Fuel Boycott on the 19th !!

[fivestring]

That's not Democracy.
That's Communism.
If they want more, they should work more, not me.

" <font color="blue">We're all in this, together. </font> "

No we are not.
That's why there are two major political parties and several smaller ones.

I for one say NO to one-world anything. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

<font color="red"> "I think it is possible to break out of the cycle that you have outlined so well, if we have the collective will to forget about greedily protecting what we have and make a serious effort to create alternatives that will benefit everyone. But then, I always have been an optimistic, progressive, utopian idealist." </font>

The best alternative to benefit everyone is for EVERYONE to work.
For everyone to purchase their goods with their EARNED money.
If they are down on their luck, ask for assistance from family and church. That's what they are for.
They should give up the Escalade or Hummer and get a Focus.
They should trade in the 60 inch plasma TV for a 27" with remote from Wallyworld.
Throw Tommy and Nike out and get Wrangler jeans and PayLess shoes.
Oops, time for them to quit smoking because of the cost...
If they are not willing to do that, they should move to a socialist/communist country and not come back.
I, for one, will work a second job to pay for some lazy bum a ticket out of America forever. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I will greedily protect what I have rightly worked hard for and bought with my hard-earned money. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

A democracy is not about everyone having the same things.
Socialism/Communism is.

 

[Junkman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( .......
That's why there are two major political parties and several smaller ones.

I for one say NO to one-world anything. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif )</font>

The one problem with one of the parties, is that they want everyone to accept their idea of God and have no tolerance for any divergence of opinions or other religions. It is a shame that our government has gotten to the point where the line between politics and religion is so blurred, that you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Religion has no place in government or politics, but the political leaders today see religion as the one thing that can get them elected. That is, if they say the "correct" words.

 

[ljh2]

Amen!!! I work hard for what I have. If I was working for the benefit of others, I'd probably be working for a charity. As things go, it would seem that I'm working for the world's largest charity - the recipients of the US taxpayer dollars, both domestic and foreign. I agree that there are certain services that are only practical to implement on a national level: military defense, interstate highways, and wait... what else really requires involvement on a national level? Not much. Most other things would work better if left to a CAPITAL MARKET ECONOMY. People think that 'democracy' is what really drives a successful 'free' society, but what really drives it is a 'capitalist' economy unencumbered by government intervention.

You have the RIGHT to work hard to ACHIEVE whatever YOU choose. According to our 'Declaration of Independence', we all have the 'Right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.' Our society seems to think that we now have the right to happiness, forget about the pursuit, and that we should afford it to the rest of the world too?

By 'helping' the non-contributing members of our society (either domestic or worldwide) through 'financial aid', we propogate an increasingly lopsided 'welfare' system of a shrinking minority supporting a growing majority. Eventually it will be impossible to sustain.

I do not lump the current (or near-term) generation of Social Security recipients into the long-term problem since they are victims of a short-sighted solution instituted on the recovery of the Great Depression. But private retirement savings would definitely be more effective... if people would actually save what they currently contribute to Social Security. It would take a radical shift in social thought processes, just as it did for the first generation of welfare recipients. Early recipients were proud people, reluctant to take anything that they didn't EARN. Now there is little pride left with everyone's hand stuck out waiting for their FREE SLICE of the pie. What happened to pride of self in the last 70 years?

Well, I guess I've seriously gone over the edge on the 'No politics' rules, so this should about do it. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[AMP762]

The one problem with one of the parties, is that they want everyone to accept their idea of God and have no tolerance for any divergence of opinions or other religions. It is a shame that our government has gotten to the point where the line between politics and religion is so blurred, that you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Religion has no place in government or politics, but the political leaders today see religion as the one thing that can get them elected. That is, if they say the "correct" words.

Junkman,sounds like you may have gas /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif I don't care what the parties say, I just worry about what they do.

Paul

 

[fivestring]

<font color="red">"One of his examples was a reformulation of printing ink that allows separation of paper and ink in the recycling process so that clean paper and new ink are the process outputs, with virtually nothing to discard or guard as hazardous waste. He thinks nearly everything could be reengineered if a broader accounting of costs and benefits highlighted the potential benefits." </font>

Another tree-hugger thinking he can change the world.
Not gonna happen.
This same thought process was brought up using soy ink.
Soy ink was pushed in the late 80's and early 90's.
What have we heard about soy ink in the last ten years?
Nothing.

I wish him well on getting his ideas implemented and paid for, though. If he can make a gazillion dollars AND clean up landfills, more power to him!

 

[Libertine]

OkeeDon et al:

One point - civilization as we know it requires the plunder and exploitation of the natural world. period. Even a less technological civilization requires it. So . . . if you oppose the plunder and exploitation of the natural world, you oppose the survival of civilization. The details, are, well, details, no more. I can think of a dozen civilations that went through this cycle of growth, plunder, resource depletion, rapid (or gradual) sinking; some recognized it and fought it through "conservation", others were oblivious to it. But the end was the same, just as it will be for us - only the timing was different.

<font color="blue">As other societies develop a better standard of living (China, for example), it's obvious that we will be increasingly competing for those resources -- there are not enough resources to sustain our standard across the board. </font>

Indeed. You want your cheap Wal-Mart stuff. Fine. But, let me give you an example of the consequences. The price of bronze has gone up 10% recently because of the increased demand by China. So, you are all paying more for anything made out of copper because of your cheap Chinesse imports. (and this is just one tiny example that I have some first hand knowledge of).

