ok, BR, good reply...so what do we offer as rewards??
in "starship troopers" it was the right to vote
here i am offering college money...
perhaps something else?
could we actually limit the right to vote only to people that serve either militarily or social servicely (a word?)? would college money alone be enough?? would all it takes is pride and working it into the middle school and high school curriculum??
thanks
g
No we can't make it the right to vote because that is a fundamental inalienable right. Definitely give college money. Give discounted rates on home loans. Be creative.
We are forced to go to school, unfortunately. And if we were forced into public service, public service would become more like public school. In other words a big joke/meaningless waste/indoctrination process where everyone is shuffled through. If anything, it would further solidify to other nations that the US is an imperialist country.
No we can't make it the right to vote because that is a fundamental inalienable right. Definitely give college money. Give discounted rates on home loans. Be creative.
maybe, but it would still not be a "fair" system unless all where involved...currently kids who can't afford college will join the military and then greatly resent that they had to do that while the rich kids with money and the poor kids with need based scholorships didn't...
i guess it would never (like life) be equal...even under a system like what we are talking about, some people (ie bush's kids) would go to fiji to build beach huts (or would go for part of a year, opt out to help some politican run for office , and then come back and ask for "comp" time ) and kids with regular parents would go to the sahara or something...
maybe, but it would still not be a "fair" system unless all where involved...currently kids who can't afford college will join the military and then greatly resent that they had to do that while the rich kids with money and the poor kids with need based scholorships didn't...
i guess it would never (like life) be equal...even under a system like what we are talking about, some people (ie bush's kids) would go to fiji to build beach huts (or would go for part of a year, opt out to help some politican run for office , and then come back and ask for "comp" time ) and kids with regular parents would go to the sahara or something...
g
Life isn't fair. To make it fair you'd need a total redistribution of all wealth to equal levels and compulsory service to get ahead for everyone. However, you wouldn't be allowed to get ahead because then you'd have more opportunities than someone else so it wouldn't be fair so your extra wealth from your hard work is redistributed to the lazy ass that did nothing. Such a system doesn't work and only promotes laziness.
Read Noam Chomsky to find out about the part of US foreign policy that the foreigners affected by it are likely to hate. There's too much to enumerate here. You'll likely find some of Chomsky's essays on the Net as well as in the local bookstore.
Read Henry Hazlitt to find out how and why all this is directly backfiring on the American public, even if we look only at the economic wellbeing of Americans and nothing else. The book's name is "Economics in One Lesson".
Note also that the US works strongly against free markets while proclaiming to be their champion.
In short, the political and business leadership of the US should stop trying to change the rest of the world for the worse for personal benefit while calling it "help". The less intervention the happier the rest of us are. What needs to be done in US domestic politics to accomplish this, I have no idea.
Read Noam Chomsky to find out about the part of US foreign policy that the foreigners affected by it are likely to hate. There's too much to enumerate here. You'll likely find some of Chomsky's essays on the Net as well as in the local bookstore.
Read Henry Hazlitt to find out how and why all this is directly backfiring on the American public, even if we look only at the economic wellbeing of Americans and nothing else. The book's name is "Economics in One Lesson".
Note also that the US works strongly against free markets while proclaiming to be their champion.
In short, the political and business leadership of the US should stop trying to change the rest of the world for the worse for personal benefit while calling it "help". The less intervention the happier the rest of us are. What needs to be done in US domestic politics to accomplish this, I have no idea.
We destroy third world economies by giving aid in the form of food because it makes it impossible for local farmers who are trying to get the country's resources going to sell their goods when it is being given away for free by the good ol' US of A. We need to ditch our farming here and allow third world nations to utilize the resources they have so they can get their economies going and improve their qualities of life.
I don't have much time but I will say that your idea has good intentions
and we know what good intentions do . . .
It will create a bureacratic nightmare, an inefficient ponderous affair filled with people who care not a wit about doing anything well, right or for the 'good' of anybody.
it would be expensive and yet it would not owrk to make decent 'water, sewage etc' . . . (see above) people would simply not care . . .they would only want to 'get it over with'
besides, it is nice to be nice, but enforced nice is not nice
and besides, the peace corps may be helpfull in places but it too is a form of cultural imperialism
I think your idea might be good if it was toned down a bit as far as the compulsory nature of it, and, if the the idea of the peace corps became something about working internally, inside the USofA . . . rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure (think WPA!)
