• James Riley
    2.9k
    think your belief is limiting your ability to understand the change in organizational power that comes with adopting the German model of bureaucracy and the education that goes with it.Athena

    My belief is not limiting my ability to understand your continued reference to the German model of bureaucracy. Did you know that this is like the fifth time you've brought this model up? And did you notice that not one single time did I disagree with your historical lessons regarding this model? You know why I have not disagreed? Because, assuming you are correct:

    1. At no time in history did people, the family, or the community sit down and say "Hey, let's impose upon ourselves the German model of bureaucracy. You know, just for fun! Because, what the hell; we'd like to be oppressed by our own government."
    2. At no time in history did the people's government sit down and say "Hey, let's impose the German model of bureaucracy on the people. You know, just because we're sadistic and we want a more efficient way to screw with our people."

    Your belief that big government is the problem is limiting your ability to understand how and why the change in organizational power came about in the first place, and how it is maintained.

    Follow the money.

    Who pays for the campaigns of the politicians? Who pays for the lobbyists who wine and dine those politicians? Who can afford to do that? Do you think they spend countless billions of dollars buying politicians, drafting self-serving legislation and regulations, supporting bureaucratic red tape to strangle would-be up-and-coming competition, and otherwise molding their subsidiary (government) because it doesn't work? Because they just like throwing money around for nothing? Who said money = speech? Speech is free. What money = is being heard. The Plutocracy is speaking and the government is listening.

    So you see, I can stipulate to all your alleged evils of big government and all your stuff about 1958 and Germans and Prussians and Ike, and whatever. It doesn't matter. It's not the fault of big government. It's the fault of those who own and operate big government. And guess what? That is not the people, the family, or the community. The fault lies squarely at the feet of those who stand between the people and their operation and control of big government.

    Tocqueville foresaw a change, away from family order to bureaucratic order. Do you have any thoughts on what makes the two possible forms of social organization different?Athena

    See above.

    That defines the enemy we fought against. Then we turned around and adopted this enemy's bureaucratic organization and later the enemy's education for technology for industrial and military purpose.Athena

    No, we didn't fight against an enemy and then turn around and adopt the enemy's org. The enemy never lost because we had our eye on the wrong enemy. And the enemy likes it that way.

    People who blame big government are a Plutocrat's wet dream. They love it when they aren't under the spotlight.
  • Michael Zwingli
    416
    The Plutocracy is speaking and the government is listening.James Riley

    You seem very convinced, James, that the nation is, indeed, a "plutocracy"; I am less so. I'm not prepared to say whether the U.S. is, in fact, a "plutocracy" per se, if there is even a set of discernible qualities indicating such a definition, but I do agree that moneyed interests have a great deal of influence with politicians across the political spectrum. Soros and the Koch brothers are only the beginning. If such people do have as much influence as you suggest, though, whose fault is that? Is it not the fault of we the electorate, who continue to reelect the same politicians that allow themselves to be influenced, and their votes to be bought? We can find fault with the values of the wealthy, but we cannot blame them for seeking to exert themselves in realizing their will. We all want to see our individual wills done, do we not? We should not blame the plutocrat for desiring to exert influence, we should blame the politicians for allowing themselves to be influenced, and vote them out of office. If we as an electorate do not do that, then whose fault is the continuing situation regarding political influence?

    In fact, the continuing problem of political influence is one of the problems that I think might be somewhat mitigated by the scheme of distributing social roles among the majority of the citizenry as civic duties, which I posited elsewhere. Another consideration: the larger the organization, the more it tends towards corruption. I think that if we had much smaller nation-states fairly uniformly all over the world, then corruption would be much easier to control. Well, that is only a dream...
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    Soros and the Koch brothers are only the beginning.Michael Zwingli

    You are right: they are only the beginning. The real players are grey men. (See Exxon, Chevron, Goldman, etc.)

    If such people do have as much influence as you suggest, though, whose fault is that?Michael Zwingli

    It's their fault.