<font color="blue"> Our Nation has done a remarkable job with food, for example, beating the Malthusiast Theory. </font>

No, it has done a good job delaying it. One of the problems we all have (including myself) is relating long term trends/tendancies to the clutter of our day to day lives. We live in the present and deal with our day to day problems/activities. It is hard to focus on both the day to day living, even over a few decades, and relate that to the broader sweep of history. But the fact we don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Malthus was right - so was Newton.

<font color="blue">The only other answer I can see, and one that has worked effectively in the past, is to kill off some of the world's population, through disease or war, in order to preserve the existing resources for ourselves. </font>

Well, over the long run, it really doesn't work effectively. It changes the timing and sequence, that's all. But at least it can keep us in the drivers seat awhile longer. The most crucial thing to maintain our ability to dominate (and hence benefit our citizens most) is to maintain overwhelming superiority in millitary power (which made it easy to secure the oil fields in Iraq) and be willing to excersize it ruthlessly (which we don't, which is why we are having the problems there). It's difficult to stop the spread of military technology to our enemies (indeed, look at the previous administration selling nuclear/missle/computer technology to the Chinesse).

My best guess is that we are somewhere in the cycle more or less equivalent to where the Romans were about 2000 years ago. Of course, history doesn't repeat itself exactly. The details, timing and so forth vary. For example, the destruction of our monetary system is comparable to what happened to Rome 225-275 AD). But one thing is clear; the so-called democracy (one man, one vote - mob rule) has to end and some sort of dictatorship (or Caesarism, if you prefer) implemented. How, when, etc. I don't know. But it seems to me that the struggle going on right now in this country is between those who tend to want to see America dominant (the so-called rightists) and who want to level things everywhere (the so-called liberal leftists). Myself, I believe in freedom, individual rights and private property. Boy, am I in the minority.

So, when, how? My suspician is when electronic voting is implemented all over. A "smart" dictator (as Octavian was) will keep the "forms" (so the rabble won't get too upset). A "dumber" dictator (as Julius Caesar was) will make the rabble nervous by changing the forms. The overwhelming majority of people have the idea of egalitarianism, level playing field and all that stuff. Let them vote so they think they're having their "say" (with the vote count decided ahead of time). Of course, nature (and, gentle TBN'r, I hate to tell you but human beings are part of nature) is hierarchical. But, we wouldn't want to upset anyone with unpleasant truths, would we.

Take care.

JEH

 

[fivestring]

<font color="blue">"Myself, I believe in freedom, individual rights and private property. Boy, am I in the minority." </font>

I'm a minority, also. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I believe there are more of us than we see. Most people are afraid to speak.

One of the main things (IMHO) that I see wrong is the "power" of the UN.
They are the main reason (well, Clinton, also) we are back in Iraq. They have no nads except when dealing with USofA.
I say we boot them out of USofA, cut their nads and drop our membership in one-world society. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[OkeeDon]

Libertine, I can't argue with a single thing you said. Doesn't mean I have to like it, because I am one of those so-called liberal leftists, but that doesn't make it any less true.

<font color="blue"> My best guess is that we are somewhere in the cycle more or less equivalent to where the Romans were about 2000 years ago. Of course, history doesn't repeat itself exactly. The details, timing and so forth vary. </font>

My optimism comes from the hope (perhaps in vain) that technology will continue to out pace in areas like food production (like it has to date), and begin to address some of the other fundamental problems (like energy and raw materials). The second source of my optimism is that as cultures develop, population expansion begins to naturally level off -- there's less need of lots of warm bodies to maintain subsistence -- and reaches equilibrium.

I don't give a hoot about government, per se. I don't care if it's a one-world government or a bunch of nationalists, and even isolationists, running things. What I dream about is for enough people to become enlightened that all cultures and governments are working towards common goals.

Unfortunately, I'm realistic enough to know that's not going to happen as long as enough people remain selfish and short-sighted.

Like you say, history repeats itself. But, there has been progress in selective areas, enough so that I can dream my dreams, even though it won't happen in my lifetime.

I guess what I am, really, is an Existentialist -- or, at least how I define Existentialism. In my definition, there is the possibility of eternal life. Not for an individual, but for mankind as a whole. What is required is for enough people to say, and live, the philosophy that each has to do what they can to leave the world a little better off than they found it. And, because too many people are bent on making it worse, a significant number of people have to do more than their share of making it better in order to show some overall progress. Once a critical mass of people follow this philosophy, mankind can continue to exist forever -- eternal life, or eternal existence -- to relate it to the name I used.

It's simple -- and it has nothing to do with religion, laws or politics (although those things may be used to spread the philosophy to those who are reluctant) -- it involves personal responsibility. In each action one takes, one has to ask themselves, "Will this leave the world better or worse off?"

Not every decision we make will be the right ones -- but hopefully, at the end of the day, the balance sheet can be drawn up to show that more things will be beneficial than hurtful.

 

[KNotMe]

Some things are just beyond ones control. Has anybody explained what happened to the dinosaurs?

 

[DAP]

Last count, there's about 11 explanations. Which one would you like? /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif