Was it idealistic or was it realistic to end Slavery and institute Democracy?

[triagist]

Slavery and Dictatorship ruled in most every nation on Earth for all of known history… up until they were ended in some nations. Was it foolishly Utopian and idealistic, or was it realistic to end Slavery and institute Democracy as we have in some nations? Would it have been realistic or cowardly if we didn’t? Is it now foolishly Utopian and idealistic, or realistic to now stand for ending Profiteering’s Wage and War Slavery which has ruled every single nation on Earth for all of known history? Will it be realistic or cowardly if we don’t?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If you agree we must end Profiteering, please contact us.<o:p></o:p>

[TMartin]

This is an interesting question but oddly conceived.
<o:p></o:p>
It is unclear how one could understand “Dictatorship ruled in most every nation” The ideas of Nation and nationalism are generally considered to be modern with roots in Medieval and Renaissance attempts to contextualize the fact of Christendom. I suppose that this statement could be somewhat reasonable if we ignore the fact of animist power structures, social healing systems, traditional cultures and fudge enough on the details to consider monarchies identical to dictatorships. However, even in this generous reading it’s hard to see how this relates to slavery. <o:p></o:p>

Likewise, we are required to have a very sloppy and loose understanding of slavery. Are surfs and indentured servants salves? Should we then include all people who lack complete economic control over their lives in this definition of slavery? If so, we would have to add children and women into the category of slave. How much economic freedom do people who work for money to support mortgages and families really have? Possibly we are all slaves. <o:p></o:p>

Additionally, we are asked to agree with the supposition that slavery does not exist in modern <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. This is not true in the narrow sense of slavery, which is illegal but still a problem that law enforcement actively fights today. If we use the sloppy loose understanding of slavery that includes surfs and indentured servants then it must be true that disenfranchised migrant workers are slaves. <o:p></o:p>

Good thing there are no disenfranchised migrant workers picking grapes in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Sonoma</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>. If there were anyone who buy wine would be using the national capitalist structure to support slavery as a way of saving $3 on a bottle of wine.<o:p></o:p>

However, we don’t get very far by simply ignoring the facts that don’t fit your editorial goals. Most power structure in world history have not been Nations. Most Nations have not been dictatorships. Slavery is not a malleable undefined concept. Slavery in its formal definition, although illegal in many places, is still with us in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> and globally. According to the United Nations there are more slaves living in the world today then all the slaves in history combined. This fact is really just a byproduct of there being billions of living people on the planet at the moment. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Moreover, your editorial goals are not clear. Possibly you simply wanted some attention. If so, you have succeeded. Congratulations! <o:p></o:p>



Slavery and Dictatorship ruled in most every nation on Earth for all of known history… up until they were ended in some nations. Was it foolishly Utopian and idealistic, or was it realistic to end Slavery and institute Democracy as we have in some nations? Would it have been realistic or cowardly if we didn’t? Is it now foolishly Utopian and idealistic, or realistic to now stand for ending Profiteering’s Wage and War Slavery which has ruled every single nation on Earth for all of known history? Will it be realistic or cowardly if we don’t?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If you agree we must end Profiteering, please contact us.<o:p></o:p>

[Lenny]

This is an interesting question but oddly conceived.
<o:p></o:p>
It is unclear how one could understand “Dictatorship ruled in most every nation” The ideas of Nation and nationalism are generally considered to be modern with roots in Medieval and Renaissance attempts to contextualize the fact of Christendom. I suppose that this statement could be somewhat reasonable if we ignore the fact of animist power structures, social healing systems, traditional cultures and fudge enough on the details to consider monarchies identical to dictatorships. However, even in this generous reading it’s hard to see how this relates to slavery. <o:p></o:p>

Likewise, we are required to have a very sloppy and loose understanding of slavery. Are surfs and indentured servants salves? Should we then include all people who lack complete economic control over their lives in this definition of slavery? If so, we would have to add children and women into the category of slave. How much economic freedom do people who work for money to support mortgages and families really have? Possibly we are all slaves. <o:p></o:p>

Additionally, we are asked to agree with the supposition that slavery does not exist in modern <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. This is not true in the narrow sense of slavery, which is illegal but still a problem that law enforcement actively fights today. If we use the sloppy loose understanding of slavery that includes surfs and indentured servants then it must be true that disenfranchised migrant workers are slaves. <o:p></o:p>