    Is it not the fault of we the electorate, who continue to reelect the same politicians that allow themselves to be influenced, and their votes to be bought?Michael Zwingli

    No, it's not. As stated to Athena, money does not equal speech; money equals being heard. We only hear what money wants us to hear. Gerrymandering, laws that favor the two-party system (lesser of two evils), voting restrictions, hatred/division, the so-called "fourth estate", all that and more stands in the way of doing what's right.

    we cannot blame them for seeking to exert themselves in realizing their will.Michael Zwingli

    I certainly can, and do. To quote Spider Man, "With great power comes great responsibility." In some indigenous communities, the counter-intuitive case of the person giving away the most somehow continued to have the most. A great warrior returns with more buffalo than anyone else and he gives it all away to those who can't hunt. Somehow he keeps stumbling on largess and keeps giving. Broad shoulders, lifting, carrying, working hard for the sake of work, philanthropy in silence, without recognition, doing the right thing when no one is watching, honor, integrity, dignity, community, grace, gratefulness. I *think* those are the old "family values", "community values" we sought. We better make a virtue of necessity or we are doomed. Giving a pass to those who stand on the shoulders of everyone else, who never saw a boot-strap in their life, is not in accord with what I think should be our values.

    We all want to see our individual wills done, do we not?Michael Zwingli

    We might indeed, if our collective wills have not been and cannot be expressed. Hell yeah! Every man for himself! We too can be like them, if only we do what they tell us, support them, and step on others on the way up.

    If we as an electorate do not do that, then whose fault is the continuing situation regarding political influence?Michael Zwingli

    It's the fault of those who make government their bitch to the exclusion of those they divide and separate from a viable franchise.
  • Michael Zwingli
    416
    In some indigenous communities, the counter-intuitive case of the person giving away the most somehow continued to have the most. A great warrior returns with more buffalo than anyone else and he gives it all away to those who can't hunt. Somehow he keeps stumbling on largess and keeps giving. Broad shoulders, lifting, carrying, working hard for the sake of work, philanthropy in silence, without recognition, doing the right thing when no one is watching, honor, integrity, dignity, community, grace, gratefulness. I *think* those are the old "family values", "community values" we sought.James Riley

    Now you have elucidated precisely, specifically by the provision of contrast, all the things that I resent the nation-state for. The state provides a favorable environment for the fostering of the diametrically opposing values to those which you have stated, and I hate living within that situation. This is why I have trouble in concieving of our country, and probably of any nation state, as a "community". I cannot easily discern precisely why, but the environment naturally created within a nation state appears adverse to fostering the qualities that you have mentioned, as did the tribe and the clan. Certainly, the existence of complex heirarchies, and of money as a store of value play a role in this. In addition, the sense of interdependence which existed in the tribe, but has been replaced in the state by common dependence upon the state plays a significant role in this. I feel certain that there is even more to it than that. Not that I want to romanticize the tribe and the clan, but there seems to myself to have been therein, a certain social cohesion which created an environment of shared responsibility, and which is absent from the context of the state, wherein there is no discernible social cohesion, but rather a "shared isolation" and mutual, universal distrust. Within the state, nobody "does the right thing when no one is watching", because within that context, "it's all about me", and not "all about us". We have derived many benefits from living within the context of the state: medical, lifespan, educational, economic, but I might be willing to give all that up to have the type of communal, shared experience of life enjoyed within the tribe or the clan.
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    Not that I want to romanticize the tribe and the clan, but there seems to myself to have been a certain social cohesion which created an environment of shared responsibility, and which is absent from the context of the state, wherein there is no discernible social cohesion, but rather a "shared isolation" and mutual, universal distrust.Michael Zwingli

    Yes, I would likewise not romanticize groups that were perfectly capable of acting in the worst of human nature. But I also think we have an opportunity to throw out the bathwater and keep the baby. The state, due to the size of the population over which it exercises authority, does have some practical distance from our tribal forebears. However, I don't think we've really tried very hard to have a state of us, where we view us as family, looking out for each other. That sounds too touchy-feely for the tough guys, but if there were really any true tough guys left, they could set the tone. It would start with education and ostracization, and making a virtue of necessity. I have a long rant on education but I'm tired. As to the cancel culture (ostracization/consequences) and virtue, we just need to champion grace, gratitude, generosity, strength, courage, and maybe just a touch of species-humbleness. We could exalt those who exhibit those traits and turn away from the those who don't (Trump being an example, but there are a lot of grey men and others).

