don't necessarily embrace the globalist multi-cult, and also because I do see welfare via propagation as exploitative. There are people who need help, but there are also people who will breed care and service of the system, and irresponsible fatherhood is somewhat indirectly morally supported by this (which is why we need to crack down as hard on biological fathers as possible to thrust the fiscal responsibility on to whom it belongs instead of the state, and if you'd like to keep having irresponsible sex perhaps you should get a vasectomy and stop presuming women bear 100 percent responsibility for birth control).

    However I don't want to starve any children who already exist, or their mothers, so we need to reform welfare, not drop it entirely.

    Theres also the problem of too many old people, illegal immigration and keeping abortion legal.

    I don't propose genocide, and I certainly think its not only immoral but stupid to starve out children and non-elderly adults, because it increases crime.

    We need to control population somehow without becoming Nazis. I personally think this is a huge issue that must be faced that makes liberals and conservatives uncomfortable on some angle, and we need someone moderate to manage it humanely as possible.

    Ive even half jokingly suggested we take over Mexico by force, so we have their resources and land, if they'd like to dump upon us their people and horrific crime.

Similar Threads

  1. The meaning of the answer to "what makes you special"? [Functions]
    By kangaroo2003 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 07-19-2015, 05:10 PM
  2. Hypothetical Question: The Answer to Violent Psychopathy
    By Passacaglia in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-02-2015, 01:35 AM
  3. [Other] What is the absolute answer to everything?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 12-29-2013, 01:25 AM
  4. Which questions on personality tests do you find the most difficult to answer?
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 08:03 AM
  5. The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything Test
    By Phantonym in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-28-2010, 09:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO