or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Progressives - You don't know the basis of your philosophy or your own history
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Progressives - You don't know the basis of your philosophy or your own history

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

Henry R. Seager

 

Why do we need a minimum wage?

 

The source material

 

Just as there are special schools in the public school system for children who are backward with their books, so

there must be developed industrial and trade schools for young persons who are so backward in their work that they cannot command even the minimum wages which the law prescribes. And it will not be enough to provide such schools. Young persons incapable of adequate self support and without independent resources will have to be assisted while they are taking advantage of them. Moreover, if on completing the course they are still unable to earn an adequate living, they will have to be treated as defectives for whom still further measures must be taken. If their defects are of a sort that render them entirely harmless members of the community they may be given licenses to work for less than the minimum wage required for normal persons. If there are reasons for isolating them from contact with others then they must be sent to farm or industrial colonies where they will be considerately and humanely cared for but under conditions that prevent them from inflicting injury on others. Critics of the minimum wage sometimes speak of this necessity which the plan presents of making special provision for the unemployable as if it were a new problem. It is not a new problem

 

Those darn critics of concepts like minimum wage. Don't they understand we are keeping thsoe dirty defectives safe from themselves? If it doesn't work out there are always the camps and colonies we can send them to instead.

One important part of the program with reference to those who are defective from birth is to prevent that monstrous crime against future generations involved in permitting them to become the fathers and mothers of children who must suffer under the same handicap. If we are to maintain a race that is to be made up of capable, efficient, and independent individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization of the congenitally defective.

 

We can't go murder them. So we will put them on farms and colonies while making sure that stock of their nature doesn't procreate.

Michigan has just passed an act requiring the sterilization of congenital idiots.

This may seem somewhat remote from the minimum wage but such a policy judiciously extended should make easier the task of each on-coming generation which insists that every individual who is regularly employed in the competitive labor market shall receive at least a living wage for his work. We cannot continue to increase the sums we spend for the care odaf congenital defectives in consequence of our failure to prevent them from becoming the parents of more congenital defectives without encroaching on the expenditures we ought to make for the better education and training of the normal children of normal citizens.

 

The conclusions from the man who helped justify Social Security are clear, the herd can't afford to keep raising the wages of those members who can be taught and improved aka the "normal" if it has to keep caring for those who cannot seem to ever get their act together.

 

This is a caring position. Denying the rights of individuals to help the herd is a caring position, especially when the self-annoited and appointed Ubermensch will determine exactly who in the herd deserves their rights. When they lie, distort or harm others, it is because the needs of the few are worth ignoring for the needs of the many. Why just think about it as the 1% and how they need to be brought down to help the 99%. By 99% we don't really mean all 99% though but just those who are bright enough to agree with us and thus avoid being sent off to the farm or colony to work.

 

The blog is quite a read and there are many more examples that would be great to post here and discuss. The point is that the eugenic left, who want to hate on religion because it teaches grace toward the poor instead of demanding their extermination, are a real danger and have shown historically how they will act when given enough power.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Henry R. Seager

 

Why do we need a minimum wage?

 

The source material

 

 

Those darn critics of concepts like minimum wage. Don't they understand we are keeping thsoe dirty defectives safe from themselves? If it doesn't work out there are always the camps and colonies we can send them to instead.

 

We can't go murder them. So we will put them on farms and colonies while making sure that stock of their nature doesn't procreate.

 

The conclusions from the man who helped justify Social Security are clear, the herd can't afford to keep raising the wages of those members who can be taught and improved aka the "normal" if it has to keep caring for those who cannot seem to ever get their act together.

 

This is a caring position. Denying the rights of individuals to help the herd is a caring position, especially when the self-annoited and appointed Ubermensch will determine exactly who in the herd deserves their rights. When they lie, distort or harm others, it is because the needs of the few are worth ignoring for the needs of the many. Why just think about it as the 1% and how they need to be brought down to help the 99%. By 99% we don't really mean all 99% though but just those who are bright enough to agree with us and thus avoid being sent off to the farm or colony to work.

 

The blog is quite a read and there are many more examples that would be great to post here and discuss. The point is that the eugenic left, who want to hate on religion because it teaches grace toward the poor instead of demanding their extermination, are a real danger and have shown historically how they will act when given enough power.

