Good question
Peace Train: Is the U.S. addicted to violence? - Colorado Daily
Israel's attack on essentially defenseless Palestinians as well as its merciless siege against Gaza simply adds to the list of monstrous war crimes. Shamefully, the U.S. and its Western puppets didn't call for sanctions on Israel to stop the massacre of Palestinians that was occurring before our eyes. Instead the E.U. wagged its finger and the U.S. rearmed Israel. While most of the Western political and religious leaders, especially Jews, said nothing or supported Israeli crimes, the razing of Gaza and the barbaric attacks on civilians continued. If this is Western civilization, there is little hope.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Did you want a long philosophical debate or a straight answer ?
OK lets cut to the chase......YES frighteningly, sorrowfully, woefully......yes.....probably.....as long as it for OUR benefit or against our percieved enemy.....and our hands don't get bloodied.
OK lets cut to the chase......YES frighteningly, sorrowfully, woefully......yes.....probably.....as long as it for OUR benefit or against our percieved enemy.....and our hands don't get bloodied.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Yet Sean Hannity on Fox News has stated that he thinks Israel has shown too much restraint.
Now there's someone who isn't thrown by something as trivial as dead Palestinian kids. He wants more of the same. More violence
Russell Brand Asks Sean Hannity And Fox News To 'Return To Humanity' In Emotional Video Appeal
Now there's someone who isn't thrown by something as trivial as dead Palestinian kids. He wants more of the same. More violence
Russell Brand Asks Sean Hannity And Fox News To 'Return To Humanity' In Emotional Video Appeal
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
I think that there are two psychological maladies at play here. One is that we perceive military action as strength and negotiation as weakness. The other thing is that we view military conflict as some sort of team sport. As such, we have a double standard, perceiving "cheating" or rules violations as much less egregious if they are committed by "our team" than we do if the same actions are committed by "their team". Witness the recent objection to the word "torture" when done by us but condemning the same behavior when done by anyone else.
The problem is also made worse by the fact that war and conflict anywhere in the world is very profitable for the few. If you follow the sale of rockets, missiles, plane, and other military hardware by the west, it becomes clear that we are arming all sides of a conflict either directly or indirectly.
The problem is also made worse by the fact that war and conflict anywhere in the world is very profitable for the few. If you follow the sale of rockets, missiles, plane, and other military hardware by the west, it becomes clear that we are arming all sides of a conflict either directly or indirectly.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
As I have stated elsewhere, I still believe it stems from the "Right To Bear Arms". This all stems from the War of Independence, where citizens were given the right to bear arms as defence from King George & his Redcoats. The problem is that this right was never rescinded, and I don't think there's really much change of America being at risk from our Redcoats any more.
The claim is always that they have the guns as Self Defence, but an Assault Rifle is, by definition, an ASSAULT weapon (the clue's in the name), not a DEFENSIVE weapon.
At least Obama is trying to do something about the Gun Laws, but is facing massive protest against the NRA Lobbyists.
Whenever there is another massacre when some nut goes ape blasting away at kids in a playground, the cry goes out to ban firearms, but the events of the day are soon forgotten & become all too commonplace. For instance, who can remember offhand, without Googling it what the name of the last town / school / gunman that made the International News was? I know I can't.
Fortunately, in the UK we live in a relatively low crime / violence environment, despite it not seeming so whenever we hear of certain events. But it's the very fact that we get to hear of these events that highlights the overall lower levels. Otherwise they wouldn't be newsworthy. Serial killings over here are headline news for months, years, or for ever (Eg. Hindley / Brady, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe etc.), but in the US such serial killings are a daily event & rarely reach the public eye. It's just not news any more.
Having been raised in such a culture, there is always the "Next Branch Of The Tree" mentality, inherently bringing about the need to rattle their swords that little bit louder & accordingly to become the self designated Police Force of the world, making their own laws that everyone else should abide by.
The claim is always that they have the guns as Self Defence, but an Assault Rifle is, by definition, an ASSAULT weapon (the clue's in the name), not a DEFENSIVE weapon.
At least Obama is trying to do something about the Gun Laws, but is facing massive protest against the NRA Lobbyists.
Whenever there is another massacre when some nut goes ape blasting away at kids in a playground, the cry goes out to ban firearms, but the events of the day are soon forgotten & become all too commonplace. For instance, who can remember offhand, without Googling it what the name of the last town / school / gunman that made the International News was? I know I can't.
Fortunately, in the UK we live in a relatively low crime / violence environment, despite it not seeming so whenever we hear of certain events. But it's the very fact that we get to hear of these events that highlights the overall lower levels. Otherwise they wouldn't be newsworthy. Serial killings over here are headline news for months, years, or for ever (Eg. Hindley / Brady, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe etc.), but in the US such serial killings are a daily event & rarely reach the public eye. It's just not news any more.