Our image can be aided by having voluntary corps that stand to gain some benefit (not compulsory) and could, perhaps, work hand in hand with national/international businesses . . . though strickly overseen so their are not grafts and loopholes etc . . .
We can also work on our image by recognizing the world community: not demanding, in order for another country to not be thought of as barbarian, that they be just like us.
The difference is you are a minor when you are being coerced to go to school. The difference is laws are (generally) there to prevent you from infringing upon the rights of others. Once you are an adult, the government should not be directing your life. It's the ultimate infringement of a person's right to choose. Don't make it compulsory. Offer the rewards but don't force people to do it and I'm right with you.
This country is founded on individual freedoms. It's bullshit to take that away.
It's also bullshit to hand out rights without asking for any responsibility.
Read the tracts of the founding fathers - they fully envisioned a give *and* take society, where freedoms came from being responsible.
We've lost sight of that. I'd like to see us regain it - but as long as there's an 'easy way out', people will take it, the lazy slack ass bastards.
It's also bullshit to hand out rights without asking for any responsibility.
Read the tracts of the founding fathers - they fully envisioned a give *and* take society, where freedoms came from being responsible.
We've lost sight of that. I'd like to see us regain it - but as long as there's an 'easy way out', people will take it, the lazy slack ass bastards.
Face it, the grand experiment has failed.
Responsibility disappeared with the institution of government handouts. When socialism started creeping into our government, that's when people stopped giving.
So if handouts taught people to slack, then how about service teaching them to give back?
The Aussies have a pretty ingrained concept in their culture of walkabout - a young bloke or blokette can (and is kind of expected to) take a few months to a year to travel before setting down any roots. I think it's a *great* concept. And it's just... there.
Imagine if, for a generation or two people have compulsory service *doing what they choose*, but they *have* to give back to society. Now, if they have a generally positive experience doing so, and can see the overall benefits, then *maybe* it'll put that sense of responsibility back into the culture.
So if handouts taught people to slack, then how about service teaching them to give back?
The Aussies have a pretty ingrained concept in their culture of walkabout - a young bloke or blokette can (and is kind of expected to) take a few months to a year to travel before setting down any roots. I think it's a *great* concept. And it's just... there.
Imagine if, for a generation or two people have compulsory service *doing what they choose*, but they *have* to give back to society. Now, if they have a generally positive experience doing so, and can see the overall benefits, then *maybe* it'll put that sense of responsibility back into the culture.
That doesn't teach responsibility. It says that you can violate intrinsic rights in order to attempt to prove a point.
So basically, it's failed if there's no way to inject it back into the culture, and, by your reasoning, there is no way to force people to work towards that, but as has amply been shown, people will *not* voluntarily work in that direction.
So basically, it's failed if there's no way to inject it back into the culture, and, by your reasoning, there is no way to force people to work towards that, but as has amply been shown, people will *not* voluntarily work in that direction.
I say we roll up the flag and go home then.
No, I say that it's going to be a long arduous journey with no quick panacea. The government handouts must dry up. People must be encouraged to pitch in, first through bribery but waning to a feeling of national pride and the good feeling one gets from helping others. The process MUST be voluntary for it to work, though. That's the point. You can't force democracy on a nation any more than you can force the desire to perform community service. Both must be achieved voluntarily.
There must be meaning and it means nothing if you don't do it yourself.
I agree with you in theory, but in practicality, I think it'll never fly.
You'll end up with a society that a) can't take care of itself (I'd argue we're already there), and b) isn't getting any artificial support from the government.
What's that quote about any government being three meals away from a revolution? Not that that's necessarily a *bad* thing with the way things are going, mind you, but I don't think it's a situation that would lead to anything but a military state.
No, in my opinion the only way to ensure a safe measure of putting a sense of responsibility into the populace is to use carrot and stick, as usual. Carrot: college $, full citizenship, voting rights, whatever. Stick: no more subsidies 'just because'. You've gotta have both until the transition is done.
I agree with you in theory, but in practicality, I think it'll never fly.
You'll end up with a society that a) can't take care of itself (I'd argue we're already there), and b) isn't getting any artificial support from the government.