 

 

The Left's love affair with the herd mentality, eugenics and forced sterilization are pretty well documented, as is it's desire for power over the individual.  It doesn't matter how many times these policies are proven to fail economically, socially and morally...they just keep on trying.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 21

Demonizing the left, painting them has subhuman...typical.  It's so much easier to defeat a strawman, isn't it?  Except, this form of brainwashing can do some real harm when folks actually decide this bullshit is true--you get abortion doctors being murdered and the likes of Andres Breivyk.

 

Enough, SDW et al.  Enough of your dangerous propaganda.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Demonizing the left, painting them has subhuman...typical.  It's so much easier to defeat a strawman, isn't it?  Except, this form of brainwashing can do some real harm when folks actually decide this bullshit is true--you get abortion doctors being murdered and the likes of Andres Breivyk.

 

Enough, SDW et al.  Enough of your dangerous propaganda.

 

Care to explain how a primary source can be a strawman?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 21

I'm so glad that BR brought up abortion...since that was also advocated by the early progressive eugenics philosophy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 21

Again, none of my philosophy is based on eugenics or any of the other atrocious nonsense you are attempting to pin on me.  This is nonsense.  Shall I start saying that you, personally, are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition?  Your ideological heritage is truly the bloodiest of all.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Again, none of my philosophy is based on eugenics or any of the other atrocious nonsense you are attempting to pin on me.

 

Well I'm not "pinning" anything on you. I (and trumptman) are simply pointing out the roots of the progressive movement in this country. You're free to ignore, reject, denounce, dismiss...whatever.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Shall I start saying that you, personally, are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition?  Your ideological heritage is truly the bloodiest of all.

 

Well, you could do that, but then we could point to your communist/Marxist/socialist ideological brethren who have been responsible for far more deaths that about anyone.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 21

To what end are you pointing out said alleged roots?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

To what end are you pointing out said alleged roots?

 

I cannot speak for trumptman of course, but I find the intellectual and philosophical heritage interesting. Sometimes it can provide insight into current thinking, worldview, philosophy, policies, etc.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 21

IMO the current minimum wage is more of a part of the "war on poverty" and "economic justice" than the above. Still interesting though.

post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

IMO the current minimum wage is more of a part of the "war on poverty" and "economic justice" than the above. Still interesting though.

 

Yes, it is. And it is also born out of economic ignorance (assuming the stated intentions are the real ones) or lack of compassion for those who become or remain unemployed and unemployable as a result of statutory minimum wages above the market clearing prices.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Again, none of my philosophy is based on eugenics or any of the other atrocious nonsense you are attempting to pin on me.  This is nonsense.  Shall I start saying that you, personally, are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition?  Your ideological heritage is truly the bloodiest of all.

Actually it is based on that and while you may not fully understand what the people you promote may have advocated, when you promote them and their views, you also promote the outcomes they desired to arise as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

To what end are you pointing out said alleged roots?

Please take off your blinders. You sound ridiculous when you ignoring something and then questioning outloud about what you haven't read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

To what end are you pointing out said alleged roots?

 

I cannot speak for trumptman of course, but I find the intellectual and philosophical heritage interesting. Sometimes it can provide insight into current thinking, worldview, philosophy, policies, etc.

It provides a lot more than insight in my view. The outcomes and conclusions are often obscure to many who advocate for said positions but haven't thought their positions all the way through. This is common among many progressives who think largely in pretty pictures and bumper stickers. However the conclusions are still there and are still valid, even if they haven't realized them due to their own limited understanding or intellect.

 

There was a very good video out there the other day and it was Paul vs. Paul. Paul Krugman was in it and as an example, this man with all his claims of expertise declared that the U.S. could continue to borrow money without a negative outcome. Of course he couldn't say at what point the borrowing would overwhelm us or at what level other countries would start treating our currency like monopoly money, but he was certain it wasn't going happen yet. How can someone be such an expert and declare they know an outcome when they cannot assign certainty to anything. I understand economics isn't a hard science but still, you sound like an idiot when you say, I can't tell you when, but not today. He sounds like the smartass old man down at the donut shop instead of a Nobel winning economist.


Edited by trumptman - 5/14/12 at 3:26pm

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 21

"The last throes of the insurgency...."