Good thing there are no disenfranchised migrant workers picking grapes in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Sonoma</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>. If there were anyone who buy wine would be using the national capitalist structure to support slavery as a way of saving $3 on a bottle of wine.<o:p></o:p>

However, we don’t get very far by simply ignoring the facts that don’t fit your editorial goals. Most power structure in world history have not been Nations. Most Nations have not been dictatorships. Slavery is not a malleable undefined concept. Slavery in its formal definition, although illegal in many places, is still with us in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> and globally. According to the United Nations there are more slaves living in the world today then all the slaves in history combined. This fact is really just a byproduct of there being billions of living people on the planet at the moment. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Moreover, your editorial goals are not clear. Possibly you simply wanted some attention. If so, you have succeeded. Congratulations! <o:p></o:p>

Possibly their meaning was to make a political point about
regarding another specious definition of "profiteering wage", which is an oxymoron. While I think I understand your retort and may agree with the direction of your intentions, the initial writer may be asking the same question as others have asked regarding generations and accumulation of wealth, often referred to as a plutocracy. Or it simply could be the usual rhetoric of an infinite number of monkeys at keyboards? :2cents:

[TMartin]

My issues are: <o:p></o:p>

1) There is no dependent relationship between slavery and democracy.<o:p></o:p>

2) Slavery has not ended; <o:p></o:p>

3) Legal slavery did not end in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region u1:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region></st1:place></st1:country-region> as a byproduct of democracy. The majority of Americans were unable to agree that slavery should end. Legal slavery ended after a minority won the civil war. Had the other minority won the civil war we would have continued to have legal slavery and no need for disenfranchised migrant workers now. Generally democracies are political arraignments in which the majority has a voice in government NOT simply the winner of a war.; <o:p></o:p>

4) It’s unclear what the author is talking about when he referees to “profiteering”; <o:p></o:p>

5) It is clear that the author is happy to misuse facts, history and terms-or-art, therefore is would be imprudent to simply agree. <o:p></o:p>

6) <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on"><st1:PlaceName u1:st="on">Sonoma</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType u1:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType></st1:PlaceType></st1:PlaceName></st1:place> has a primary industry that is addicted to cheep disenfranchised labor. Everyone who chooses to live in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on"><st1:PlaceName u1:st="on"><st1:City u1:st="on">Sonoma</st1:City></st1:PlaceName></st1:place> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType u1:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType></st1:PlaceType></st1:PlaceName></st1:place> is supporting this industry through participation in the tax base. Therefore, living in the county and complaining about slavery and profiteering are disingenuous. We are all guilty and therefore are less than honest if we pretend not to support profiteering. <o:p></o:p>



Possibly their meaning was to make a political point about
regarding another specious definition of "profiteering wage", which is an oxymoron. While I think I understand your retort and may agree with the direction of your intentions, the initial writer may be asking the same question as others have asked regarding generations and accumulation of wealth, often referred to as a plutocracy. Or it simply could be the usual rhetoric of an infinite number of monkeys at keyboards? :2cents:

[edederscheck]

Slavery is a horrible practice that dehumanizes your fellow man.

Democracy, while not perfect, is currently the best known system of government.

[Lenny]

Slavery is a horrible practice that dehumanizes your fellow man. Democracy, while not perfect, is currently the best known system of government.

I look around and see my fellow man dehumanizing themselves all over the place. You are right, they don't need my help to do so. But what is worse is that slavery will dehumanize the slave owner.
I have to laugh as the word "democracy" was coined by those that owned slaves and thought it natural. Almost seems "natural" to have slaves, no? I mean folks every where selling themselves to debt, to American Idol, and a whole slew of stuff and nonsense, no?
But in the end, democracy is THE WORST form of government. And for the same reason that one sees his fellow humans debasing themselves everywhere else. If it is on YOUR dime, then others will vote for it quick, fast, and in a hurry. I know I would, and don't know many who wouldn't. No, democracy is the evil beast of man set free to roam to the depths of the worst elements of being human. The minorities would not only lose, they'd be eaten to death.
Just a minor disagreement and my :2cents:

[TMartin]