What's that quote about any government being three meals away from a revolution? Not that that's necessarily a *bad* thing with the way things are going, mind you, but I don't think it's a situation that would lead to anything but a military state.
No, in my opinion the only way to ensure a safe measure of putting a sense of responsibility into the populace is to use carrot and stick, as usual. Carrot: college $, full citizenship, voting rights, whatever. Stick: no more subsidies 'just because'. You've gotta have both until the transition is done.
I don't believe citizenship should be granted at birth. I believe that is something that should be earned. I don't mind if it is earned through some community service and taking the same test as any immigrant does.
We destroy third world economies by giving aid in the form of food because it makes it impossible for local farmers who are trying to get the country's resources going to sell their goods when it is being given away for free by the good ol' US of A. We need to ditch our farming here and allow third world nations to utilize the resources they have so they can get their economies going and improve their qualities of life.
This is bullshit. Because we have helped in the past by providing drugs, food, technology, materials these nation's populations have boomed and we hold the responsibility to provide at least as much resources such that they can maintain their population because what would otherwise occur is unthinkable. Most of these country's natural resources and farmland could not support their current populations so either we provide food which is easy or technology and training which is hard so that the populations can be maintained. Quantity and quality of life are not the same, however, they are not entirely independent, in a famine quality of life falls with as the number of dead increases necessarily; there is no way around it so unless you are willing to go the extra mile to ween these country's from our teet rather than cutting off the breast they suckle we will still need to provide them with food. There are so many other industries that these nations can build an economy upon.
No, I say that it's going to be a long arduous journey with no quick panacea. The government handouts must dry up. People must be encouraged to pitch in, first through bribery but waning to a feeling of national pride and the good feeling one gets from helping others. The process MUST be voluntary for it to work, though. That's the point. You can't force democracy on a nation any more than you can force the desire to perform community service. Both must be achieved voluntarily.
There must be meaning and it means nothing if you don't do it yourself.
Do you consider yourself a "Market Fundamentalist?" I think I might post a thread on that topic soon. ...Because it seems like you have some of the most extreme pro-business opinions possible, and I obviously think that approach is problematic. Why? I'm not entirely certain. I think it just doesn't seem *fair* to establish such a ruthless system that seemingly depends entirely on charity. I mean, what if the markets are down and no one wants to give? There's just no security.
Comments
Originally posted by thegelding
ok, BR, good reply...so what do we offer as rewards??
in "starship troopers" it was the right to vote
here i am offering college money...
perhaps something else?
could we actually limit the right to vote only to people that serve either militarily or social servicely (a word?)? would college money alone be enough?? would all it takes is pride and working it into the middle school and high school curriculum??
thanks
g
No we can't make it the right to vote because that is a fundamental inalienable right. Definitely give college money. Give discounted rates on home loans. Be creative.
Originally posted by thegelding
plus i don't see it as so horrible that our country would ask, "i need you to help, each and every one of you in one way or another"...oh well
It's OK to ask. It's not OK to tell.
Originally posted by BR
No we can't make it the right to vote because that is a fundamental inalienable right. Definitely give college money. Give discounted rates on home loans. Be creative.
maybe, but it would still not be a "fair" system unless all where involved...currently kids who can't afford college will join the military and then greatly resent that they had to do that while the rich kids with money and the poor kids with need based scholorships didn't...
i guess it would never (like life) be equal...even under a system like what we are talking about, some people (ie bush's kids) would go to fiji to build beach huts (or would go for part of a year, opt out to help some politican run for office , and then come back and ask for "comp" time
g
Originally posted by thegelding
maybe, but it would still not be a "fair" system unless all where involved...currently kids who can't afford college will join the military and then greatly resent that they had to do that while the rich kids with money and the poor kids with need based scholorships didn't...
i guess it would never (like life) be equal...even under a system like what we are talking about, some people (ie bush's kids) would go to fiji to build beach huts (or would go for part of a year, opt out to help some politican run for office , and then come back and ask for "comp" time
g
Life isn't fair. To make it fair you'd need a total redistribution of all wealth to equal levels and compulsory service to get ahead for everyone. However, you wouldn't be allowed to get ahead because then you'd have more opportunities than someone else so it wouldn't be fair so your extra wealth from your hard work is redistributed to the lazy ass that did nothing. Such a system doesn't work and only promotes laziness.
