August 10, 2007
Change: Accept It, Manage It.
Monumental changes are occurring in the span of a single lifetime. Climate, science, demography, environment and human knowledge are all undergoing enormous rapid changes, and no one on earth can escape them. The only way to begin to manage change is to accept that it is here. To deny it, reject it, or refuse it, is to succumb to it, without ever having a say as to what shape or direction it took.
Satellite imagery shows rectilinear development grids erasing wild and natural habitats. The world has doubled its human population in just 50 years according to the U.S. Census bureau. Life spans are increasing for those with medical resources available at a dramatic rate, increasing by as much as 15% in the last 40 years. Science has developed more data, information, and understanding of our world and universe in the last 60 years than in the previous 3000 years of human history.
The first part of the 20th and the 19th century were built on just over 20 elements of the periodic chart. Today, modern societies are mining and implementing use of every item on the periodic chart of atomic elements. In 1 hundred years human civilization went from predominantly agricultural and authoritarian nations and cultures to predominantly democratic and industrial and technological service societies. And the economies of all major nations have become mixed economies where socialized policies to meet large demographic needs are supported by the redistribution of wealth of increasingly regulated but, still largely free, enterprise and market activities.
Modern human civilizations are acquiring information in excess of their capacity to digest, understand, and make use of it. The pace of change has begun to take on a life of its own as information for specific and narrowly defined purposes is bought and paid for and implemented almost immediately, leaving the broader and more comprehensive meaning and consequences of implementing such information for others to discover later, in some cases generations later.
Such enormous change, such fundamental and pervasive change has been heralded at every turn by those promoting it as doors to a better future. And at every turn, there have been those vocal groups and sometimes lone voices screaming that we are creating a Frankenstein of our future. But, the reality lies in between. The change mankind is experiencing today is an inevitable byproduct of the human mind, social education and history, and the species' remarkable capacity to manipulate and alter the natural world around us.
It is clear a great deal of this change is beneficial (medical science). It is just as clear a great deal of this change is harmful (fossil fuel dependence). But, equally important, a great deal of this change is occurring without management, direction, or consideration of the long term consequences to the species (rising population and decreasing arable land for food production). And in the end, the question of the management of change or its absence, is a political question.
In the U.S., European, S.E. and Eastern nations of this world, the future of humanity is being shaped and altered. But, is it being managed well? Polls in the U.S. are showing an interesting phenomenon. When asked if individuals are doing well compared to their grandparent's generation, there is a resounding yes in reply. When asked if their children will fare as well over their lifetimes, despite the history of progress of the last century, a majority are saying either no, or they are not confident that will be the case. While I am unable to find any studies to support this, it appears to me the collective consciousness of Americans is becoming aware that change is not being managed well and this threatens the future of their children's lives.
This phenomenon in the polls of cynicism toward the managers of change in industry and government at the same time that citizens are demanding radically better management of the future, is itself portending a fundamental change occurring in American politics. And indeed, as America has led the world in so many other changes over the last century, America may be the cutting edge of a political change over the next couple of decades that will spread around the world. Or, not. But, political change is already underway.
While those who discuss American politics still talk in terms of a democratic republic, rule of law, and constitutional government, the reality is America is morphing into a form of democratic anarchy. This democratic anarchy is very well evidenced. For example, the enormous and growing illegal and underground economy now estimated at $1 Trillion dollars per year. Everyone knows it exists, and indeed, many benefit from it without being actual participants in the direct illegal activity. Thus, it is an economy that is democratically assented to, despite its being illegal, a serious contributor to government revenue shortfalls, and deficits, and a growing threat to the future.
Another blatant example nearly every person of 12 years and older witnesses on our streets, where speed limits are posted and more than 50% of drivers at any given time exceed them without consequence. A further example is the intractable problem of illegal drug usage, both of prescription and recreational non-prescription usage. Prisons and jails are overcrowded and all notions of a speedy trial having fallen by the wayside. Non-selling users of illegal drugs have little to fear from the consumption even if they are caught. The society turns a blind eye and rationalizes users are not near the threat that pushers are, and pushers aren't near the threat as producers are. It is democratic anarchy in action whereby a consensus of tolerance for defiance of the law, is tolerated and in many social circles, even encouraged (the world of teens and socialites for example).
It is a very democratic form of anarchy, in that a broad consensus of assent to such lawbreaking is of sufficient low priority as to not warrant enforcement, is tacitly arrived at. And it is very much a form of anarchy in which citizens reject the laws made for others, exempting themselves from obedience to them. This is everywhere evident in our society from our current President down to the female high school teachers taking students for lovers. And it is pervasive. What American citizen can honestly say they have not broken a law deliberately in the last 6 months? Very few to be sure, if one compares citizen behavior from jaywalking to littering to failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign as just the beginning of a list of socially tolerated law breaking.
Therefore, as the public's awareness and consciousness of this fundamental reality of democratic anarchy is focused, and as frustration with poor or absent management of change for our children's futures by society's leaders grows, a new political dynamic is being forged with the rapid growth of Independent voters, searching for a different kind of politician, a different kind of political party, a different kind of philosophy for government that rejects black and white notions of legal and illegal, right and wrong, good and bad, and equality and discrimination. This new philosophy of government they seek is one which will radically change current priorities and make some priorities the business of government for which politicians must answer to the people, and leave vast numbers of other priorities for individuals or communities to determine for themselves, legal or not.
It is growingly clear to Independent voters that our current priority management is failing. When the media and politicians focus intently on weekly additions to the count of U.S. soldier deaths in Iraq totaling less than 4000, as 12 billion dollars a month are poured into Iraq to minimize that count, while 80,000 Americans die from medical malpractice each year in our medical facilities, or 40,000 die each year from auto accidents, and a piddling few million are spent on averting these deaths, our leader's priorities are clearly out of whack. When the real wages of American workers are barely staying ahead of inflation while management and investors consume close to half of employee's waking lives to profit themselves in millions, in some cases 100's of millions of dollars per year for managing the enterprise, clearly some priorities are grossly misaligned.