I completely agree! Slavery is truly one of the horrors of human history. Democracy is imperfect and the most humane system of governance yet invented. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It’s hard to know what the author intended but I think he was trying to get at something about ‘profiteering.” Assuming his post was sincere it would be great to know what his intentions were. It’s not clear it was sincere; the post may just have been a joke.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Wikipedia : “Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit) by methods considered unethical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics). Business (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) owners may be accused of profiteering when they raise prices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging) during an emergency (especially a war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering)). The term is also applied to businesses that play on political corruption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption) to obtain government contracts.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Notice that this definition requires a subjective analysis “considered unethical.” Who gets to decide what is unethical? What are the criteria? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The German Nazi party believed it was unethical to allow Jews to be bankers. I personally disagree with this position. Ok nobody likes examples involving the Nazi party… But the point is that we should not just accept the ethics of the biggest bully around. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Slavery is still a problem. In developing nations, where slavery is more common, slaves and slave owners are often of different ethnic classes. In these situations the slave owners often claim that the slavery is needed because the slave is helpless without the benefit of being cared for by their owners. Their argument is that it would be unethical not to provide the benefit of slavery to the slaves. This was true in slavery in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> prior to the civil war. I don’t buy this argument or think it is ethical but some people do.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
In the mid 1990s, I was a Peace Corps Volunteer on slave plantation in <st1:place w:st="on">Sao Tome</st1:place> e Prince. The former slaves gained their freedom in 1974 when <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Portugal</st1:place></st1:country-region> gave up all its colonies. The former slave did not leave the plantation, however, the Portuguese left <st1:place w:st="on">Sao Tome</st1:place>. Once gone <st1:place w:st="on">Sao Tome</st1:place> was independent and the Portuguese no longer provided imported food or medicine. I was there to help diversify the micro economy. My job was to start women’s cooperatives, family business and write grants for NGO assistance. The project was to improve the life of the former slaves though the creation of economic independence. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The former slave often complained that life was better under slavery. Under slavery they received plenty of food and medicine, education for their children and only worked for the plantation doing their jobs. As free people they had less food, medicine, education, lots more work and their homes were in extreme disrepair. Would it have been more ethical to give them what they wanted, the safety of slavery? I don’t think so. Was it ethical that I was helping create change that was very slow and incremental instead of meeting their requests for immediate relief that slavery had provided? I helped write grants for cement pig pens and then used the cement to repair their homes because n NGOs would not provide improvements for homes. Was that ethical or a kind of white collar crime? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So what is profiteering?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1)<!--[endif]-->Someone adds coal mine sludge to pet food, knowing it will kill the pets, then imports it into the United States because the sludge cheats test that determine the protein content of imported pet food. Is this profiteering? I think so.
<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2)<!--[endif]-->Someone imports and sells infant formula in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Brazil</st1:place></st1:country-region> that has no nutrition value and babies starve to death. Is this profiteering? I think so.
<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3)<!--[endif]-->A retired soldier signs up to be a military contractor in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> as a way to using their skills and pay for their children’s college education. Is this profiteering. Not in my opinion. I don’t support the war or the idea of private military contractors. However, this is someone using their professional skills in the limited way available to provide for their family. Reasonable people can disagree. I understand that some might think this is an example of war profiteering.
<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4)<!--[endif]-->A small business employs people at less than a living wages and without health care. Is this profiteering? Yes I think so. But again, reasonable people can disagree. I understand that some might have an excuse for this behavior.
<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5)<!--[endif]--> A Music Club offers ten CD for just a penny but then requires customers to buy twenty CDs at full price. Is this profiteering? What if the Music Club knows that their customers are children or non-English-speaking immigrants or mentally disables people who don’t understand the offer requires the purchase of $300 of CDs. Is this profiteering? If so, then is it still profiteering if the company doesn’t know their customers are unable to understand the offer? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Unfortunately few things in life are truly black and white. The original post may have been ghost written by President Bush as it boiled down to “either you’re with me or you’re evil” The oversimplified rhetoric of bullies is unethical. <o:p></o:p>



Slavery is a horrible practice that dehumanizes your fellow man.

Democracy, while not perfect, is currently the best known system of government.