Having been raised in such a culture, there is always the "Next Branch Of The Tree" mentality, inherently bringing about the need to rattle their swords that little bit louder & accordingly to become the self designated Police Force of the world, making their own laws that everyone else should abide by.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1461710 wrote: As I have stated elsewhere, I still believe it stems from the "Right To Bear Arms". This all stems from the War of Independence, where citizens were given the right to bear arms as defence from King George & his Redcoats. The problem is that this right was never rescinded, and I don't think there's really much change of America being at risk from our Redcoats any more.
The claim is always that they have the guns as Self Defence, but an Assault Rifle is, by definition, an ASSAULT weapon (the clue's in the name), not a DEFENSIVE weapon.
At least Obama is trying to do something about the Gun Laws, but is facing massive protest against the NRA Lobbyists.
Whenever there is another massacre when some nut goes ape blasting away at kids in a playground, the cry goes out to ban firearms, but the events of the day are soon forgotten & become all too commonplace. For instance, who can remember offhand, without Googling it what the name of the last town / school / gunman that made the International News was? I know I can't.
Fortunately, in the UK we live in a relatively low crime / violence environment, despite it not seeming so whenever we hear of certain events. But it's the very fact that we get to hear of these events that highlights the overall lower levels. Otherwise they wouldn't be newsworthy. Serial killings over here are headline news for months, years, or for ever (Eg. Hindley / Brady, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe etc.), but in the US such serial killings are a daily event & rarely reach the public eye. It's just not news any more.
Having been raised in such a culture, there is always the "Next Branch Of The Tree" mentality, inherently bringing about the need to rattle their swords that little bit louder & accordingly to become the self designated Police Force of the world, making their own laws that everyone else should abide by.
You don't "Give" people a right.
A right is an inalienable entitlement. People can give up a right. People can never actually know they have a right, and therefore fail to exercise it. People can even willfully decline to exercise a right. But the right is theirs should they choose to exercise it.
The colonists had the right to defend their hard won territory, and having won it from the British, they insisted upon having certain rights written into the constitution to prevent the newly forming government from ignoring those rights, and overstepping its boundaries. Those rights were not granted by the government. They were guaranteed by the people.
How our government is behaving these days is not a result of us retaining our rights. It is the result of too many other nations simply allowing us to carry on this way since the end of the World War.
The claim is always that they have the guns as Self Defence, but an Assault Rifle is, by definition, an ASSAULT weapon (the clue's in the name), not a DEFENSIVE weapon.
At least Obama is trying to do something about the Gun Laws, but is facing massive protest against the NRA Lobbyists.
Whenever there is another massacre when some nut goes ape blasting away at kids in a playground, the cry goes out to ban firearms, but the events of the day are soon forgotten & become all too commonplace. For instance, who can remember offhand, without Googling it what the name of the last town / school / gunman that made the International News was? I know I can't.
Fortunately, in the UK we live in a relatively low crime / violence environment, despite it not seeming so whenever we hear of certain events. But it's the very fact that we get to hear of these events that highlights the overall lower levels. Otherwise they wouldn't be newsworthy. Serial killings over here are headline news for months, years, or for ever (Eg. Hindley / Brady, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe etc.), but in the US such serial killings are a daily event & rarely reach the public eye. It's just not news any more.
Having been raised in such a culture, there is always the "Next Branch Of The Tree" mentality, inherently bringing about the need to rattle their swords that little bit louder & accordingly to become the self designated Police Force of the world, making their own laws that everyone else should abide by.
You don't "Give" people a right.
A right is an inalienable entitlement. People can give up a right. People can never actually know they have a right, and therefore fail to exercise it. People can even willfully decline to exercise a right. But the right is theirs should they choose to exercise it.
The colonists had the right to defend their hard won territory, and having won it from the British, they insisted upon having certain rights written into the constitution to prevent the newly forming government from ignoring those rights, and overstepping its boundaries. Those rights were not granted by the government. They were guaranteed by the people.
How our government is behaving these days is not a result of us retaining our rights. It is the result of too many other nations simply allowing us to carry on this way since the end of the World War.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
posted by larsmac
How our government is behaving these days is not a result of us retaining our rights. It is the result of too many other nations simply allowing us to carry on this way since the end of the World War.
Nothing to do with the people that elected them then?
posted by larsmac
The colonists had the right to defend their hard won territory, and having won it from the British, they insisted upon having certain rights written into the constitution to prevent the newly forming government from ignoring those rights, and overstepping its boundaries. Those rights were not granted by the government. They were guaranteed by the people.
This may sound cynical but imo the noble sentiments barely lasted as long as it took the ink to dry. for instance when those who had actually done the fighting were denied the right to vote unless they had property. Even now many fall for the canard that they have no "right" to demand their government do anything for them and the men of property are somehow uniquely placed to run things. (trickle down economics, does anyone with half a brain really fall for that?)
Twas ever so not just america. Mankind is a violent creature.
How our government is behaving these days is not a result of us retaining our rights. It is the result of too many other nations simply allowing us to carry on this way since the end of the World War.
Nothing to do with the people that elected them then?
posted by larsmac
The colonists had the right to defend their hard won territory, and having won it from the British, they insisted upon having certain rights written into the constitution to prevent the newly forming government from ignoring those rights, and overstepping its boundaries. Those rights were not granted by the government. They were guaranteed by the people.
This may sound cynical but imo the noble sentiments barely lasted as long as it took the ink to dry. for instance when those who had actually done the fighting were denied the right to vote unless they had property. Even now many fall for the canard that they have no "right" to demand their government do anything for them and the men of property are somehow uniquely placed to run things. (trickle down economics, does anyone with half a brain really fall for that?)
Twas ever so not just america. Mankind is a violent creature.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
LarsMac;1461712 wrote: You don't "Give" people a right.
A right is an inalienable entitlement. People can give up a right. People can never actually know they have a right, and therefore fail to exercise it. People can even willfully decline to exercise a right. But the right is theirs should they choose to exercise it.
So who 'gave America' the 'Right' to Police the World? The U.N. refused them authority to invade Iraq, yet they went over their heads regardless. Where is the 'Right' their. If invited by another Government, that is being Given the Right. To forcibly take it is not a Right at all.
Of course rights are given. You call it 'Granted'. It boils down to the same thing. In a Democracy the People should have the Right to make changes, as opposed to being bound by constantly changing circumstances. For instance - according to the American Constitution (?), for anyone to be elected as President he/she has to have been born in America. OK, but what if the majority of the country want to vote, say, for Arnold Schwartzeneger (sp), who has been in US Politics a long time now, and seems to have served his constituents well? Anyone may have been brought to America as a baby & have lived there all their lives as a full American Citizen, but if they weren't actually born there then they can never stand for Presidency, because they don't have the right. So what if the Government (or 'People' that votes the Government in) were to give / grant that Right? Unlikely, as the cry goes up that that would be in Breach of the Constitution. This means that Democracy has failed by being bound by rules of previous generations when circumstances were totally different.
A right is an inalienable entitlement. People can give up a right. People can never actually know they have a right, and therefore fail to exercise it. People can even willfully decline to exercise a right. But the right is theirs should they choose to exercise it.
So who 'gave America' the 'Right' to Police the World? The U.N. refused them authority to invade Iraq, yet they went over their heads regardless. Where is the 'Right' their. If invited by another Government, that is being Given the Right. To forcibly take it is not a Right at all.
Of course rights are given. You call it 'Granted'. It boils down to the same thing. In a Democracy the People should have the Right to make changes, as opposed to being bound by constantly changing circumstances. For instance - according to the American Constitution (?), for anyone to be elected as President he/she has to have been born in America. OK, but what if the majority of the country want to vote, say, for Arnold Schwartzeneger (sp), who has been in US Politics a long time now, and seems to have served his constituents well? Anyone may have been brought to America as a baby & have lived there all their lives as a full American Citizen, but if they weren't actually born there then they can never stand for Presidency, because they don't have the right. So what if the Government (or 'People' that votes the Government in) were to give / grant that Right? Unlikely, as the cry goes up that that would be in Breach of the Constitution. This means that Democracy has failed by being bound by rules of previous generations when circumstances were totally different.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1461730 wrote:
Of course rights are given. You call it 'Granted'. .
I think you are talking at cross purposes or not understanding each other.
Who gives/grants "Rights ?"
The Government ? NO !!
Well......the Government IS the people or at least the Government is working on behalf of the people that voted for them to "Represent" them, not "Govern" them.
The people are the dog, wagging the government tail, or that is the way it should work.
Of course rights are given. You call it 'Granted'. .
I think you are talking at cross purposes or not understanding each other.
Who gives/grants "Rights ?"
The Government ? NO !!
Well......the Government IS the people or at least the Government is working on behalf of the people that voted for them to "Represent" them, not "Govern" them.
The people are the dog, wagging the government tail, or that is the way it should work.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bruv;1461732 wrote: I think you are talking at cross purposes or not understanding each other.
Who gives/grants "Rights ?"
The Government ? NO !!
Well......the Government IS the people or at least the Government is working on behalf of the people that voted for them to "Represent" them, not "Govern" them.