    It's all pipe dreams but it's not unheard of. When I was a kid, the "real man" ideal that little boys aspired to be like was much different from what we see today. Greed turned the point and now the momentum is on the down-swing.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    That is unfortunately true. The leadership of the Third Reich (who probably never even read Nietzsche) cherry-picked utterly uncontextualized terms and phrases from his writings, and applied them in grotesque ways as suited their own purposes. Nietzsche was a highly analytical and complex thinker who dealt with some of the more difficult questions of the philosophy of mind, and had the misfortune while publishing his thoughts, of being a highly introverted personality which was itself urgently suppressing the effects of a latent mental illness. This has made him an easy mark for characterization as some type of "Proto-Nazi" monster by those who have not bothered to study and come to grips with the meanings presented within his opera. There is a good presentation of Nietzsche's personality online here if you are interested: https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA005/English/RSPI1960/GA005_c01_1.htmlMichael Zwingli

    You said that well and I am so glad you easily grasped why I associate him with the Nazis. And it is the same today with modern Nazis. I really don't think our present Nazis are deep thinkers. :lol: I fault education for technology for this problem! In the US, education was modeled after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth and we used the Conceptual Method, teaching increasingly complex concepts. That 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced that education with the German model of education for technology and left moral training to the church which brings to Hegel.

    Hegel was also amazing but his thoughts are tangled with Protestantism and an idea of God and nationalism that some people find objectionable and that brings us to Tocqueville.

    The following contains the explanation of despotism that seems to perfectly describe what is happening. That is one of the last things of which he speaks after beginning with praising how Americans do not depend on the government but work together to take care of those things needing to be done, such as building a courthouse or organizing a posse; forming unions and granges. Each one of his subjects could be food for thought for new threads and if you want to start a thread and build on what he has said, please pm me.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm

    I would like to read your Nietzche link but it does not fit on my screen and I do not know how to resolve that problem.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    My belief is not limiting my ability to understand your continued reference to the German model of bureaucracy. Did you know that this is like the fifth time you've brought this model up?James Riley

    This is where I am going to stop because I see no reason to think you understand the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today that crushes individual liberty and power. When this is not understood, nothing else of importance can be understood stood.
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    This is where I am going to stop because I see no reason to think you understand the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today that crushes individual liberty and power. When this is not understood, nothing else of importance can be understood stood.Athena

    It's probably good that you stop. Because it's apparent that you don't understand that I DO understand what you are saying. You just can't get past your own enthrallment with your education to see that the argument has moved beyond "the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today". I have stipulated to all that. DOH! What I'm talking about is HOW that came to be. You blame big government, as if it did all that, sui sponte. I have tried to teach you HOW that came to be but you don't understand. That's cool. Bye.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    However, I don't think we've really tried very hard to have a state of us, where we view us as family, looking out for each other.James Riley

    I have already shown, in several parts of this work, by what means the inhabitants of the United States almost always manage to combine their own advantage with that of their fellow-citizens: my present purpose is to point out the general rule which enables them to do so. In the United States hardly anybody talks of the beauty of virtue; but they maintain that virtue is useful, and prove it every day. The American moralists do not profess that men ought to sacrifice themselves for their fellow-creatures because it is noble to make such sacrifices; but they boldly aver that such sacrifices are as necessary to him who imposes them upon himself as to him for whose sake they are made. They have found out that in their country and their age man is brought home to himself by an irresistible force; and losing all hope of stopping that force, they turn all their thoughts to the direction of it. They therefore do not deny that every man may follow his own interest; but they endeavor to prove that it is the interest of every man to be virtuous. I shall not here enter into the reasons they allege, which would divert me from my subject: suffice it to say that they have convinced their fellow-countrymen. — Tocqueville

