Patriotism = Imperialism

Post Reply New Topic

I realize you're the moderator of this thread-but I dont think you can see the forest for the trees.lol Youve made you're position quite clear numerous times on Bush/his policies/and americas role on the world stage. Many of your post have been very condescending and border on personal by your very backing,approval and obliviousness of how far some have gone on these post. By your own standards I was merely pointing out/agreeing with and singing his praises if you will? No different than you-I just used alittle more symbolism. Sometimes it seems having you moderate this thread specifically when it comes to politics is akin to having an alcoholic tend to the liquor store. You seem to have tunnel vision and focus on the minute and overlook the blatant.

Perhaps if I make this quote my signature it will be less personal and more general and meet your approval?

The point I was making is that if everyone has exactly the same things, and exactly the same opportunities, then how will society grow through technology, invention, etc?

for example, in this "utopia" RobertN has in mind, lets just suggest that the only way to access the internet is dial up. If everyone is happy with the access they have to the web, then no one bothers to try to make it better. But if one person sees that its not good enough, he/she may strive create a more effecient way to do the same thing. Thus you have competition, the new verses the old. Its not a great example, but I think it makes my point.
competition encourages making things better, faster, stronger, etc.
Ok heres another example, and please bearwith me here:
Again we visit "RobertN-Utopia".... Lets just assume that because there is no compeititon and everyone has the same everything (kinda like the "giver") that everyone drives the same type of car. Again we are going to assume that all cars run off of "X" fuel. Now "X" fuel runs as clean as the technology of that time allows, and everyone is happy as they can be with it. So no changes are made. But what if it could be more efficent? What if it could run cleaner? What if "Y" fuel would revolutionize the way these utopian cars run? What insentive is there to create and test and produce the "Y" fuel cars if competition is eleminated? If everyone is happy with "X" why would you even bother to concieve "Y"? Would you go to all that trouble for the "collective good"? Maybe. but more than likely, as human nature proves over and over again, you'd say "why bother, what shall I get from it" and dismiss the idea.

A communist utopian society goes against the competitive nature of human beings. There are varying degrees of competition. Some people could care less, others like a little challange. And still others thrive on the thought of making something, even if its themselves, better. look at the tribal peoples that once populated our lands. They compeated over lands, for food, resources, etc. The social darwin theroy has been in play since man began to form tribes. Its human nature. To rise above that would be nice, but as a collective whole I do not think its possible, much less plasuable.

An awful lot of progress has been made through cooperation, too.

The main difference with a country is that its a lump of dirt, not a person...

I just felt the need to give voice to sumat id been thinkin about.

Hmmm i gess it depends on your definition of patriotism, but under the definition leaders like bush use to keep the peeple in line...

Lemme adapt that a bit...

life... AND FREEDOM are more important than money and material gains.

If anything, Id put freedom above life.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but sean might as well have...

Some points:

1) First of all, if people are happy with their world and their technology, I don't see the point of changing it just for the sake of change. May the Utopia be never-ending and constant.

2) Next off, if someone (or lots of people) thought the utopia was boring, they would change it, wouldn't they. They could collectively change it, and agree on proposed changes.

3) I am not against competition between non-sentient products like cars and electric drills. If people in the utopia thought car A was better than car B, then I don't have a problem with them all having car A models.

4) Looking to the past behaviours of ancient tribes is not a very good model for basing future behaviour on. It is a sign that you do not have the imagination to think up new ideas - so you look to the past for ideas instead. I find it disturbing that you support Social Darwinism. Someone who supports Social Darwinism could probably be put in the bottom 20% of people for moral behaviour. Only the basest 20% of people openly support Social Darwinism these days, although many more may practice it without being aware.

5) The fact that I am looking forward for new ideas (Socialism is a relatively new idea!!) rather than looking to the past means that I do have a more open mind - a more progressive mind.

6) Progress in society isn't just about technology. It is more about how the society functions and how the members of that society treat each other. In the past, society did function on competition. However, things are more advanced now, and that is beginning to change...for the better.

Last edited by RobertN on 08 Dec 2005, 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I woodnt go that far... She raises some decent points, and i have a few good frends who are american. Granted, "a few"...

Nothing is neverending, and there's no such thing as a utopia. Regardless of what system of government you propose, a significant number of people are going to be unhappy about it.



Radical socialism of the variety you propose is definitely not a new idea. It's essentially old-school feudalism with the nobility replaced by bureaucracy.

Jeremy

Perhaps I went a bit too far with that last night. I was angry. Maybe there are a few good Americans, like Michael Moore, Noami Klein, and Ralph Nader. But these are a few good apples in a rotten basket!! !

Progressive Socialism is a system that uses democratic means by which the populus can control their own public (state-owned) services. There need not be any dictator or excessive beauocracy. I for one hate beaucracy. The People will be in control.

N.B. I am not proposing a Stalinist Regime, which was a highly destructive, immoral way of controlling a population, similar to a right-wing facist dictatorship.

Its good to see you're back to your normal cheery self.

The problem is that socialism is about restricting freedom. It abridges the right to free association, the right to privacy, and the right to self-determination, to varying degrees.

Now, you could make a case that all of those need to be abridged to a certain extent in order to ensure that society remains stable. But saying that socialism is about preserving freedom is like saying that low-fat cookies are health food.

Also, don't underestimate the importance of money. You need money to eat. Money can save lives. Socialism may appear to be an ideal solution -- everybody has their needs taken care of for free! Yay! -- but it ret*ds economic growth. Over time, it makes everybody poorer than they would've been otherwise. We're seeing this in France, Germany, and across Europe right now.

Jeremy

It certenly wasnt deserved, but you can see there reesoning...