[TMartin]

I really do think Democracy is imperfect and the most humane system of governance yet invented. It doesn’t bother me that we disagree but are you sure “democracy is THE WORST form of government.” Do you feel the North Korean Government is better than the South Korean Government? In aggregate, are North Koreans better off than South Koreans? <o:p></o:p>



I look around and see my fellow man dehumanizing themselves all over the place. You are right, they don't need my help to do so. But what is worse is that slavery will dehumanize the slave owner.
I have to laugh as the word "democracy" was coined by those that owned slaves and thought it natural. Almost seems "natural" to have slaves, no? I mean folks every where selling themselves to debt, to American Idol, and a whole slew of stuff and nonsense, no?
But in the end, democracy is THE WORST form of government. And for the same reason that one sees his fellow humans debasing themselves everywhere else. If it is on YOUR dime, then others will vote for it quick, fast, and in a hurry. I know I would, and don't know many who wouldn't. No, democracy is the evil beast of man set free to roam to the depths of the worst elements of being human. The minorities would not only lose, they'd be eaten to death.
Just a minor disagreement and my :2cents:

[Lenny]

Your finer point brings me down to earth and thus I must agree with you, up to another point. The man, Kim, is probably a monster, but under the "proper" dictator/king/sovereign the people COULD be in a better manner. And that is only theoretical, since I recall Lord Acton's "absolute power" dictum.

Thanks for the other post regarding your life experience with slavery while in the Peace Corps. Fascinating reading. In the book of Exodus, the first generation had the same complaints about "slavery was better than this", while wandering in the desert learning new methods of coping. A whole generation had to pass.
Oh, and your examples of "profiteering" are excellent, and reasonable people may seek clarification among themselves. Too often folks ascribe that word to ANY and ALL profit, usually in the pejorative, rhetorical sense.



I really do think Democracy is imperfect and the most humane system of governance yet invented. It doesn’t bother me that we disagree but are you sure “democracy is THE WORST form of government.” Do you feel the North Korean Government is better than the South Korean Government? In aggregate, are North Koreans better off than South Koreans? <o:p></o:p>

[thewholetruth]

Wow. I'm floored, Lenny. If you truly believe that democracy is THE WORST form of government, why do you live here?

And equally important, what do you think is the best form of government, or even a viable (been done by a nation before and works) alternative?



...But in the end, democracy is THE WORST form of government. And for the same reason that one sees his fellow humans debasing themselves everywhere else. If it is on YOUR dime, then others will vote for it quick, fast, and in a hurry. I know I would, and don't know many who wouldn't. No, democracy is the evil beast of man set free to roam to the depths of the worst elements of being human. The minorities would not only lose, they'd be eaten to death.
Just a minor disagreement and my :2cents:

[MsTerry]

Slaves have been replaced by cheap and underpaid labor.
The abolishment of slavery was an economic decision not an humanitarian one.
It is a lot cheaper to underpay workers and let them fend for themselves, then it is to provide and house and take care of them.


I completely agree! Slavery is truly one of the horrors of human history. Democracy is imperfect and the most humane system of governance yet invented. ... <o:p></o:p>

[Lenny]

Wow. I'm floored, Lenny. If you truly believe that democracy is THE WORST form of government, why do you live here?
And equally important, what do you think is the best form of government, or even a viable (been done by a nation before and works) alternative?

Don, as I recall you mentioned you were a "conservative", but my memory must be going. To answer your question, I live here because it is the best place on the planet, but sometimes I must wonder what makes folks migrate. Ever question your ancestors about what made them leave the old home site? At times I fear I may have to go to Brazil, or some such place where it is more open. I tried Alaska and that did have a truly frontier nature to it, but that was long ago.
We will never have a "best form" of government in my lifetime, nor my children's children. Probably the better form of government is a republic, and then one must have people of integrity and character vying for offices, which means the people that WANT the job to rule us must be kept in check as it is clear that they all share the same profiles in personality as sociopaths. Sticky wicket, he?
The only "better" form of government is a benign dictator/king. Then most folks will "feel" secure, and their rulers beneficence would allow as much freedom as possible, while protecting the minority. But we all know human nature, so that won't work.
But THIS is not a democracy, otherwise the 15 largest cities in the US would vote in the next president. Now if you enjoy the laws of the city, you need to leave this bucolic area and enjoy Detroit, Chicago, New York, L.A. and ALL that they bring to one's life while abiding there. Been there, done that, got the scars too.
No, Don, a democracy will sink to the lowest common denominator in short order, like France in 1793, until they elected a dictator/emperor who stopped all the blood flow and restored "order".