    Thanks to the change in education, not many people know what a virtue is, nor that we once thought a virtue is synonymous with strength. Like Darwinism, Dawkins's selfish gene dominates our thinking, not the literature of the past that advanced a different morality.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    It's probably good that you stop. Because it's apparent that you don't understand that I DO understand what you are sayingJames Riley

    Prove it.
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    Prove it.Athena

    I did. I stipulated to it. Like umpteen times. But apparently not to your satisfaction.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    I did. I stipulated to it. Like umpteen times. But apparently not to your satisfaction.James Riley

    Please refer me to where you have paraphrased what I said about everything being controlled by policy instead of by individuals and I will pick up from there. What are the good reasons for changing the powers of government? Why is social security possible today and not in the past?
  • Athena
    2.9k
    I have tried to teach you HOW that came to be but you don't understand.James Riley

    When was the change made and why?
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    Please refer me to where you have paraphrased what I said about everything being controlled by policy instead of by individuals and I will pick up from there. What are the good reasons for changing the powers of government? Why is social security possible today and not in the past?Athena

    When was the change made and why?Athena

    Drop the tone, honey. You are not a professor and I am not your student. You don't give me assignments to prove I know what you are talking about. I've already stipulated to what you are talking about (go look up the word "stipulate"). If you want to play that game, I will ask you to first hand in your assignment: Answer all the questions I've asked you about HOW and WHY those changes that I have stipulated to came about in the first place.

    P.S. And if you say "big government" just pulled it out of it's ass like a rabbit out of a hat, or the people wanted it, then you have not understood your lesson.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    Rome, totally blew it with their white togas. Imagine how much better their economy could have been with a wide variety of clothes and seasonal changes in what we wear.Athena

    The toga was a garment worn only on formal and ceremonial occasions, you'll be relieved to hear.

    The power and glory of Rome. Why do we admire it?

    For a number of reasons, I think, for all its faults (which are not peculiar to it). For its development of a system of laws that continues even today in various forms (even in Louisiana, where the laws are derivative of the Napoleonic Code, which retained a good deal of Roman law); for the fact that it managed to develop a system of government which ruled over diverse nations and peoples for well over a thousand years if we include the Roman successor states in Western Europe and the Eastern Empire, which though in diminishing form lasted until the 15th century; because it extended citizenship to all people in the Empire; because the Principate became open to men from the provinces (e.g. Spain, North Africa, the Balkan region) and wasn't limited men from Rome itself or Italy; because its longevity assured that Greek art and knowledge as modified by the Latin tradition survived even Christianity; that sort of thing. There has never been anything like it in the West--all Western law, culture and society must look back to it and is reliant on it.

    I think we can assume he was not a liberal when it comes to property rights.Athena

    Cicero was a novus homo, the first in his family to become a member of the Roman Senate and a consul. Having mastered the system, he came to champion it in the struggle to retain the Republic, thus becoming an enemy of Julius Caesar and the first and second triumvirates, (he was killed by order of the second triumverate), forerunners of the Empire. Not a liberal, no; more a conservative along the lines of Burke (actually, Burke was along the lines of Cicero).

