April 9, 2009
The problem with socialists is that they do not appreciate creativity. They see all creativity as “working for the man”. Especially at the level of federal government, they seem only concerned with trying to stop people from creating anything. That’s why they want to tax every activity to the point that people never leave their house. The federal government has spent its efforts in the last few decades on things that are non-productive or negative. The government’s involvement in the green movement is more about conservation than it is about anything else. All of this has decreased the wealth of the nation and, well, you see the results. No matter what you do the gov wants to stop you or tax you into giving up.
And those who run the corporations, and the idle rich, care only about increasing their possessions. They do not measure themselves or others by their creativity. There are exceptions but they usually come in the form of self-glorification through charity, be it perceived or real. They say, “Look at me. See how much I give to charity? See how I coerce my employees to give to charity?”, but they only care about how it benefits their public image, how much fame it gives them. Charity requires very little effort compared to creativity. Creativity is hard. It requires taking risks, and that is exactly where the conflict with government comes in. Socialists hate risk takers.
One of the biggest reasons why people choose possessions over creativity is because they are made to struggle, their entire life, just to pay the bills. People do not see any potential benefit from their creativity so they don’t even try. Its easier to get quick gratification by buying a BMW or a big screen TV or 50 pairs of shoes. Add to that the government letting big corporations ignore the copyright laws while also allowing them to attack individuals with the same hammer. Big government supports big business and vice versa, all to subjugate the individual. Both consider the individual their enemy. You cannot oppress a civilization into success.
Aquatank, you have identified that modern civilization wastes a lot. That may be true but it is caused by circumstances of economy; people are allowed to buy what they want and the only way they can afford to do so is if the products are cheap enough. The unfortunate downside is that cheap products don’t last very long, and therefore it creates a lot of garbage. Thinking that ancient societies had higher quality stuff, Egypt had lots of stuff made of gold, and that made them prosperous is incorrect. Their civ collapsed anyway. Creating or not creating a lot of garbage does not determine the success or failure of a civilization. Having or not having the brains to solve the economic dilemmas does.
April 9, 2009
April 9, 2009
Actually very few if any ancient civilizations such as Egypt fit outside of what I refer to as Todays Economy. I'm fonder of groups such as the Bambuti and the !kung.
I'm a little surprised you think Socialists lack creativity ( since true socialism has never been tried I'll use the totalitarian Stalinist state of the CCCP I'm sure your talking about.)
Your "lack" can be explained quite simply as a meeting standards set by the state or union, in the case of the CCCP it can be exemplified as 'if doesn't uphold our national values, its decadent trash' which wasn't much different from the McArthur era attack on communists such as comicbooks, novels, and rock and roll: 'If its too liberal its communist trash.' or the later moves by Tipper Gore & the PMRC or the anti-NEA backlash following the Maythorpe photos. The similarity is government involvement in the arts. However there are many artists that meet or exceed standards so in a way this is a form of political Darwinism, the best artists prosper with the help of the state, the rest don't get it.
April 9, 2009
That's the problem with words that have been politicized. Their definition depends on who you are talking to and their interpretation. I do not directly equate Socialism with Communism or Totalitarianism, but historically one has led to the other. Yes, people who don't like change tend to take the most despised concept at that time and use it to label the change they don't like, and "communist" has been improperly applied at times.
So lets explain our use of socialism as it applies to BO. BO has abused his power to target and coerce, or force, private entities (businesses) to accept ever more gov regulation. BO has demonstrated numerous times that he supports "leveling the playing field" which is code phrase for taking from one group to give to another, all based on trumped up charges of unfairness.
Somebody being asked to sit in the back of the bus isn't exactly a devastating injustice but releasing the bottom 1/3 - 1/2 of the population from the tax burden and raising taxes on everyone else to pay for it is a serious injustice. Spending trillions of dollars on pork barrel projects and campaign payoffs thereby enslaving generations to come is devastating injustice. And gov takeovers of one industry after another is absolutely socialist.
I disagree that socialism hasn't been tried. It certainly has. No system has outright declared itself to be socialism but most aspects of it have been tried all over the world including the US. And with devastating results.
I love it when people think that just because someone works for the government, and not a private enterprise, that they are not greedy. The most greedy people on earth work in government. BO and the DEM held congress have access to trillions and they have spent multiple trillions on crap that has done little to stabilize or grow the economy.
BO fat-fingered the economy using his Blackberry but he missed the M, skipped right past the B and hit the T.
April 9, 2009
You keep forgetting Obama acts more like Bush and the rightwing and consistently gets in bed with the same CORPORATE interests. He's the worst waffler I've seen in a long time, just look how he can't even stay firm on the IWC against whaling, everytime I look around I see the same dumb rightwing moves out of him. For every left wing step he's taken he's probably conceded to the right four or five times.