[edederscheck]

The way I see it, and this is simply my own view, profiteering (as far as business is concerned) will never die. Unfortunately we live in a Capitalistic world and people care more about the almighty dollar than they do about ethics.

In order to end profiteering you would need to devalue the dollar... an impractical idea for sure...

[MsTerry]

<o:p> </o:p>
If you agree we must end Profiteering, please contact us.<o:p></o:p>

End Profiteering? End Capitalism you mean?
Who will decide what a reasonable profit is?
The buyer or the supplier ?
where do we contact you?

[TMartin]

Profiteering is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism that needs to be kept under check. However, getting rid of Capitalism as a way of getting rid of the profiteering is not terribly practical. Command economies have dramatically failed in every real attempt. Even the enthusiastic holdouts preaching the benefits of a command economy (<st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">USSR</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cuba</st1:place></st1:country-region>) have abandoned these economic principles. The birth of Communist Capitalism has not worked as well as Democratic Capitalism. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Americans are in a tight spot because we use greed as a way of funding primary research in science, medicine and technology. Since we tell pharmaceutical companies that they have to pay for their own R&D and hope to make their money back on drugs sales, we have little or no leverage when the go overboard and profiteer. The response is inevitably that they are just taking their earned up-side on the risk they took in developing a new drug. Of course all of our political representatives RUN to the defense of the Pharma companies regardless of political party or rhetoric.


Having another option would be really interesting. Until we have that it seems policing profiteering and is our best bet. Expecting our political leaders to do the policing for us seems unrealistic. <o:p></o:p>



The way I see it, and this is simply my own view, profiteering (as far as business is concerned) will never die. Unfortunately we live in a Capitalistic world and people care more about the almighty dollar than they do about ethics.

In order to end profiteering you would need to devalue the dollar... an impractical idea for sure...

[TMartin]

Yes slavery has been replaced by cheap, disenfranchised and undervalued labor. We ended slaver and forced former slaves into indentured servitude as cheap labor. We called this separate but equal. Forty years ago the Supreme Court said there was not such a thing as separate but equal among legal American citizens. So we took the loop-hole and encouraged illegal immigration so we could have a labor source that is separate an unequal.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Most powerful countries are doing the same thing. Italian grapes are picked by Turks. French grapes are picked by North Africans, Russians use central Asian labor and so on. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> just finds “criminals” and puts them into work camps that are really slave factories. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
However, slavery is not gone. It is still popular in the developing countries and the second world. In fact, in the US, slavery is still a problem as in other first world countries. We should be careful not to make it this into a scuffle over who has it worse. Slaves or disenfranchised abused labor should both be unacceptable. <o:p></o:p>



Slaves have been replaced by cheap and underpaid labor.
The abolishment of slavery was an economic decision not an humanitarian one.
It is a lot cheaper to underpay workers and let them fend for themselves, then it is to provide and house and take care of them.

[Lenny]

The way I see it, and this is simply my own view, profiteering (as far as business is concerned) will never die. Unfortunately we live in a Capitalistic world and people care more about the almighty dollar than they do about ethics.
In order to end profiteering you would need to devalue the dollar... an impractical idea for sure...

You got me on the ropes! You decry capitalism, and possibly for good reasons but this post doesn't give me a clue. When I look into it I find that ALL folks have greed in them. And that is the engine of capitalism, no?
Everybody wants more money, flat out! So I sell my labor, or you sell your widgets, etc. And if I can get more money because I work like two folks, that is what I want; and if nobody limits you, then you may come up with an "better" method to get more of what everyone wants: money.

Ethics? That is a tougher nut to crack, so I won't even....

Oh, and the dollar IS devaluing and has been for about 3 months, or, in the long view, about 40 years. And some say it's going on 80 years, but again, nut:crack, not here/now. :2cents:

[thewholetruth]

Not completely true. And there is one huge difference between the "cheap and underpaid labor" and slaves: the cheap and underpaid labor are VOLUNTEERING to work for those wages. Not so, the slaves. One can't even compare the two for that reason.



Slaves have been replaced by cheap and underpaid labor.
The abolishment of slavery was an economic decision not an humanitarian one.
It is a lot cheaper to underpay workers and let them fend for themselves, then it is to provide and house and take care of them.

