SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Maybe it's just me, but I've been getting this vibe (it's strong here, but I'm feeling it elsewhere too) that there are folks who would like to see our entire society come crashing down.
Perhaps they think we can build something better, and like the Phoenix, emerge from the ashes, strong and vibrant.
And I guess I can see the attraction. Our government has been co-opted by the monied interests, our waking lives seem to be either being tracked by corporations or one government agency or another, the same monied interests seem determined to depress wages to keep us docile and hungry for the resources we need to keep ourselves and our families alive. And on and on. It's as if our society has been taken over by greedy, corrupt and amoral scumbags.
And to an extent, all of this is true. Which begs the question: What can/should we do about it?
There is one thing most of us can agree upon: That those elected to administer our governmental systems aren't acting in the best interests of the greater populace. Rather, they seem to be taking their marching orders from those with the resources to command their attention, their wallets and their votes.
There's quite a bit of agreement about that. The problem is that there are large groups of people on various sides of this question with different prescriptions for solving these problems:
Some think we need to strip the Federal government of most of its power and leave things to the states/counties/municipalities.
Some think we need to reform our existing political systems to reduce the influence of money on our elected officials (at all levels of government).
Some think it's just a lost cause and we need to just tear it all down and start over.
The biggest issue, IMHO, is that those same folks who are controlling our political systems for their own benefit use these differences of opinion to divide us. This keeps us from putting aside our differences so we can work together to create the kind of society of which we can all be proud.
Which brings me to the folks who want to tear our system down. With what shall we replace it?
Destroying one of the bulwarks of our society seems like we're creating change. But what are the consequences of doing so, intended or otherwise?
History (cf. all the infighting and problems with the Articles of Confederation) tells us that a strong central government was necessary back in the late 18th century, and (again, IMHO) is even more important today.
Could government be more distributed than it is? Possibly. Should there be stronger controls on how the central government treats its citizens? Almost certainly.
But if we destroy the "beast in DC" to punish those who have so egregiously abused it, who will pay the price when chaos ensues.
Just some semi-random thoughts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2016, @08:52AM
There is only 1 way to deal with that.
"Citizens United" must be overturned.
That will require a Constitutional Amendment which says that all political campaigns in the USA will be publicly financed.
(Throw in "Money is not speech and corporations are not people" just for good measure.)
It is unfortunate that by the time that process clears all the hurdles, USA will be what used to be called a Third World country.
USA already has 23 percent unemployment and the numbers aren't getting better.
In 2014, the Pricariat [google.com] was over half of all USAians and the numbers for 2015 put it at 60 percent.
These are people hanging on by their fingernails.
An emergency with a cost of $400 means they will have to sell something or take out a loan.
Over the last 4 decades, there has been a coup d'etat in slow motion. [google.com]
Greedy rich people want EVERYTHING for themselves and, via their shark lawyers and no-ethics lobbyists, have pretty much gotten there.
We haven't seen this kind of inequality since the days of the robber barons.
For an example of what comes next, it would be good to look at France in 1789.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @01:16PM
Equality is irrelevant. Objective standard of living is what matters.
And people living hand to mouth do so out of choice. They're quite capable of slightly lowering their SoL and saving for a rainy day, they just choose not to. If they made twice the money, they'd spend twice the money. No amount of equalization of income is capable of making up for foolish fiscal choices.
How you solve this is teach people from a young age to save. Bonus points if you explain why having a sweet ride while living in the projects marks you as an unsalvageable fool.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 14 2016, @04:07PM
Au contraire, mon frere.
*Equality of opportunity* is what's important. That is the basis of true liberty.
Standard of living, objectively defined or not is just a trope, and not a very good one. As Heinlein put it, we are not "producing-consuming economic animal[s] but [men]."
As humans, when we are unable (by circumstance or design) to develop and use our innate abilities, we are diminished and emasculated.
What's more, taking such a narrow view with respect to the value of human life demeans us all and deprives us of the creativity, ingenuity and good works of a large swath of humanity.
Which is made even more tragic when equality of opportunity is arbitrarily denied based on irrelevancies such as geography, melanin content or ancestry.
I understand the "Fuck you, jack! I got mine." attitude. Perhaps with the addendum "Go get your own!"
This assumes that we should treat all things like a zero-sum game. Fair enough.
However, I'd posit that by providing equality of opportunity we can allow those with talent and drive to maximize their potential vis a vis inbred, lazy, and most of all, idle trust fund kids who contribute nothing to society.
tl;dr: Equality of opportunity is an essential tenet of a society that values individual liberty. However, equality of opportunity is not equality of outcomes. The cream will rise to the top. Give each person the chance to maximize their potential and we *all* benefit.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @09:35PM
It most certainly is not. If I choose to spend the sweat of my brow to make the lives of my children easier, that is both my right and none of your business.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @12:06AM
Why not increase copyrights to 200 years while your at it. Surely that hit song you wrote deserves a few extra generations at least.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 15 2016, @09:32AM
Copyright is not a natural right like property. If it exists at all it should be severely limited.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2016, @04:26PM
They're quite capable of slightly lowering their SoL and saving for a rainy day
I'm not sure about that. Rainy days are frequent when you and your family are living in that kind of situation.
A broken tie rod or a snapped timing belt can easily cascade into multiple other problems while the car is out of commission or needs to be replaced. A car accident or a broken arm can wipe out all your savings and getting sick can substantially reduce them.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @09:37PM
Which is precisely why you should be saving. Shit does and will always happen. Take a lesson from the Boy Scouts and Be Prepared.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16 2016, @03:29AM
Even monkeys care about equality. They will deprive themselves instead of getting a better, but less equal, situation.
People in the USA really would be happier with the world of 1948, even if it is poverty by modern standards.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 16 2016, @05:15AM
tl;dr People are fucking idiots? Tell me something I don't know.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:56PM
"Citizens United" must be overturned. That will require a Constitutional Amendment which says that all political campaigns in the USA will be publicly financed. (Throw in "Money is not speech and corporations are not people" just for good measure.)
[...]In 2014, the Pricariat was over half of all USAians and the numbers for 2015 put it at 60 percent. These are people hanging on by their fingernails.
I disagree. I think the huge missing element here is respect for rule of law. A large contributor to the instability and corruption that you claim to care about is a widespread disregard for laws and such not just among the powerful or wealthy, but everywhere. And what is particularly relevant here is that we support protection of everyone not just the parties we like. If the laws allow us to marginalize corporations (and other organizations like labor unions, non profits, etc), then they'll have the leeway to marginalize undesirable ethnic groups, sexual orientation or gender, belief and opinion (muslim or empiricism), behavior (such as use of recreational drugs or walking at night), and anyone too poor to afford a phalanx of lawyers or a stable of politicians. The rich and the powerful still have a right to defend themselves with speech, to petition government and society for redress, etc just like everyone else. Attempt (and more likely than not fail) to take that away and you open up Pandora's box.
When we start picking and choosing who gets the protection of law, carving exceptions or onerous burdens for the groups we don't like, or throwing the wealth of society at the projects we prefer, then those best able to manipulate that sort of system win. I think I'm not spoiling anything by revealing it's not going to be the poor.