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #14 of 21

The "roots" of "progressives" ...

 

Perhaps you could go further back ... something written in the past several decades can hardly be considered "roots" ... perhaps a major branching, but more likely a minor twig.

 

Copernicus would make a better start (the title of "progressive" would fit, as he was bucking the status quo and powers-that-be to try to get people to understand modern (and proven) concepts.)  ... although much of his work was based on ancient Greek (see Aristotle and Plato) and later Arab (Al-Farabi (sp?)) observations/thoughts that predated him by more than a thousand years ... and in fact predate your own precious J.C. Waterwalker.

 

The "articles" you are parading can hardly be considered a major part of the modern progressives ... It would be akin to me quoting Oral Roberts and saying that represents the "roots" of all conservatism.

 

A single voice does not represent an entire movement.  Just like your own opinion does not represent the opinion of the entire world ... or even of the USA... or even of the state you live in ... most likely not even of everyone in your own household.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

The "roots" of "progressives" ...

 

Perhaps you could go further back ... something written in the past several decades can hardly be considered "roots" ... perhaps a major branching, but more likely a minor twig.

 

Copernicus would make a better start (the title of "progressive" would fit, as he was bucking the status quo and powers-that-be to try to get people to understand modern (and proven) concepts.)  ... although much of his work was based on ancient Greek (see Aristotle and Plato) and later Arab (Al-Farabi (sp?)) observations/thoughts that predated him by more than a thousand years ... and in fact predate your own precious J.C. Waterwalker.

 

The "articles" you are parading can hardly be considered a major part of the modern progressives ... It would be akin to me quoting Oral Roberts and saying that represents the "roots" of all conservatism.

 

A single voice does not represent an entire movement.  Just like your own opinion does not represent the opinion of the entire world ... or even of the USA... or even of the state you live in ... most likely not even of everyone in your own household.

 

Well, you see King, the problem is that most of the progressives on this forum spurn their own history. Why ol' Copernicus is just another dead white male their movement as a whole is more based in philosophy, not science. You even engage in this yourself declaring a clear source as not major. With regard to philosophy, the origin of progressives is clearly with the philosophers who went to a human centered view of the world away from the previous god-centered view. Hegel, Kant, Marx are the foundation.

 

You are right that a single voice doesn't often represent an entire movement and as a counterpoint, especially since progressives obviously should know their own history, they could add other examples of progressives who advocated for the first minimum wage or for Social Security who did not believe in limiting the population of undesirables or that they were benefiting a class of human they consider so stupid that they were just a step above livestock.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Again, none of my philosophy is based on eugenics or any of the other atrocious nonsense you are attempting to pin on me.  This is nonsense.  Shall I start saying that you, personally, are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition?  Your ideological heritage is truly the bloodiest of all.

This is of course a lie. You already seek to take away individual rights under the guise of "protecting the herd". The same reasoning is applied in culling from the herd those who would disproportionately tax the limited resources of the herd. Thus they must be culled or not allowed to come into existence in the first place. Saying women do not have a choice with their own bodies because of a virus means you've given the virus priority over their minds and consciousness which means you do not grant rights based on having that. It is clear rights are granted based on what is good for the herd as determined by the Ubermensch. If that means culling the sick, the mentally weak or whatever else hurts the herd, the reasoning is the same.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

... away from the previous god-centered view...

Would that god-centered view be the view that condones the killing of children, the rape of teenage women, treating women in general as chatel, slavery as a way of life, the killing of "innocent civilians" as the preferred method of warfare... Etc ???

If that's the case, then the progressive movement AWAY from god-centered beliefs seems like a pretty good idea to me.

If you would say that those beliefs are NOT god-centered, then you are a progressive yourself, as those are verifiably god-centered in all Abrahamic holy-books. The changing of those views with modern Christianity would be a progression away from traditional Christian beliefs.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #17 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

... away from the previous god-centered view...

Would that god-centered view be the view that condones the killing of children, the rape of teenage women, treating women in general as chatel, slavery as a way of life, the killing of "innocent civilians" as the preferred method of warfare... Etc ???

If that's the case, then the progressive movement AWAY from god-centered beliefs seems like a pretty good idea to me.