Read Henry Hazlitt to find out how and why all this is directly backfiring on the American public, even if we look only at the economic wellbeing of Americans and nothing else. The book's name is "Economics in One Lesson".
Note also that the US works strongly against free markets while proclaiming to be their champion.
In short, the political and business leadership of the US should stop trying to change the rest of the world for the worse for personal benefit while calling it "help". The less intervention the happier the rest of us are. What needs to be done in US domestic politics to accomplish this, I have no idea.
Originally posted by Gon
Read Noam Chomsky to find out about the part of US foreign policy that the foreigners affected by it are likely to hate. There's too much to enumerate here. You'll likely find some of Chomsky's essays on the Net as well as in the local bookstore.
Read Henry Hazlitt to find out how and why all this is directly backfiring on the American public, even if we look only at the economic wellbeing of Americans and nothing else. The book's name is "Economics in One Lesson".
Note also that the US works strongly against free markets while proclaiming to be their champion.
In short, the political and business leadership of the US should stop trying to change the rest of the world for the worse for personal benefit while calling it "help". The less intervention the happier the rest of us are. What needs to be done in US domestic politics to accomplish this, I have no idea.
We destroy third world economies by giving aid in the form of food because it makes it impossible for local farmers who are trying to get the country's resources going to sell their goods when it is being given away for free by the good ol' US of A. We need to ditch our farming here and allow third world nations to utilize the resources they have so they can get their economies going and improve their qualities of life.
I don't have much time but I will say that your idea has good intentions
and we know what good intentions do . . .
It will create a bureacratic nightmare, an inefficient ponderous affair filled with people who care not a wit about doing anything well, right or for the 'good' of anybody.
it would be expensive and yet it would not owrk to make decent 'water, sewage etc' . . . (see above) people would simply not care . . .they would only want to 'get it over with'
besides, it is nice to be nice, but enforced nice is not nice
and besides, the peace corps may be helpfull in places but it too is a form of cultural imperialism
I think your idea might be good if it was toned down a bit as far as the compulsory nature of it, and, if the the idea of the peace corps became something about working internally, inside the USofA . . . rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure (think WPA!)
Our image can be aided by having voluntary corps that stand to gain some benefit (not compulsory) and could, perhaps, work hand in hand with national/international businesses . . . though strickly overseen so their are not grafts and loopholes etc . . .
We can also work on our image by recognizing the world community: not demanding, in order for another country to not be thought of as barbarian, that they be just like us.
Originally posted by BR
The difference is you are a minor when you are being coerced to go to school. The difference is laws are (generally) there to prevent you from infringing upon the rights of others. Once you are an adult, the government should not be directing your life. It's the ultimate infringement of a person's right to choose. Don't make it compulsory. Offer the rewards but don't force people to do it and I'm right with you.
This country is founded on individual freedoms. It's bullshit to take that away.
It's also bullshit to hand out rights without asking for any responsibility.
Read the tracts of the founding fathers - they fully envisioned a give *and* take society, where freedoms came from being responsible.
We've lost sight of that. I'd like to see us regain it - but as long as there's an 'easy way out', people will take it, the lazy slack ass bastards.
Face it, the grand experiment has failed.
Originally posted by Kickaha
It's also bullshit to hand out rights without asking for any responsibility.
Read the tracts of the founding fathers - they fully envisioned a give *and* take society, where freedoms came from being responsible.
We've lost sight of that. I'd like to see us regain it - but as long as there's an 'easy way out', people will take it, the lazy slack ass bastards.
Face it, the grand experiment has failed.
Responsibility disappeared with the institution of government handouts. When socialism started creeping into our government, that's when people stopped giving.
So if handouts taught people to slack, then how about service teaching them to give back?
The Aussies have a pretty ingrained concept in their culture of walkabout - a young bloke or blokette can (and is kind of expected to) take a few months to a year to travel before setting down any roots. I think it's a *great* concept. And it's just... there.
Imagine if, for a generation or two people have compulsory service *doing what they choose*, but they *have* to give back to society. Now, if they have a generally positive experience doing so, and can see the overall benefits, then *maybe* it'll put that sense of responsibility back into the culture.
Originally posted by Kickaha
BINGO.
So if handouts taught people to slack, then how about service teaching them to give back?
