No need to apologize then, I have a hard time discerning intended tone with text exchanges. I interpreted that incorrectly then, sorry for my hasty conclusion.
I will gladly go into more depth in another post then, been a bit busy this weekend.
1 Like
Do you formulate a political philosophy and dogma first then apply to, despite external forces, or do you just find ways to solve problems?
There are social problems a monarchy cannot solve. There are problems a dictatorship can not solve. There are problems communism can not solve. So what leads one to believe that a free market (or any political dogma) can solve all of the problems?
Based on the fact that Reagan’s philosophy of a free market has been in place for over 34 years, can we now understand that it does not solve all of the problems?
1 Like
Yes, in fact it has created far more problems than what it has solved.
Edited
I used to be a smoker, I quit almost 15 years ago. While I was a smoker I was one that said screw you I’ll do what I want, don’t try to regulate what I do. Now I believe that it really should be banned, except maybe in very few cases, everywhere. Nicotine is a really addictive drug and is extremely difficult for most people to quit.
Alcohol is more difficult to discuss. If used sparingly and in small amounts, then it’s not a serious problem. The problem with that is most people end up drinking more than they should. It also can be extremely addictive. It also can seriously change who a person is, people who are perfectly nice while sober can become quite nasty when drunk.
2 Likes
Sorry for the delayed response,
Starting with the founding fathers, personally I’m done with putting dead people on ridiculously lofty pedestals and acting as if they were and always will be the pinnacle of wisdom and thought. We have spent how much time rehashing and arguing over the wording of the original 10 amendments of the constitution. I like to imagine the founding fathers expected us to rewrite and alter the constitution A LOT more than what we have and are doing. They made it dynamic and moldable, and yet we doing near nothing with it and just stare back at it in a near trance like state! So excuse my frustration, but I feel they were just a bit over optimistic on how they thought we would use amendments.
You might not like my assessment of their intellect as compared to today, fine. As it is though, our understanding of most everything has far exceeded anything they could have thought conceivable. Exactly as you said though, they were privileged and knew that. They setup a system based on slavery, and Washington even wrote about how he didn’t agree with slavery in earnest, but being he had a great many slaves, and his constituents also did. They used their positions for their gain, let’s stop painting them as altruistic and fighting for everyone, they were not!
So as I said before we need to stop spending so much time hung up on 200 years ago stroking our egos about how great everything use to be. Let’s be honest it wasn’t that great anyways, I’m tired of this ultra patriot nonsense brimming in our country. As if we are incapable of reasoning on their level. Tell me you don’t think people make the founding fathers out to be almost god like? I think we need to look at them and their words with a little more context, not the stripped down history we want to cherry-pick.
As for states rights, I should say I have more issue with how states have become a mess of gerrymandering. Breaking states down and combing states would force a change in positions of power. Political mapping is a noxious form of suppression that can’t be rooted out easily. Laws don’t seem to help, our crippled two party system allows total exploitation of mapping data. Obviously I look at this as combined with getting more than two parties in our system.
I also don’t see the feasibility in managing such a large and diverse region with a singularly monopolized central government. Population wise as well. In my opinion I don’t see how we can have quality representation for this many people and demographics. Now before you ask what that should look like, I don’t pretend to know. I favor the idea of regional unionization, and more direct self governance. Possibly making a level of more courts also to alleviate our impossibly buried court system.
The last one, can obviously be solved by term limits on all seats. I will go as far to say as that any and all appointments should be done by bipartisan committees split evenly. Force compromise. Hell I would be willing to consider try bipartisan committee decisions on voting maps. Also getting more than TWO parties in this forsaken system!
Also 1000% agree on getting money out, as I think this would hinder business from interfering with politics, but not eliminate the issue. Very much agree with you on punishment and follow through on political and corporate crime. Our justice system is stymied by political interference.
So there are my crazy tangential thoughts.
3 Likes
Not so crazy me thinks. I pretty much agree with your take on these things.
Lionizing the founders is inappropriate aggrandizement. However, they were still more broadly aware than my average fellow citizens. Aware of enough to expect us to be able to modify or alter the constitution, etc., as needed. Yes, perhaps a bit overly optimistic they may have been to assume we would take their starting point and improve upon it as needed. From Jefferson: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…”
I agree than many do look at the founders as “godlike”. I do not share their view. I do acknowledge that given their time and place in history, their privileged positions provided the necessary wherewithal to attempt this experiment in government. The ultra-patriot nonsense you cite is, ironically, coming largely from people who cannot spell constitution. This is another example of the “toxic nostalgia” so prevalent today. The “cherry picking” makes me sick. Jefferson himself encouraged indebtedness by Native Americans to facilitate the possession of their lands, owned slaves, etc.
Context is everything here and recognizing the good and the bad is the only honest approach worthy of recognition.
The “faux patriotism” has become a cover for those who care far more for their own personal advancement than that of their “beloved country”, especially the flag-waving politicians.
I am quite ready for multiple political parties with proportional representation, term limits, harsher punishments for corruption in government, citizen review boards for evaluating our politicians’ performance, and other less obvious measures. And of course, the MONEY in politics.
The question of how to govern over such a large constituency is an old one. Many people are unaware of the struggle the Romans had with this issue, in spite of their obvious successes. Perhaps it is baked in to “Empire”.
It seems to me that the average educational/ awareness level of the citizenry is an apparent requirement for advancement. The huge gap between academic scientific knowledge and the average citizen is a glaring example which has contributed to a pandemic of anti-intellectualism. No solution will be forthcoming unless/until this is addressed or corrected, in my opinion.
I do not pretend to be an authority or to have all of the answers ( I am after all just a bird) but that is no reason for me to shy away from these discussions, as I am attempting to broaden my perspective. To wit:
I appreciate these exchanges. Thanks Satan.
3 Likes
And I the same, this is certainly not a conversation I could have with my daily constituents. I couldn’t get about ten words into a discussion before I’m called a communist for trying to have a realistic view of history and politics.
4 Likes