[thewholetruth]

Respectfully, Lenny, I consider that position absurd. In the history of mankind, there has been no better system than ours, which was set up as a Republic/Democracy. There has been no country in the history of mankind which has afforded more opportunity, freedom of speech (except now the Liberals have removed freedom of speech by deeming the Gospel "hate speech" - it used to be that anyone could say anything, and idiots/bigots/revolutionaries simply made themselves known so we could all avoid them - now the Liberals have created the opportunity with their ridiculous "hate speech" label for government to deem ANY kind of language illegal, including criticism of government - the precedent has been set when true freedom of speech was stolen from us), ability to start/run our own businesses, travel freely and even speak out against the government (so far still legal). NO other country in the history of mankind has afforded their citizens greater freedom and opportunity than we have/had. There is no known "better" form of government in practice on Earth today than ours, Lenny. "Kings" are not a better form of government, sir. They are totalitarian. Not good, Lenny. Not good at all. History proves that.



Don, as I recall you mentioned you were a "conservative", but my memory must be going. To answer your question, I live here because it is the best place on the planet, but sometimes I must wonder what makes folks migrate. Ever question your ancestors about what made them leave the old home site? At times I fear I may have to go to Brazil, or some such place where it is more open. I tried Alaska and that did have a truly frontier nature to it, but that was long ago.
We will never have a "best form" of government in my lifetime, nor my children's children. Probably the better form of government is a republic, and then one must have people of integrity and character vying for offices, which means the people that WANT the job to rule us must be kept in check as it is clear that they all share the same profiles in personality as sociopaths. Sticky wicket, he?
The only "better" form of government is a benign dictator/king. Then most folks will "feel" secure, and their rulers beneficence would allow as much freedom as possible, while protecting the minority. But we all know human nature, so that won't work.
But THIS is not a democracy, otherwise the 15 largest cities in the US would vote in the next president. Now if you enjoy the laws of the city, you need to leave this bucolic area and enjoy Detroit, Chicago, New York, L.A. and ALL that they bring to one's life while abiding there. Been there, done that, got the scars too.
No, Don, a democracy will sink to the lowest common denominator in short order, like France in 1793, until they elected a dictator/emperor who stopped all the blood flow and restored "order".

[Lenny]

Respectfully, Lenny, I consider that position absurd. In the history of mankind, there has been no better system than ours, which was set up as a Republic/Democracy. There has been no country in the history of mankind which has afforded more opportunity, freedom of speech ..(MERCIFUL DELETION FOR BREVITY).. ability to start/run our own businesses, travel freely and even speak out against the government (so far still legal). NO other country in the history of mankind has afforded their citizens greater freedom and opportunity than we have/had. There is no known "better" form of government in practice on Earth today than ours, Lenny. "Kings" are not a better form of government, sir. They are totalitarian. Not good, Lenny. Not good at all. History proves that.

Don, you make a point, but it confuses me. The fact is that when this experiment-in-government began, the people voted only for THEIR reps, and then the reps voted for whom they wanted in higher office, etc. The people did not vote directly for more than that, and then "the people" were defined as only as property owners (not a bad idea, IMO). One of the reasons that was set up and done was to AVOID direct democracy, and yet still have the people participate and give voice in the direction the government should move. It has changed and some may argue for the worse, but do not confuse our economic prosperity with democracy as the two are separate issues, too long to speak of here.
One cannot say all kings were bad, nor were all dictators evil. Many point to Marcus Aurelius or Abraham Lincoln, among others. The very notion is repugnant to us, but history does prove some kings were this, while others were that, so to speak.
As for being a democratic/republic, well that does seem to be the best, but as explained earlier, the conundrum is to find people that do not want to run for office, and then "force" them to run! As those that want the power to rule over others are already "mad", and those that have the knowledge to discern and govern have notions that governing people is contrary to their nature, I suppose. So, I guess you are right again! It IS absurd! :2cents:

[thewholetruth]

Lenny, I couldn't agree MORE with you on the fact the biggest problem with our system of government is POLITICIANS. I've said for years that we need to elect a FARMER or a FIREMAN or a NURSE or a MOTHER or a DITCH DIGGER - some common person - as our President/Senator/Assemblyperson and throw out these crooked, overpaid lifer politicians and clean house! We needed someone like Billionaire Ross Perot, who already HAD everything he ever wanted, but he turned out to be a nutcase. The same can be said about Obama and Clinton: YES, it would be GREAT to elect a black man or a woman as President, but these two (a racist & a criminal - remember Whitewater?) are the PEROTS of this election. Neither is qualified. Get a black man with INTEGRITY or a woman with INTEGRITY as candidates.