When our own educational system is so inadequate as to cause our government and industry to import both students and educated workers from foreign nations, even as our population swells, priorities are clearly in need of rearrangement. When our political system requires ever larger sums of money to elect ever poorer results of elections and government management, clearly a new political paradigm must be created.
Whether our current democratic anarchy system devolves into wholesale anarchy and revolution, or morphs into a new and yet unseen political paradigm and system, is not clear. But, one thing is inescapably clear. Our political system is about to join the global system of change which is everywhere evident in our lives, our futures, and our daily frustrations. And like the other changes beset us, we have the choice to deny or fight that change and be changed by it, or, accept that political change is inevitable and consciously decide on what form and direction that change will take. The political system and government designed by our forefathers in many ways only bares a faint resemblance to what now exists today.
Turning back the pages of history is not an option. Changing toward a new political system is. Failure to, will achieve the same results of all past cultures which failed to adapt to or, manage the future of change. In the latter half of this century, Americans may ponder how it happened that China became the most productive, economically powerful, and most influential nation on earth. And they may find the unheeded answer in the archives of WatchBlog's Third Party/independent column.
Posted by David R. Remer at August 10, 2007 09:25 AMDavid
Our “current democratic anarchy system” will devolve further into the anarchy you speak of which will lead to revolution.
A very large portion of Americans still believe in the Constitution and they will not tolerate this change from a once great Contitutional Republic to just another average democracy very much longer. Especially when liberals control all three branches in 09 and start pushing them again.
I’m not saying a revolution will occurr then, but it will be another hard twist of the rubber band that is eventually going to break.
“The political system and government designed by our forefathers in many ways only bares a faint resemblance to what now exists today.”
VERY much so. We the People no longer control the govt, the govt now controls its people.
“In the latter half of this century, Americans may ponder how it happened that China became the most productive, economically powerful, and most influential nation on earth”
The answer to that is simple: They will have had that form of govt for a longer time. They already have a govt controlled democracy, we are not far behind, but we are still working towards that. The effects of our revolution will also slow us down some.
We have not always been the most productive, economically powerful or influential nation on earth, but we have been the most free and that used to be all that mattered.
We used to be about the freedom to live as we choose, but now we are only about wanting that govt check and living as others choose for us.
Our laziness will only lead to a larger govt and that will eventually lead to the bloody demise of our once great “free” country.
“Turning back the pages of history is not an option. Changing toward a new political system is”
You can embrace this change all you want. I am prepared to die in the fight against it.
Posted by: kctim at August 10, 2007 11:05 AMkctim, you can fight change, but, the change in our political system has been underway too long to turn the clock back. Like Iraq, America must alter the course this change in our political system is taking. Altering the direction and shape of change is not a futile exercise, fighting it is.
Perception, values, understanding, media, and values are no longer what they were in the 18th century. Despite all efforts to the contrary, our political system and governance are no longer what was created by our founding fathers. And far more powerful persons than you or I gave their all to prevent those changes from taking place. To no avail.
The future of change is coming at us at a faster pace than at any other time in our history. Change cannot be stopped or reversed. But, it can be intelligently and deliberately shaped and directed. 200 year life spans are possible in my daughter’s life time. A planet population of 9 trillion is in my daughter’s future. Massive global population relocations are likely in the next 75 years. A 10 trillion dollar national debt is only 5 or less years away, and 9 trillion will be reached in less than 12 months.
And one thing will not change in the future: intolerance and indifference toward a billion or more of humans in desperate conditions and need. Unbridled free enterprise and markets are incapable of addressing populations without the purchase price of salvation in their pockets.
We can NOW anticipate and dedicate our resources to preventing and altering that future of a billion or more in desperate need and suffering, or, we can let it occur and permit natural human empathy (Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments) to mandate ever greater bankrupting socialized policies to address the calamities after the fact.
It may be the case that an ounce of socialized policy today, can prevent the need for 100 pounds of socialized policy later. It may be the case, that accepting the existence and losses resulting from a growingly massive underground economy and reversing its growth, can free up the resources necessary to afford the costs of managing and shaping some change to our advantage.
It may be the case that working toward and fostering stable regimes in the world of whatever kind will be less war some, less costly to maintain, and more capable of addressing change cooperatively, than trying to impose American democratic anarchy and limited freedoms in every other nation on earth.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2007 11:34 AMDavid
“Altering the direction and shape of change is not a futile exercise, fighting it is”
Futile or not, our nation was not founded on these principles and I will fight against this new direction until the day I die. And, judging by how easy it is for the sheep to give up their rights and freedoms today, my efforts will probably be for nothing.
I know this and I expect this, I just refuse to bow down and accept it.
kctim, I am unclear about your perception of how our country was founded. Our country was founded on the freedom and liberty ONLY for white male landowners. Women were not free and had few rights apart from those their fathers and husbands allowed. Africans were imported into this country as slaves. Asians were imported for infrastructure work in slave like conditions. Children had almost no rights or freedoms which their parents didn’t grant.
Americans as a population enjoy far more freedoms and rights today than when our country was founded. Are you arguing we should return to the limited freedoms and only enumerated rights enjoyed in decades immediately following our Constitution’s signing?
I can’t seem to reconcile this contradiction in your comments. On the one hand you hail a more limited set of freedoms and rights at our county’s beginning, and on the other hand you say you will fight attempts to promote the general welfare by taking control and managing the changes in science, demographics, climatology, and politics and government which are already underway.