If you would say that those beliefs are NOT god-centered, then you are a progressive yourself, as those are verifiably god-centered in all Abrahamic holy-books. The changing of those views with modern Christianity would be a progression away from traditional Christian beliefs.


You first would have to show that the human centered view led us away from the attributes you have defined as exclusive to the domain of god-centered. That can't be done because more murder and mayhem has occurred pursuing human centered utopia than for any other cause. For example you mention slavery as a way of life while failing to realize that under communist regimes, your life was in no form or fashion your own. It belonged to the state.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


You first would have to show that the human centered view led us away from the attributes you have defined as exclusive to the domain of god-centered. That can't be done because more murder and mayhem has occurred pursuing human centered utopia than for any other cause. For example you mention slavery as a way of life while failing to realize that under communist regimes, your life was in no form or fashion your own. It belonged to the state.

Communism is not at all the same as slavery... but... you're certainly welcome to see it that way if it makes you feel better about your personal genocidal, murdering, raping, warmongering god.

Me?... I'd just as soon keep all that dogma out of my government ... people are welcome to get together on Sunday mornings and worship that elohssa all they want, but don't try to tell me it's a good way to govern!

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #19 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You first would have to show that the human centered view led us away from the attributes you have defined as exclusive to the domain of god-centered. That can't be done because more murder and mayhem has occurred pursuing human centered utopia than for any other cause. For example you mention slavery as a way of life while failing to realize that under communist regimes, your life was in no form or fashion your own. It belonged to the state.

Communism is not at all the same as slavery... but... you're certainly welcome to see it that way if it makes you feel better about your personal genocidal, murdering, raping, warmongering god.

Me?... I'd just as soon keep all that dogma out of my government ... people are welcome to get together on Sunday mornings and worship that elohssa all they want, but don't try to tell me it's a good way to govern!

I'll tell you what I want with regard to what I believe is good governing, especially since you have already done so in advance. The issue here is you believe the communal or socialistic views to not be dogma. They are indeed dogma. They are not based on science, they are based on philosophy. They have not worked in any sort of real life application. As for religion and worshiping on Sunday, it is clear that under socialistic and communistic governments, only having to devote one day a week to the cause would be a blessing. Instead your own thoughts and values must be under assault 24/7/365. The people at church on Sunday aren't at my job site demanding my money go into their coffers on Monday. The church isn't asking my kid to spend his weekend on mandated community service. It is the leftists and their causes which make such demands.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 21
Keep in mind I have NOT been supporting the idea of communism or socialism as a viable or desirable form of government.

I was simply pointing out your own hyperbole when you compared it to slavery.

I'm actually rather impressed with a government as outlined in the U.S.Constitution... Unfortunately. That document s no longer the basis for government in the U.S. (Yes, it was the starting point, but it is actively ignored when the "powers that be" wish for the government to exercise powers that are not granted it by said constitution.)

Yes, philosophies have dogma. But religion is not philosophy. Religion is the belief in and worship of an imaginary deity (or deities), and has all sorts of dogma to go with it to support those otherwise unsupportable claims.

Governmental philosophies, by default, must be based on ideas... but should be amendable as ideas change based on what worked and what didn't. Unlike your religion, who's dogma must be accepted and not questioned because otherwise it too would have to change, as the evidence has shown it's dogma to be unsupportable in all cases, and outright false in many.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #21 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Keep in mind I have NOT been supporting the idea of communism or socialism as a viable or desirable form of government.

I apologize if I said you did. It is hard to discuss certain aspects of beliefs abstractly without assigning support to the person bringing forward certain points. Again, my apologies.

 

Quote:
I was simply pointing out your own hyperbole when you compared it to slavery.

I don't think it hyperbole. We saw what happened in the former Soviet Republic and satellite nations. We know how things are in places like North Korea and Cuba now. Let's take a look at the Wikipedia entry related to Communism and hit a few points.

 

According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom.[37]Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as action with content.[38]According to Marx, communism's outlook on freedom was based on an agent, obstacle, and goal. The agent is the common/working people; the obstacles are class divisions, economic inequalities, unequal life-chances, and false consciousness; and the goal is the fulfilment of human needs including satisfying work, and fair share of the product.[39][40]

 

Now we know under a fully realized communist vision, there isn't a need for currency. Let's hit that bit about false consciousness because it is very important.