    I am not terribly worried about the poor if they can continue to have the essentials of life, such as family and community,Athena

    Ah, perhaps then you agree with Jesus when he said the poor will always be with us. He's been interpreted as saying that we should accordingly be generous to them. But we're not a generous people, are we? Except perhaps sporadically and by impulse. We care far too much about ourselves, our rights, our property, to trouble ourselves with others, and resent it when we're made to even indirectly. Why should other people have the benefit of our money? Here in God's favorite country we're not that far away now from the times in which John Steinbeck's character Tom Joad lived, and are different only to the extent that social welfare programs exist.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    You said you understand what I have said, but I see no indication that you do. From you I see a completely different explanation of why things are as they are, and an objection to me not throwing away my explanation and accepting yours. But a pultocracy does nothing to change family order. Our present technology society has dramatically changed our sociial order as we are no longer ordered by family order. In our technological society a family can be any combination of people we want to call family and it can be very temporary, that does not work in the same way our past understanding of family worked. In the past family fidelity was more important than our emotions and the popular practice of calling one's family toxic and something to avoid. Programs for children modeled a health relationship of children and adults, not children in the roles of adults. We did not expect second graders to be as accedemic as college students being prepared to serve the state, not family.

    How about this one. "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." Aldous Huxley
  • James Riley
    2.9k


    On another thread about stoicism, one "Amity" said to me: "What is your understanding now? Answers to be in essay form. Minimum word count = 200." So, when you asked me to prove that I understood what you said, it came across as you might perceive "big government." Like you, I don't like that. But I also know that my perception of your intent may be just as misunderstood as your perception of why the stipulated dramatic change occurred in our social order.

    But a pultocracy does nothing to change family order.Athena

    And that is where we have our fundamental disagreement. See below:

    How about this one.Athena

    Better yet, how about this one:

    Every single solitary thing you just said (Huxley), and have said (repeatedly), constitutes what those in the medical profession would call a "symptom." I can stipulate to your recitation of all those symptoms all day long. And indeed, I agree with you on virtually all of those symptoms. But I am talking about the CAUSE. To the extent you consider causation at all, you point your finger at big government/bureaucracy. Our fundamental disagreement is on that point. I say that big money is behind the government/bureaucracy, and that the government/bureaucracy is simply a symptom.

    I really don't know what else I can say, unless and until you can argue that big money is not the cause. I suppose we could point to fundamental human stupidity, or masochism, or a desire to be subjugated, or whatever, but I haven't heard you cite those or any other reason. All I hear is "big government/bureaucracy", as if those things exist, unfunded, in a vacuum.

    247215554_1254484358389935_5090490280668298969_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=208t4yuMazYAX9NJUWZ&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=9a32608c073b35ab843d0b0a43461572&oe=6174951C
  • Athena
    2.9k
    Ah, perhaps then you agree with Jesus when he said the poor will always be with us. He's been interpreted as saying that we should accordingly be generous to them. But we're not a generous people, are we? Except perhaps sporadically and by impulse. We care far too much about ourselves, our rights, our property, to trouble ourselves with others, and resent it when we're made to even indirectly. Why should other people have the benefit of our money? Here in God's favorite country we're not that far away now from the times in which John Steinbeck's character Tom Joad lived, and are different only to the extent that social welfare programs exist.Ciceronianus

    I am agreeable with everything you said and have nothing to argue or add to what you said, until your last paragraph. Yes, I agree with Jesus that we will always have the poor with us, but the 1970 recession taught me important things about myself and poverty. Up until this time I was one of the "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people", you know, the one's in need. I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that those of us born white and middle class could never have. The 1970 recession made me one of "those people".

    The reason White middle class people could not have the meaningful experience of poverty is, number 1, they are privileged. They could play at poverty but as long as poverty is a choice it is not the real thing. As long as there are jobs to be had and family and friends to turn for help, poverty is a choice and not real thing. The recession meant no jobs and family and friends didn't have eoungh to share. We could not assemilate the young into the economy and when older people were laid off, they often lost everything. After years of tightening my belt, everything was worn out and breaking down and there was no money to replace it. That is when I became concerned about economics and the role government plays, which lead to understanding what mineral resources have to do with economies and little things like WAR.

    This can get way off topic. Many things play into poverty and many things play into good times. Government plays a much larger role in this now than in the past. WWI was a huge turning point, and WW II made war a permanent factor in our lives. We are on a treadmill that does not turn off, but someday it may come to a sudden stop and once again our survival may depend more on family than the government and career opportunites. We can look to Rome for a better understanding of all of this.
  • Athena
    2.9k


    Big money is not the cause. Without it, we would be much worse off for several reasons. One reason is fiat money.