I find your arguments confusing.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2007 12:56 PMDavid, as our country grew, the freedoms and liberties that were “ONLY” for white male landowners, were eventually given to ALL. We could have done that without giving up our freedoms and giving govt more control over our lives.
We would not have to go back to slavery and sufferage if we started honoring our Constitution again and you know that.
We did not have to take away freedoms and rights to promote the general welfare of the country. We went from promote the general welfare of the country to providing for the general welfare of individuals and lost freedoms and rights as we did.
My comments are confusing because you accept this change to a world, rather than an American view, and socialism and cannot see nor understand why others of us prefer to remain free than to live as others believe.
And, judging by the laziness and dependency of todays Americans, it looks like your views will eventually win and people such as myself will pretty much die out as our freedoms have and will continue to do.
I admit, the Constitution and my view lost. My children will be less free than I, just as I am less free than my parents and so on.
Life will go on no matter what I say or do and I know there is little I can do to stop this move away from a free America. But, that doesn’t mean I can’t at least try to teach my kids how it was meant to be.
kctim said: “We went from promote the general welfare of the country to providing for the general welfare of individuals”
So, in your interpretation, the general welfare of the country referred to the land and coasts of the original 13 states only, not the people, right?
That of course is preposterous. The general welfare of the the country referred to the people, and the people are a group of individuals. You cannot logically argue for returning to the original Constitution and in the same breath say except for slavery, presidential election by the Legislatures of the States, and voting by white male land owners.
The instant you reserve the right to make exceptions to returning to the original Constitution, you must grant others their own exceptions, such as the legal and constitutional amendments added afterward including income tax, Commerce Clause, and the rulings of the Supreme Courts such as RvW and Sarbanes Oxley, and Taft Hartley all challenged and tested by the Supreme Court, which brings us to what exists today, with the assent of the public. To deny the history of what others deemed right and just, and insist your own version of original construction with your own exceptions is the only way, is to deny the original intent of the Constitution which gave the power of government to the people through a democratic republican form of government and an amendment process.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2007 04:14 PMDavid,
You don’t see a difference between PROMOTING something and PROVIDING something?
We should be ensuring that an environment exists to allows individuals to propser and be healthy, not being in the business of providing that prosperity and health to the citizens.
Because, with the PROVIDING of those you have to take away certain rights that should be non-negotiable.
And to be honest, the idea that we can’t exist in a free society as our original founders envisioned (but couldn’t fully implement, unfortunately) does *NOT* mean ‘going back to times of slavery and sexist policies. We are all a bit above that type of rhetoric, aren’t we?
Perhaps, and I know this might be a stretch for some, we can have BOTH, a free society and an environment that is best for all Americans. Without government intrusion into our lives, with us trying to control the lives of all of our citizens to live them as ‘we’ see fit. With fiscal responsibility and LIMITS on government. With laws preventing monopolies. With laws keeping the infrustructure in place and protecting the rights, all the rights, of individuals.
I’m a crazy silly man for thinking this, aren’t I?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2007 04:22 PMBTW, there is a BIG difference between managing the country’s infrastructure and defense of the nation, ensuring the freedom of individuals to live their lives as they see fit as long as they do not intrude on those same rights of others *and* micro-managing the lives and decisions of the individuals of a country.
Which do you think is best?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2007 04:24 PMDavid
It is possible to grow as a nation and still respect the rights and freedoms granted to us. But that is not the route we have taken.
Instead, we chose the lazy road. We chose to give up rights and freedoms so that govt would do what we ourselves did not wish to do. We gave them up because we fear. We gave them up so that govt could force people to think, believe and support as others do and stripped away their right to be an individual and live their life as they wanted.
And I understand people have used the Constitution (kind of) to pass legislation to get to where we are now. I just wish we the people would have had the same respect for freedom as our founders did.
We the People have allowed our fears and laziness to bring us to this point. We the People are the ones who gave up our freedoms and We the People are now nothing more than govt servants.
You guys got your change.
I will never accept it.
And, as with everything else, govt will not be able to manage it and it will fail.
Rhinehold asked: “You don’t see a difference between PROMOTING something and PROVIDING something?”
Sure I do. I can promote all I want as in advertising, but no one is obligated to buy what I promote. On the other hand, if I give my government my money in the form of taxes I demand that government provide a service or benefit for that tax. It is important to not confuse this underlying fundamental difference between for profit organizations and non-profit government.
For profit organizations can promote all they wish and can afford to. Non-profit government has a legal and ethical obligation to provide promised services and benefits which are assented to by the people’s representatives. When and if those promises for services and benefits are broken, the people have the responsibility and duty to remove those representatives from office, and PDQ.
But, the people have lost sight of that fundamental responsibility and duty, and therein lies the problem with our government and political system today. The intent of our Constitution was to give the people with vested interests in the way government power is wielded, the power to remove incumbents from office, for failure to live up to the people’s expectations for services and benefits rendered in exchange for their vote, and taxes paid.
The way forward, the change forward, must be marked by a broad and sweeping removal of incumbents who have so gravely breached the trust, the promises, and the expectations of the people who elected them.
Rhinehold said: “Perhaps, and I know this might be a stretch for some, we can have BOTH, a free society and an environment that is best for all Americans. Without government intrusion into our lives, with us trying to control the lives of all of our citizens to live them as ‘we’ see fit.”
There are no free market enterprise solutions to the entitlement crisis on our horizon, Rhinehold. That ship left port many decades ago and sank, never to return. There are no free market enterprise solutions the global rise of terrorism, or climate change, diminishing educational quality requiring our imports of brain power and education from overseas. There are no free market enterprise alternatives to the international space exploration (humanities next Ark and salvation from a devastated planet).
Read Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, Rhinehold. He goes into great length and detail on why having arrived at where we are, human decency, empathy, and compassion will not permit the wholesale suffering that will result by ideological notions of a return to every person to their desserts for their efforts.
A government this big, in a society this big, cannot make economic or policy decisions that will not harm large numbers of its people’s quality and way of life. Government this big, in society this big, is obligated by public sentiment to make amends for those negatively affected to the point of drawing toward them our public empathy, compassion, and desire to help.
Your live free ‘Mountain Man’ ideology can work reasonably well for a small nation with a small population and a small government where private charity can remove suffering and destitution and misfortune of others from our sight through charitable assistance, or when the plight of Native Americans, for example, can be removed from public sight on reservations far from daily experience and passings of voters.
But, the time for private enterprise to embrace the role of ethical, responsible, supporter and protector of the quality of life for its wage earners passed with the industrial revolution and the stock market crash of 1929. Those hands of time and experience cannot and will not be turned be back, because the notion of compassionate responsible free profit enterprise is now so foreign and alien to the majority of citizens as to be rejected out of hand as ridiculous.
A return to the past to start over and get it right is not an option. We are too big, too complex, and too entrenched and invested in this mixed economy system for that. And cynicism and pessimism toward government now demands political change, not fundamentally new economic paradigms.
The polls show Americans don’t mind exchanging some liberty for security. They don’t even mind being taxed, provided those taxes are utilized in the manner and efficiency politicians promised they would be.
In 2001 a poll of wealthy Americans showed a majority of them would not object to increasing their taxes if those taxes would stem the recession and bolster the economy. Our Politicians took the absolute reverse direction. It was a foretelling and prophetic moment that indicated how Republicans were going to fare at governance. Refusing the collective wisdom of the people, they cut taxes, heavily in favor of the wealthy, and our national debt is now increased by more than 50% in just 6 years, and signs of another recession are peaking over the horizon yet again.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2007 05:15 PM
Rhinehold said: “micro-managing the lives and decisions of the individuals of a country.”
Never heard of social services and assistance to those in need and public education referred to in that way before. Though it lies thinly veiled behind the policy platform of the Libertarian Party.
But, I take it you have no objections to Private Catholic Schools requiring the parents of their students to attend mass 70% of the time in order for them to receive tuition assistance for their children’s attendance. Now that is micro-managing the lives of others, far graver and more serious than social security or medicare or public education. But, that’s OK because it is private sector in which people can elect to accept the micro-managing or not.
Well Rhinehold, I hate to break it to you, but, in a democratic republic, the people have the power to remove politicians who micro-manage their lives. So, either 1) the people like being micro-managed or, 2) this micro management by government of personal lives in exchange for assistance is a fiction in your own mind not shared by majority of Americans, or 3) the very concept of a democratic republic is so seriously flawed that the U.S. Constitution should be thrown out and a new one drafted that forces the people to be responsible and duty bound according to those who will do the forcing.
Your argument lacks persuasive capacity, Rhinehold, as does the Libertarian Party for the vast majority of Americans.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2007 05:28 PMkctim said: “It is possible to grow as a nation and still respect the rights and freedoms granted to us. But that is not the route we have taken.”
So, your view is that Americans were too ignorant, lazy, or stupid to have charted the proper course in the growing of our nation? And if that is the case, just how do your propose changing the nature of Americans at this late stage in our development as the greatest nation on earth.
You see, you can’t have it both ways, kctim. Either we are the greatest nation on earth which vindicates how we became so, or, we are not the greatest nation on earth, in which case starting over is justified. The issue is not the past, kctim. The issue is rapid change in the present and future and whether or not we are going to manage it optimally or not.
kctim said: “We the People are the ones who gave up our freedoms and We the People are now nothing more than govt servants.”
Hmm…, don’t know about you, but, I don’t serve the government outside being more law abiding than most, I am not employed by the government, and as I look upon the cultures and societies throughout the rest of the world, I consider myself freest of them all. Whether it be England, China, or Iraq, I consider myself as having more freedom of choice and individual liberty than any others, save perhaps a marginal difference from Amsterdammers.
I just don’t see the validity of your argument that Americans are not free or that they are deprived of individual liberty to choose where they live, where they work, or how they will conduct their lives with family, friends, and neighbors under the protective auspices of a civilian controlled military, and in a legal system that permits the redressing of individual wrongs.
America is no Uptopia, that’s for sure. But, it is the land most oppressed people in the world would like to move to or wish they’d been born into. So we pay an income tax. Our tax is lower than almost every other democratic society on earth per capita. I just can’t seem to reconcile the reality with your view of oppression and chains on freedom in America.
In some ways, I believe we are too free, in America. Too free to choose behavior which is harmful and detrimental to our neighbors and fellow citizens. I would like to see less freedom of politicians to lie and cheat the public. I would like to see less freedom for 2nd offenders of the same crime. I would like to see a quadrupling of police and safety guards in our society so that rapists, murderers, and thieves would have a greater certainty of apprehension for criminal acts.
But, I consider myself and my family amongst the freest people on our globe. The only freedom I would like to have that I don’t already, is the freedom that comes with being wealthier, but, then, my pursuit of other freedoms and fate precluded that, and I have no regrets. I only need to stay abreast of world affairs to realize the true measure of my wealth which is abundant indeed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2007 05:55 PMBut, I take it you have no objections to Private Catholic Schools requiring the parents of their students to attend mass 70% of the time in order for them to receive tuition assistance for their children’s attendance. Now that is micro-managing the lives of others, far graver and more serious than social security or medicare or public education.
No, David, because the parents have a CHOICE at that point. When government is involved we have no choices anymore. We are left with someone else choosing for us and if we don’t accept, we lose even more liberty.
You call my politics ‘mountain main’ politics, but that’s just horseshit. What I stated, and it somehow missed the mark, is that we should be using government to direct the free market, not replacing it. The missing element to using the political body, who has the power of compulsion, is that people will see their ability to use that power to enforce their will on others. And that, IMO, is a far greater evil than people who take advantage of the stupidity and laziness of others.