 

In Marxist theory, false consciousness is essentially a result of ideological control which the proletariat either do not know they are under or which they disregard with a view to their own POUM (probability/possibility of upward mobility).[1]POUM or something like it is required in economics with its presumption of rational agency; otherwise wage laborers would be the conscious supporters of social relations antithetical to their own interests, violating that presumption.[2]

Theory

The concept flows from the theory of commodity fetishism — that people experience social relationships as value relations between things, e.g., between the cash in their wage packet and the shirts they want. The cash and the shirt appear to conduct social relations independently of the humans involved, determining who gets what by their inherent values. This leaves the person who earned the cash and the people who made the shirt ignorant of and alienated from their social relationship with each other. So the individual "resolves" the experiences of alienation and oppression through a false conception based on a "natural law" argument that there is a fundamental need to compete with others for commodities.

 

So they wouldn't call it slavery. They would say that you, as determined by the temporary structure helping lead the masses toward utopia and away from their delusional state, must work as they want, where they want without wages and without expectation to receive any sort of recompense beyond what they declare you need, for as long as they want and until it has been determined that you are no longer operating under a false consciousness whereby you think thoughts like if you any relationship at all between your efforts and your needs is linked. There is no problem with "re-educating" you out of it, banishing you out of it, or even killing you to end it because it is false, delusional and keeps humans from the proper rational end state.

 

Now this bit is important as well, I would say the most important.

 

In the late 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism.[43]

These later aspects, particularly as developed by Vladimir Lenin, provided the underpinning for the mobilizing features of 20th century communist parties.

 

When you study all the philosophy about getting to that end state, whereby (TAKE NOTE BR and others, there is NO STATE APPARATUS) humans operate under a universal and common will, it is a shared consciousness but also common and a consciousness free of dissent.

 

Now this "higher phase" has never occurred. Within the philosophy you see them attempting to move from a god centered view of the universe, whereby the consciousness of god drives all, to a human centered consciousness. The reason religion is despised is because it misleads or helps contribute to the false consciousness. Those in the higher state are part of the shared human consciousness. There can't be slavery because you would never dissent from what everyone would want you to do. By definition if you do dissent, you haven't achieved the higher state, you are not evolved. You are still operating in the false.

 

I do call any demand to operate exclusively at the whims of the shared human consciousness, which has never been proven, never achieved and is only "temporarily" expressed through the centralized  "first phase" government as slavery.

Quote:
I'm actually rather impressed with a government as outlined in the U.S.Constitution... Unfortunately. That document s no longer the basis for government in the U.S. (Yes, it was the starting point, but it is actively ignored when the "powers that be" wish for the government to exercise powers that are not granted it by said constitution.)

Yes, philosophies have dogma. But religion is not philosophy. Religion is the belief in and worship of an imaginary deity (or deities), and has all sorts of dogma to go with it to support those otherwise unsupportable claims.

 

I concur that our present government has overridden the limits outlined by the U.S. Constitution. I don't know if I have properly outlined it well enough above (because honestly entire books could be written about it) but I consider belief, service and worship of an imaginary deity to be the same even if it is called God or if it is called a common and universal consciousness and will determined and understood by all in unison and without dissent. The latter has never been proven, never been achieved, never been scientifically quantified and shares all the characteristics of the former but just has a new name.

 

Quote:
Governmental philosophies, by default, must be based on ideas... but should be amendable as ideas change based on what worked and what didn't. Unlike your religion, who's dogma must be accepted and not questioned because otherwise it too would have to change, as the evidence has shown it's dogma to be unsupportable in all cases, and outright false in many.

Well as we can see, communism's "higher stage" has never been arrived at because the item that would drive this stateless entity, doesn't exist. The continued drive towards it is indeed based on an unbending and unyielding dogma that cannot be questioned and cannot change.

 

This thread is going in a good direction if we can work off of what was expressed here. You just can't start a thread with a post about god really being unconscious and he will awaken and become conscious when man achieves perfect knowledge and as part of that perfect knowledge we realize that god doesn't exist and what was really man's thirst for knowledge, previously thought of as god's unconscious desire to become conscious is instead the human shared will and consciousness attempting to express itself through the shared false consciousness that we all currently have. Perhaps we can discuss that now though.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Progressives - You don't know the basis of your philosophy or your own history