    There is nothing funny about our military spending. It is economically essential and right now China has far more advanced military technology and is in a position to win a nuclear war. We are seriously vulnerable right now.

    Our school children get a free breakfast and lunch and if the family is low income the family can get a SNAP card for food, and medical care, and possibly assistance for housing and their education is free to them. There is not enough to meet the growing need for assistance, but paying for more is a challenge, and if we did not have a successful economic system (most of the time) none of that would be possible.

    In the past, we didn't have any of that. Family had to depend on family and charity. By law, fathers were held responsible for providing for their families, and mothers were held responsible for caring for them.
    I do not object to the government relieving mothers and fathers of their responsibilities, but there is a price for doing that and the price is not just money.
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    There is nothing funny about our military spending.Athena

    Nobody is laughing, except the MIC (Plutocracy).

    It is economically essential and right now China has far more advanced military technology and is in a position to win a nuclear war. We are seriously vulnerable right now.Athena

    In 2019, the U.S. remained the world's top military spender by far, at about $649 billion. China was second at about $261 billion. So, we are seriously WASTING our money, or someone is blowing smoke up your butt. Can you say MIC?

    By the way, where do you think China got all that money? Was it from those American made widgets sold in America by our benevolent Plutocracy?

    There is not enough to meet the growing need for assistance, but paying for more is a challenge,Athena

    Yeah, when we piss a trillion down the drain on a POS fighter plane. You're old enough to recall the old bake sale sign.

    In the past, we didn't have any of that. Family had to depend on family and charityAthena

    Well, just make sure you keep blaming the government while those who are responsible laugh all the way to themselves.
  • Michael Zwingli
    416
    Cicero...he was killed by order of the second triumverate...Ciceronianus

    By order of Antony...the bastard.
  • Michael Zwingli
    416
    We care far too much about ourselves, our rights, our property, to trouble ourselves with others, and resent it when we're made to even indirectly.Ciceronianus

    Very accurately and succinctly said. I am very torn on this issue. I don't like the government compelling private citizens to do anything, but we must provide relief and hope to the less fortunate. I feel that the central problem is that of our culture, which is too individualistic and not communal enough to override basic human nature and the defensive mechanisms of the human mind.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    Well, just make sure you keep blaming the government while those who are responsible laugh all the way to themselves.James Riley

    Here is what you are saying,

    The term plutocracy is generally used as a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition.[2][3] Throughout history, political thinkers and philosophers such as Winston Churchill, Alexis de Tocqueville, Spanish monarchist Juan Donoso Cortés and Noam Chomsky, have condemned plutocrats for ignoring their social responsibilities, using their power to serve their own purposes and thereby increasing poverty and nurturing class conflict; corrupting societies with greed and hedonism. — wikipedia

    This thread is about social order, and especially about relying on the government for our needs or our families. I have said in the past our social order was based on family order and independence of government, that this is no longer true. I do not see your argument as addressing the family matter. How would you say a plutocracy determines our social order and family values?
  • Athena
    2.9k
    Very accurately and succinctly said. I am very torn on this issue. I don't like the government compelling private citizens to do anything, but we must provide relief and hope to the less fortunate. I feel that the central problem is that of our culture, which is too individualistic and not communal enough to override basic human nature and the defensive mechanisms of the human mind.Michael Zwingli

    How about listening to women? A matriarchy is very different from a patriarchy. Since women have held seats of power, a whole lot more has been done for children and vulnerable people in general. The difference in the focus of women's lives compared to the male focus concerns me and I am not sure this difference will be maintained as women leave their homes to have careers or work in factories. The meaning of being a good woman has changed and what might be the ramifications of this change?
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    Here is what you are sayingAthena

    I agree with that quote.

    This thread is about social order, and especially about relying on the government for our needs or our families.Athena

    So you want to focus on the symptoms and not the cause. Got it.