We should be educating and enticing people to improve their lots in life. Without the chance to fail no one can really succeed. No one can really appreciate the good things if there were no bad things out there to be leery of.
It’s a taoist philosphy, one that most libertarians understand, but few others do I suppose. You can quote Adam Smith all you want, he’s not where I get my views on politics. I think he was right on many things and wrong on others. I think we should be helping our fellow man by getting them the things they NEED, not a handout, not the removal of his choices, not the elimination of his pride. And that is exactly what happens when we start using the power of compulsion to solve their problems for them.
The costs of those changes you mention are that now we have more and more people less educated than their parents. Oh, they can sometimes know more facts, but understand banking? Debt? Why not to pay more in the long run for a quick buck today? Why is subprime lending so prevalant do you think? We are NOT teaching our children that there are consequences for having bad credit, that free money is out there. We give our teenagers credit cards, but we don’t tell them how to use them, what responsibility is. We don’t hold them accountable. We give them ways out of their troubles, but then punish them for the mistakes they make for years, causing them to have to go through high interest loans to recover, and if they fail, just a bit, we punish them some more.
We are creating a generation that will be less capable to deal with the real world, and then complain that they fail in it. So we give those who fall behind a check each month, but don’t show them how they did wrong before, we expect them to figure it out on their own. We dont’ give them the things they NEED, we give them what politicans can use to keep their power going.
You say that my ‘views’ lack persuasive capacity, possibly you’re right. To an uneducated mass, I expect so. Because with the government doing the teaching of our children, they can continue keeping them from being able to take care of themselves, of NEEDING the help that government is so willing to provide.
You wrongly assume that I want our society to be an ‘every man for himself’ society. I do not, that would be inhumane and lead to an equally bad situation. But I don’t think forcing charity is a good idea either. People *WANT* to help other people, but they want to know that they are helping people that want and need the help, not to be forced to help those who choose not to help themselves.
I want government to be transparent. More transparent than either party does. I want people to see exactly where their tax money goes, to see it come out, not to have it taken before they see it. When we pay for gas sometimes we see how much of what we are paying for is going for taxes and where that tax is going. All taxation should be that visible. But it isn’t. Income taxes hide in every product and service we use today. It is imbedded and we don’t see it. And our poor are paying those taxes with no way to keep from paying for them because of their hidden nature.
We have to find a better way, not the way of the Republicans who do not want to help their fellow man, and not the way of the Democrats who want to help them too much and in the wrong way. No, I think we should be looking towards a society that can leave our citzens free to live their own lives and foster a charitable people, one that knows their neighbors and helps them when they need it. Not because they HAVE to but because it is the right thing to do.
Do I live in a fairly land? Perhaps. Should it be something we strive for? I say yes. We may not get there but we should be trying. Any departure from where we are now and where we are headed to a new and brighter course that doesn’t incarcerate our citizens because they choose to use the ‘wrong’ drug, or because they have a mental problem, or because we allow prohibitionary policies to cripple and control the poor of America as Capone did Chicago in the 20s. A society that understands that just because *I* wouldn’t do something doesn’t mean that someone else shouldn’t be FREE to do that.
Jefferson said that it is wrong for man to impose his will on others. But isn’t that what we do every day in your ‘new world’? Tell people how to live, how to spend their money, etc? Wouldn’t it be better to educate them, I mean REALLY educate them, instead of thowing facts and books at people and then hoping that they can figure out how checks and banking works?
David, it is true that many people want to be micro-managed. But should we do that just because the majority says so? Isn’t that exactly what the limits of government was created for, to keep it out of our lives so that we would need to stand on our own two feet?
I do not want my children expecting me to take care of them forever. I want them to WANT to go out and make it on their own and I want to give them the tools to do so, but I also want to take away the ability for them to continue depending upon me for help to the point that they never have a chace to fail. And I don’t want to punish them the way we punish our citizens for failure, putting them in a place where they can almost never get out of that hole.
So, because you want to call my politics ‘mountain man’ politics so that you can scoff and belittle it, which is sad, I would rather dialogs were opened so that terms like that weren’t thrown around at something that I perhaps am not communicating as well as I might. I take the blame for that.
Perhaps I’ll just take some time over the next few months to try to do a better job in explaining just exactly what kind of future *I* wish to see for all Americans, it is apparent that my comments so far have not done an adequate enough job.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2007 06:17 PMnature of Americans at this late stage in our development as the greatest nation on earth
Late stage? Hmmm, perhaps that is part of the issue, I see us as still a very very young country myself.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2007 06:18 PMDavid Remer,
Your post is somewhat confusing. At the beginning of your post, you seem to imply that change is good and must be accepted and embraced. However, by the end of your post you speak of how corrupt and evil everything has become. It was not always so. Which is it, change is good, or change is bad?
I find that everyone, rather than just give up and brace oneself for change, should attampt to gain the wisdom to know those changes that be good or evil, and strive to promote the good while fighting with everything within them to thwart the evil. Change is not always good, in fact, change for the sake of change can actually be quite depressing and disappointing as most Americans have discovered of late!
“Our “current democratic anarchy system” will devolve further into the anarchy you speak of which will lead to revolution.
“A very large portion of Americans still believe in the Constitution and they will not tolerate this change from a once great Contitutional Republic to just another average democracy very much longer. Especially when liberals control all three branches in 09 and start pushing them again.
I’m not saying a revolution will occurr then, but it will be another hard twist of the rubber band that is eventually going to break.”
Posted by: kctim at August 10, 2007 11:05 AM
kctim,
You mention ‘09? Why do you think it will take that long? If Dems keep pushing the way they have been pushing, change may very well occur once again in ‘08!