The Aussies have a pretty ingrained concept in their culture of walkabout - a young bloke or blokette can (and is kind of expected to) take a few months to a year to travel before setting down any roots. I think it's a *great* concept. And it's just... there.
Imagine if, for a generation or two people have compulsory service *doing what they choose*, but they *have* to give back to society. Now, if they have a generally positive experience doing so, and can see the overall benefits, then *maybe* it'll put that sense of responsibility back into the culture.
That doesn't teach responsibility. It says that you can violate intrinsic rights in order to attempt to prove a point.
I say we roll up the flag and go home then.
Originally posted by Kickaha
So basically, it's failed if there's no way to inject it back into the culture, and, by your reasoning, there is no way to force people to work towards that, but as has amply been shown, people will *not* voluntarily work in that direction.
I say we roll up the flag and go home then.
No, I say that it's going to be a long arduous journey with no quick panacea. The government handouts must dry up. People must be encouraged to pitch in, first through bribery but waning to a feeling of national pride and the good feeling one gets from helping others. The process MUST be voluntary for it to work, though. That's the point. You can't force democracy on a nation any more than you can force the desire to perform community service. Both must be achieved voluntarily.
There must be meaning and it means nothing if you don't do it yourself.
You'll end up with a society that a) can't take care of itself (I'd argue we're already there), and b) isn't getting any artificial support from the government.
What's that quote about any government being three meals away from a revolution? Not that that's necessarily a *bad* thing with the way things are going, mind you, but I don't think it's a situation that would lead to anything but a military state.
No, in my opinion the only way to ensure a safe measure of putting a sense of responsibility into the populace is to use carrot and stick, as usual. Carrot: college $, full citizenship, voting rights, whatever. Stick: no more subsidies 'just because'. You've gotta have both until the transition is done.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I agree with you in theory, but in practicality, I think it'll never fly.
You'll end up with a society that a) can't take care of itself (I'd argue we're already there), and b) isn't getting any artificial support from the government.
What's that quote about any government being three meals away from a revolution? Not that that's necessarily a *bad* thing with the way things are going, mind you, but I don't think it's a situation that would lead to anything but a military state.
No, in my opinion the only way to ensure a safe measure of putting a sense of responsibility into the populace is to use carrot and stick, as usual. Carrot: college $, full citizenship, voting rights, whatever. Stick: no more subsidies 'just because'. You've gotta have both until the transition is done.
I don't believe citizenship should be granted at birth. I believe that is something that should be earned. I don't mind if it is earned through some community service and taking the same test as any immigrant does.
Originally posted by BR
We destroy third world economies by giving aid in the form of food because it makes it impossible for local farmers who are trying to get the country's resources going to sell their goods when it is being given away for free by the good ol' US of A. We need to ditch our farming here and allow third world nations to utilize the resources they have so they can get their economies going and improve their qualities of life.
This is bullshit. Because we have helped in the past by providing drugs, food, technology, materials these nation's populations have boomed and we hold the responsibility to provide at least as much resources such that they can maintain their population because what would otherwise occur is unthinkable. Most of these country's natural resources and farmland could not support their current populations so either we provide food which is easy or technology and training which is hard so that the populations can be maintained. Quantity and quality of life are not the same, however, they are not entirely independent, in a famine quality of life falls with as the number of dead increases necessarily; there is no way around it so unless you are willing to go the extra mile to ween these country's from our teet rather than cutting off the breast they suckle we will still need to provide them with food. There are so many other industries that these nations can build an economy upon.
Originally posted by BR
No, I say that it's going to be a long arduous journey with no quick panacea. The government handouts must dry up. People must be encouraged to pitch in, first through bribery but waning to a feeling of national pride and the good feeling one gets from helping others. The process MUST be voluntary for it to work, though. That's the point. You can't force democracy on a nation any more than you can force the desire to perform community service. Both must be achieved voluntarily.
There must be meaning and it means nothing if you don't do it yourself.
Do you consider yourself a "Market Fundamentalist?" I think I might post a thread on that topic soon. ...Because it seems like you have some of the most extreme pro-business opinions possible, and I obviously think that approach is problematic. Why? I'm not entirely certain. I think it just doesn't seem *fair* to establish such a ruthless system that seemingly depends entirely on charity. I mean, what if the markets are down and no one wants to give? There's just no security.