    I have said in the past our social order was based on family order and independence of government, that this is no longer true.Athena

    And I have stipulated to that.

    I do not see your argument as addressing the family matter.Athena

    Because you want to talk symptoms, not cause.

    How would you say a plutocracy determines our social order and family values?Athena

    I've beat that horse to death. As already explained, the Plutocracy uses, as a tool, that very government/bureaucracy to do the things that the family and the community used to do. But even then, it only allows that to be done enough to keep the people's focus on government/bureaucracy, bread and circuses, etc. and to keep the pitchforks in the barn, or pointed at each other, or at government/bureaucracy; all while still producing the largess flooding up to them. That is only one aspect. They also own the media, sew division, spread myths about ourselves, etc.

    If you don't like government/bureaucracy and what it is doing, that is primarily because you, the family and the community don't control it. As stated, the problem is not big government. The problem is who controls it.

    246046622_1252629381908766_4173580891300702985_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Xod--dY5jt4AX85mqQ4&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=77e88b41f345b32b4ef98626cbe9b4cb&oe=6173AED2
  • Athena
    2.9k
    Nobody is laughing, except the MIC (Plutocracy).James Riley

    This is off topic but you do understand what oil has to do with all industrial economies and what military might has to do with controlling oil, right? What does the plutocracy have to do with those realities?

    I suppose you could use Cheney and Halliburton to answer that question, but Cheney and the neocons are not the cause of the reality, they are only people with a good understanding of those realities and therefore know how to position themselves to take advantage of the realities. We could call them plutocrats and we most certainly can question their morality, but what do they have to do with our family values and social order?
  • Athena
    2.9k
    If you don't like government/bureaucracy and what it is doing, that is primarily because you, the family and the community don't control it. As stated, the problem is not big government. The problem is who controls it.James Riley

    Great, what is it about the bureaucracy I do not like? How was the bureaucracy different before adopting the German model?
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    This is off topic but you do understand what oil has to do with all industrial economies and what military might has to do with controlling oil, right? What does the plutocracy have to do with those realities?Athena

    You got me. You win. The Plutocracy couldn't possibly have anything to do with the economy, oil, or the MIC.

    but what do they have to do with our family values and social order?Athena

    Nothing. You got me. You win.

    Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. If you have a problem, blame government.
  • James Riley
    2.9k
    Great, what is it about the bureaucracy I do not like? How was the bureaucracy different before adopting the German model?Athena

    Well, before families got together and decided to adopt the German model, families used to run everything. After families adopted the German model, an evil government/bureaucracy arose to subdue them, oppress them, turn them against each other, and milk them like a borrowed cow. Now families, oil companies, CEOs, majority shareholders and other common, salt-of-the-Earth folk suffer; while evil bureaucrats are each worth millions and billions of dollars, setting policy and regulations and forcing to common working oilman to send in all his hard earned money to keep the bureaucrats in the standard of living to which they want to become accustomed.
  • Athena
    2.9k
    This is off topic but you do understand what oil has to do with all industrial economies and what military might has to do with controlling oil, right? What does the plutocracy have to do with those realities?
    — Athena

    You got me. You win. The Plutocracy couldn't possibly have anything to do with the economy, oil, or the MIC.

    but what do they have to do with our family values and social order?
    — Athena

    Nothing. You got me. You win.

    Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. If you have a problem, blame government.
    James Riley

    Well, before families got together and decided to adopt the German model, families used to run everything. After families adopted the German model, an evil government/bureaucracy arose to subdue them, oppress them, turn them against each other, and milk them like a borrowed cow. Now families, oil companies, CEOs, majority shareholders and other common, salt-of-the-Earth folk suffer; while evil bureaucrats are each worth millions and billions of dollars, setting policy and regulations and forcing to common working oilman to send in all his hard earned money to keep the bureaucrats in the standard of living to which they want to become accustomed.James Riley

    Your smart-ass answers are the last straw. We are done.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.