JD
Posted by: JD at August 10, 2007 07:02 PMDems have been pushing? How, by rolling over on almost every crucial piece of legislation that they have bothered to pass or exempted so many of their personal projects from their newly instituted paygo system?
I don’t see a whole hell of a lot of difference between this congress and the one before, to be honest.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2007 07:34 PMRhinehold, we are young only in years. In terms of developmental age, we have matured to the level of Rome or Byzantium or Ancient Greece, and we did so in just a 2.5 centuries instead 4 or more. America is at its zenith. We don’t have the resources to expand the American empire. We do have the resources to attempt to maintain our zenith and competitive lead in the world, but, only if we change our political system to one which can solve more problems than it creates.
Our government today is reactionary as opposed to maintenance oriented insurance oriented in terms of the future’s challenges. We wait for things like the bridge in Minnesota to collapse before acting, which is horribly wasteful and inefficient. We wait for 9/11 to happen before ending the turf battles between our intelligence and defense agencies. We wait for Katrina before investing in levee upgrades. If we continue on this reactionary path, we will fall from our zenith as surely as the Roman and Egyptian empires fell from theirs.
Becoming a great nation, in some ways, is far easier than remaining a great nation. Overreaching and lack of internal maintenance is usually what brings powerful nations like Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the British Empire upon which the sun never set, down.
We overreached in invading Iraq, and we are unquestionably failing miserably to maintain our internal structures like education, health care, infrastructure, government checks and balances, law and order, and wealth distribution to promote broad based consumerism of domestic production of needed consumables.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2007 04:33 AMJD, I thought the article was quite clear and repetitively so.
Our world is changing very fast, and due to what is driving those changes, what we value, change is inevitable and I detailed what some of those are.
The choice before us is whether we as a people determine the direction and shape of change, or let short term profit motive, greed for power by political parties and politicians, and global events determine those direction and shape of change for us.
In a real sense the question is whether we let children who want what they want NOW, determine our futures, or whether we as a adults capable of long term goal setting and cross generational self interest shape the direction and course of change. The political parties and politicians are the short sighted undisciplined children competing with the more disciplined and longer term visioned public for control of the change that will determine our futures.
If the American people and voters don’t take back control of the reins of government and its agenda, the political children in our government will take care of themselves in the next election at the expense of America’s future and viability in this highly complex, competitive and interdependent world, which demands adherence to values that will sustain our nation and long term goals that will shape and determine short term policy and priorities to insure the long term milestones are met and surpassed.
This is why our political system must change fundamentally and pretty damn fast. We must remove moneyed influence as the prime mover of elections and legislation, reform our political campaign finance system to public financing and halt this purchase of power by those greedy for it, replacing them with reluctant but responsible citizens whose motives are their children’s and grand children’s futures, as well as preserving and maintaining what has made America great: rule of law, equality in the eyes of the law, freedom and liberty coincident with confident security, and maintenance of checks and balances which preserve the democratic interests and welfare of the great middle class in our republic.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2007 04:55 AMRhinehold said: “When government is involved we have no choices anymore.”
Well, there is your philosophy in a nutshell. You don’t believe in a democratic form of government. In a democratic form of government the government is operated by the assent of, and for the benefit of, the people, who are the nation.
In your view that form of government is invalid because some individuals will be forced to submit to rule of democratic law. I suggest to you that those who don’t like being forced to submit to the rule of law assented to by the majority, work to persuade the majority to their view, or look for another kind of government to live under. What you seek is unbridled individual freedom which by all definitions of governance is called anarchy.
This fundamental premise of yours that government is evil and the enemy of the people is where you and I have always parted company in a huge way. I believe in a democratic republic, and have seen such a system create the greatest nation on earth.
I want to restore and preserve that system that was answerable to the majority assent of the people, and in which, the people exercised the obligation and duty to remove representatives who failed to produce the results an educated and self-interest motivated majority of the people expected.
In my view, the government is and should be the tool and servant of the people, not their enemy, and not a plutocratic oligarchy in which a wealthy few make servant paupers of the majority, to the politician’s own ends and greed, which is increasingly what we have today.
Your position and arguments Rhinehold remind me of the man who chose a thief and scoundrel to befriend, and ended up distrusting all of humanity for the experience. In reality it was not humanity that could not be trusted, it was the man he chose to befriend that could not be trusted.
It is not that our constitutional democratic republic form of government cannot be trusted, it is that the politicians that the people elected could not be trusted. The answer is not to distrust our government, the answer is to find a more reliable way of electing better quality representatives willing and capable of preserving and maintaining the ends and goals of our constitutional democratic republic.
This is why I argue that we must change our political system to accommodate the needs and goals of our people and nation while preserving and strengthening our constitutional democratic republic, as we face the rapid paced changes in our other realms of experience: economics, climate, environment, demographics, technology, and a growing wave of human suffering on this planet caused by these other fast paced changes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2007 05:24 AMRhinehold said: “I do not want my children expecting me to take care of them forever. I want them to WANT to go out and make it on their own “
Here again, we part company on fundamental grounds. You view your children going out and making it on their own. I say that is preposterous and impossible. To acquire and hold a job one must accommodate and is dependent upon the needs, wants, and efforts of millions of other people. A job in this world does not exist that is not owned and ruled by a business owner, who has obligations and responsibilities to creditors and customers, whose contracts aren’t protected and defended by an elaborate legal and judicial system, which is governed by laws and constitution assented to and amended by the people. Having a job is being dependent upon the janitorial staff to clear the work are so on can work, dependent upon the bookkeeping staff to issue pay checks and pay taxes to support the maintenance of roads and bridges and tunnels and police and fire departments which insure one of safe passage to and from one’s job. Your children upon stepping out “on their own” is a gross misnomer.