Anyway, this is just another point upon which we agree, Lenny. We need to nominate people who aren't interested in SERVING our county/state/nation.

Don



Don, you make a point, but it confuses me. The fact is that when this experiment-in-government began, the people voted only for THEIR reps, and then the reps voted for whom they wanted in higher office, etc. The people did not vote directly for more than that, and then "the people" were defined as only as property owners (not a bad idea, IMO). One of the reasons that was set up and done was to AVOID direct democracy, and yet still have the people participate and give voice in the direction the government should move. It has changed and some may argue for the worse, but do not confuse our economic prosperity with democracy as the two are separate issues, too long to speak of here.
One cannot say all kings were bad, nor were all dictators evil. Many point to Marcus Aurelius or Abraham Lincoln, among others. The very notion is repugnant to us, but history does prove some kings were this, while others were that, so to speak.
As for being a democratic/republic, well that does seem to be the best, but as explained earlier, the conundrum is to find people that do not want to run for office, and then "force" them to run! As those that want the power to rule over others are already "mad", and those that have the knowledge to discern and govern have notions that governing people is contrary to their nature, I suppose. So, I guess you are right again! It IS absurd! :2cents:

[thewholetruth]

I think the key is that we commit to being ethical in our business dealings. That is the challenge, because of Human nature - greed, for example. But I've seen it done, maintaining good ethics while running a business. I think the "whatever the market will bear" is good policy, as well. If I can't afford it, then I don't need it. Principled living is not something PC America embraces. Rigorous honesty is not high on the list of many Americans, in fact, most don't even know what it is. Faith, patience, self discipline, compassion, tolerance, humility - just words to most people. America has forgotten how to practice these things which are vital to a healthy society, and instead America is all caught up in making PERSONALITY overly important. Hollywood, "my opinion", attention getting - all are based on personality taking precedence over principles. Principled living is the key to community and peace within a community...In my humble opinion, of course. :wink:

Don


The way I see it, and this is simply my own view, profiteering (as far as business is concerned) will never die. Unfortunately we live in a Capitalistic world and people care more about the almighty dollar than they do about ethics.

In order to end profiteering you would need to devalue the dollar... an impractical idea for sure...

[thewholetruth]

Human BEINGS tend to sink to the lowest common denominator in ANY given situation, Lenny. So I agree with your statement. We need to be encouragers of one another, to raise the bar, if you will, on principled living. When we're around people for extended periods of time who use profanity and bigotry casually, it seems like we tend to start to go there, too. Our thinking gravitates to the lowest common denominator unless we are principled and stay principled. IMO...

Don


...No, Don, a democracy will sink to the lowest common denominator in short order, like France in 1793, until they elected a dictator/emperor who stopped all the blood flow and restored "order".

[thewholetruth]

Very well said. I couldn't agree more with all you posted.

Don


Profiteering is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism that needs to be kept under check. However, getting rid of Capitalism as a way of getting rid of the profiteering is not terribly practical. Command economies have dramatically failed in every real attempt. Even the enthusiastic holdouts preaching the benefits of a command economy (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">USSR</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cuba</st1:place></st1:country-region>) have abandoned these economic principles. The birth of Communist Capitalism has not worked as well as Democratic Capitalism. <?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Americans are in a tight spot because we use greed as a way of funding primary research in science, medicine and technology. Since we tell pharmaceutical companies that they have to pay for their own R&D and hope to make their money back on drugs sales, we have little or no leverage when the go overboard and profiteer. The response is inevitably that they are just taking their earned up-side on the risk they took in developing a new drug. Of course all of our political representatives RUN to the defense of the Pharma companies regardless of political party or rhetoric.


Having another option would be really interesting. Until we have that it seems policing profiteering and is our best bet. Expecting our political leaders to do the policing for us seems unrealistic. <o:p></o:p>