They are not stepping out on their own. They are, in fact, stepping into a more direct relationship with the millions of other people whom they have depended upon to grow up safe and secure in this country, without the parents acting as protectorate intermediary between the child and society at large. As a child their parents took care of licensing the vehicle, insuring its safety with an inspection sticker and paying the taxes for both, and traversing the roads to and from the school soccer team events. When the child leaves their parents, they interface more directly with that society by getting their own licenses, paying their own taxes directly and traversing the potentially dangerous highways of hurtling metal boxes travelling toward each other at 120 miles per hour, with nothing but the rule of law to keep them from colliding with each other.
No, Rhinehold, children do not step out on their own. They merely step more directly into the relationships with the rest of the people in the world that preserved and maintained the world in which they grew up in the oversight of their parents. Bill Gates did not make Microsoft alone. He had the incredible important resources of patent offices, courts, and attorneys, and roads and postal service, and janitors and employees and government officials all working to protect and defend his opportunity to fulfill his idea of Microsoft.
We are not islands unto ourselves. Mankind is a social animal first and foremost, incapable of surviving without society from birth with any remotely close to what we call a civilized existence. This fundamental reality is antithetical to Libertarian foundational thought and philosophy, which is why you and I will never agree on issues which have their roots in these divergent views of humanity and human history.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2007 05:44 AMEveryone here arguing against political reform to meet America’s future challenges and change, please note the following from two of our founding fathers:
“Political parties are instruments of discord and dissention” —George Washington
“The division of the republic into two great parties, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” —John Adams
Seems at least, some of our founding fathers would agree with me, that political reform and change in this country is long, long overdue, and we should never have embarked upon this two party system in the first place!
We are not islands unto ourselves. Mankind is a social animal first and foremost, incapable of surviving without society from birth with any remotely close to what we call a civilized existence. This fundamental reality is antithetical to Libertarian foundational thought and philosophy, which is why you and I will never agree on issues which have their roots in these divergent views of humanity and human history.
You’re right, we’ll never agree because you constantly ignore what I say and argue against what you *want* me to have said. I am not an anarchist (and neither are libertarians, you’re thinking of archo-capatilists who have latched onto the libertarian party) and I am 100% behind the society being involved in each others lives, of having an infrastructure that is paid for by the users of the infrastructure, laws that protect the minority from the majority, etc.
So, yeah, until we can debate what I’m actually saying instead of what you attribute to me, either though my failings in writing or some other reason, then there’s really no point in the waste of time, the dialog that needs to take place.
BTW, you like quoting the founding fathers when it is convenient for you but ignoring it when it is in opposition, that’s a wonderful debating technique I must say.
A sound spirit of legislation,… banishing all arbitrary and unnecessary restraint on individual action, shall leave us free to do whatever does not violate the equal rights of another.To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2007 01:29 PM
Rhinehold, you contradict yourself entirely.
First you say “and I am 100% behind the society being involved in each others lives, of having an infrastructure that is paid for by the users of the infrastructure”
which is to say you believe in taxing all for the benefit of military services, running of government offices and legal systems, etc.
Then you turn immediately around offer a diametrically oppposed argument in the form of a quote: “he guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
So, which is it, Rhinehold, do you believe everyone has the right to keep the fruits of their industry or, do you believe everyone has an obligation to pay for the government which provides so very much so each individual does not have to try the impossible - that which can only be obtained by resource support of the community at large?
Such contradictions are what make debate difficult. Are you going to accuse me again of interpreting you wrongly? I see no other way out of your cognitive dissonance of holding two opposing views for convenience.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2007 07:18 PMRhinehold said: “BTW, you like quoting the founding fathers when it is convenient for you but ignoring it when it is in opposition”
Pray tell, where are your quotes from our founding fathers saying political parties are essential to our government’s functions? So, please, quote what it is I am ignoring from our founding fathers on this topic. Otherwise, your comment merely critiques the messenger’s technique without having to defend the critique at all. That Rhinehold, is not a respected debate technique, while quoting authority, as I did, is.
Defensiveness is no substitute for poor debate skills. If there is a point to make, take the time to lay down its premises, elaborate on the conclusion and how that conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. At least then, if the point is wrong, it is nonetheless logical. But, contradicting oneself in the same comment is not persuasive by a long shot. (Everyone should keep the fruits of their labor but taxes mandated by government in the form of user fees is also OK.
Tell me, Rhinehold, how does a citizen determine their proportionate consumption of military usage for the purpose of determing usage fees? Should the costs of building and maintaining the Appellate Courts, the Supreme Court, and the District Courts fall on the plaintiff or defendant in the form of a user fee? (Careful, it’s a trick question.) Should American consulates overseas be paid for only by Americans traveling overseas? Your arguments are absurd on their face. User fees would negate the existence of such government services as few users could afford the service, and many of those who could, would avoid their use for less costly alternatives.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2007 08:06 PMSo, which is it, Rhinehold
Both.
I know, you don’t see that as a possibility, but that is what the issue is. In your mind the only way that can be accomplished is through payroll taxation and compulsion.
If you use services, you pay for them. Property taxes, sales taxes, usage fees, etc. Where you choose to live plays a part in this, that decision places in it your acquiescence to the services provided to that area.
Compulsary charity is an evil and should not be used. We should all be involved in each others lives, but not through the governmental body that has the single advantage of using force for those ‘selfish’ ones. Take the politics out of caring for our fellow man, take away the excuse of not getting personally involved by saying ‘I pay my taxes’ and instead give people who need help what they need most, pride, human interaction and mentoring.
*shrug* You see my views as being ‘contradictory’, I see them as being the great revolution that you are calling for, IMO.
As Harry Chapin sais in one of his greatest songs:
As I look around us There’s such strange things There’s muggers and there’s jugglers And we are led by clowns If an answer ever found us Would we change things Or are we just a people Rotten ready for the groundPosted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2007 08:20 PM
So, please, quote what it is I am ignoring from our founding fathers on this topic. Otherwise, your comment merely critiques the messenger’s technique without having to defend the critique at all.
I didn’t say you did, on this topic. I did suggest that I think it is difficult IMO to use the Founding Fathers views on a topic you agree with them on as a matter of expertise and then have an exact opposite opinion on many other topics when it comes to what they believed and said. You obviously disagree with Jefferson on the quotes I provided, but you want your quotes to have meaning to persuade, why aren’t the quotes by Jefferson persuasion to you?
f there is a point to make, take the time to lay down its premises, elaborate on the conclusion and how that conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
I stated that I would be doing just that when I said
Perhaps I’ll just take some time over the next few months to try to do a better job in explaining just exactly what kind of future *I* wish to see for all Americans, it is apparent that my comments so far have not done an adequate enough job.
Sooo, we at least agree on that.
Your arguments are absurd on their face. User fees would negate the existence of such government services as few users could afford the service, and many of those who could, would avoid their use for less costly alternatives.
Thta’s not exactly accurate. Of course, we have to change the paradigm of saying that there is either one way (excessive taxation and wrongful compulsion) or another (complete anarchy and a completely free market with no oversight). It takes vision and willing to think differenly than we have been trained, by our governmental education system, to think, or not to think as it were.
It will require harder work to come up with those fair methods while staying within the philosophy of Jefferson. And yes, these things are being put into a book and probably are not suitable here since the forum is a little cramped for what kind of writing is needed. But I will be working towards that in a series of posts over the next couple of months I think.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2007 09:41 PM“You mention ‘09? Why do you think it will take that long? If Dems keep pushing the way they have been pushing, change may very well occur once again in ‘08!”
JD, they will official control over all three branches starting in Jan, 09. There will be nothing to really hold them back on what they consider their mandate by the people.
It will be just as 2000 was, only those who complained about an out of control govt then, will be the ones silent about an out of control govt in 09.
And it will continue to be just as David R. wants it to be too.
The change will continue, most will accept it and the left will manage our lives for us.
kctim said: “The change will continue, most will accept it and the left will manage our lives for us.”
Unless we voters take back our role as employer of politicians and exercise our right to fire for lack of performance and results, which is what I want it to be. I don’t give a damn about political parties, I want representatives who can and will solve the national problems facing us like Debt, inflation eating stagnant wages, predatory lending practices causing so much havoc on WallStreet, Peace promotion instead of war promotion, restoring American education to the best in the world again, and insuring the great middle class which has created our greatest nation status remains the great middle class foundation for our future underwriting economic stability, predictability, and prosperity in the future at least at the level that existed in 2000.
If that is what you meant by “David R. wants it to be too”, you are exactly right. Otherwise, you are exactly wrong.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2007 02:38 PMAh David, you know its not what you want that I was talking about, it is how. Your answer is even more govt intrusions and mine is more personal freedoms.
You want lower debt, but not if any politician starts cutting the ridiculous programs that take away individual rights like SS. You want govt to control private businesses and give mandatory pay raises. You want govt to control the lending because people are too stupid to think for themselves. You want govt to control education so they can teach society, not individual rights, are more important.
I want to be able to chose how my retirement money is created. I want to be able to pay somebody based on the merits of their work. I want to be able to get a high interest loan if I want. I want my children to be taught how great the US is and how important it is to respect the rights of others. I want them to learn US history, not some other dumbass countries history or culture.
But above all else, I want them to be able to live their lives as they want, not how the govt or others want.
Our freedoms were what made us the most prosperous country in the world and is what made us the envy of the world.
Posted by: kctim at August 13, 2007 03:40 PM“Our freedoms were what made us the most prosperous country in the world and is what made us the envy of the world.”
Posted by: kctim at August 13, 2007 03:40 PM
kctim,
The envy, or the hated??
Could you not say the same thing about the wealthy in America? It was their freedom and the desire to overcome all adversity that built their empires. And now they are the hated, despised, and the underlying problem with our governmental system to most Americans.
The left continually claims the wealthy care nothing about average Americans, only about their own wealth, when we are the most charitable nation the World has ever seen. Perhaps, at times, the wealthy appear uncaring or simply ignore the ranting of the left simply because they have become accustomed to being used as the targets for all that is wrong. In much the same way that the United States ignores the ranting of other dictators toward the U.S.; while they oppress their own people. The irony is that much like the constituents of the Democratic Party, the poor of these dictatorial countries consider their leaders Gods for providing nothing more than a stale slice of bread, when they could have freedom.
When you put liberal claims about the wealthy who control government next to the claims of those in other countries that say wealthy America controls the world, it is exactly the same philosophy. Wealth = evil. Poverty = good.
JD
Posted by: JD at August 13, 2007 11:14 PMJD said: “The left continually claims the wealthy care nothing about average Americans, only about their own wealth, when we are the most charitable nation the World has ever seen.”
Do you not see the right wing hypocrisy in your statement above? Conservatives argue against government spending on Americans falling upon misfortune, but proudly boast of American government sending American tax dollars in the 100’s of billions to foreign peoples in foreign lands. When will the right get around to putting Americans first in line for government charitable spending? The aging in the Mississippi Delta are literally living in third world conditions and abject poverty. Does the right care that the wealthy don’t champion their cause because they are mostly black, aged, and going to die sooner than later anyway? Doesn’t appear so. But, Iraqi poor, now that’s another matter, we will send our troops to die for their infrastructural and quality of life improvements.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 10:25 AMJD
The left uses envy of the wealthy to create the hate of the wealthy in order to get the votes of those who envy the wealthy.
David
While you know that I totally disagree with “govt charitable spending,” I have to say that since it has been forced upon us, I too believe that it should be for helping Americans and not foreign peoples in foreign lands.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