The people are the dog, wagging the government tail, or that is the way it should work.
That's the key word - "should".
If the Government are voted in to represent the people, not to govern them, why is it called a Government & not a Representment?
Who gives/grants "Rights ?"
The Government ? NO !!
Well......the Government IS the people or at least the Government is working on behalf of the people that voted for them to "Represent" them, not "Govern" them.
The people are the dog, wagging the government tail, or that is the way it should work.
That's the key word - "should".
If the Government are voted in to represent the people, not to govern them, why is it called a Government & not a Representment?
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Govern
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bruv;1461737 wrote: Govern
Looks about right to me.
Looks about right to me.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
LarsMac;1461712 wrote: You don't "Give" people a right.
A right is an inalienable entitlement. People can give up a right. People can never actually know they have a right, and therefore fail to exercise it. People can even willfully decline to exercise a right. But the right is theirs should they choose to exercise it.
There used to be a "right" to take any drugs you wanted, cocaine, heroin, whatever. But it was seen that that "right" cost society too much pain and destruction and it was "given up." (Outlawed) Why can't that happen to guns?
But not to get side-tracked, "Is the world addicted to violence?" Let's see....this weekend, I watched, "The Longest Day," "The Transporter," "Operation Pacific," and three episodes of "The Last Ship." I also played approximately six hours of "Assassin's Creed III" where I committed over a hundred violent murders of English Redcoats (Death to the damn Torries!)in the American Revolutionary War, sank eight ships, blew up one fort, and beat the tar out of one pickpocket. Worst of all, I watched CNN for at least four hours which was basically nothing but carnage.
so yes, I'd say, absolutely addicted.
(on the lighter side, I did watch two episodes of "Kitchen Nightmares" which is only semi-violent, one episode of "House Hunters", the Disney movie "Frozen," and I played an hour of "The Testament of Sherlock Holmes" which is also only semi-violent.)
A right is an inalienable entitlement. People can give up a right. People can never actually know they have a right, and therefore fail to exercise it. People can even willfully decline to exercise a right. But the right is theirs should they choose to exercise it.
There used to be a "right" to take any drugs you wanted, cocaine, heroin, whatever. But it was seen that that "right" cost society too much pain and destruction and it was "given up." (Outlawed) Why can't that happen to guns?
But not to get side-tracked, "Is the world addicted to violence?" Let's see....this weekend, I watched, "The Longest Day," "The Transporter," "Operation Pacific," and three episodes of "The Last Ship." I also played approximately six hours of "Assassin's Creed III" where I committed over a hundred violent murders of English Redcoats (Death to the damn Torries!)in the American Revolutionary War, sank eight ships, blew up one fort, and beat the tar out of one pickpocket. Worst of all, I watched CNN for at least four hours which was basically nothing but carnage.
so yes, I'd say, absolutely addicted.
(on the lighter side, I did watch two episodes of "Kitchen Nightmares" which is only semi-violent, one episode of "House Hunters", the Disney movie "Frozen," and I played an hour of "The Testament of Sherlock Holmes" which is also only semi-violent.)
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bruv;1461732 wrote: I think you are talking at cross purposes or not understanding each other.
Who gives/grants "Rights ?"
The Government ? NO !!
Well......the Government IS the people or at least the Government is working on behalf of the people that voted for them to "Represent" them, not "Govern" them.
The people are the dog, wagging the government tail, or that is the way it should work.
That is the way it should work. Of course it has been a long struggle to get even as far as we have.
Look at the history of you own nation. How difficult was it to create and hold on to the rights listed in the Magna Carta?
The history of civilization is of men struggling with those who would govern them.
Who gives/grants "Rights ?"
The Government ? NO !!
Well......the Government IS the people or at least the Government is working on behalf of the people that voted for them to "Represent" them, not "Govern" them.
The people are the dog, wagging the government tail, or that is the way it should work.
That is the way it should work. Of course it has been a long struggle to get even as far as we have.
Look at the history of you own nation. How difficult was it to create and hold on to the rights listed in the Magna Carta?
The history of civilization is of men struggling with those who would govern them.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1461730 wrote: So who 'gave America' the 'Right' to Police the World? The U.N. refused them authority to invade Iraq, yet they went over their heads regardless. Where is the 'Right' their. If invited by another Government, that is being Given the Right. To forcibly take it is not a Right at all.
Of course rights are given. You call it 'Granted'. It boils down to the same thing. In a Democracy the People should have the Right to make changes, as opposed to being bound by constantly changing circumstances. For instance - according to the American Constitution (?), for anyone to be elected as President he/she has to have been born in America. OK, but what if the majority of the country want to vote, say, for Arnold Schwartzeneger (sp), who has been in US Politics a long time now, and seems to have served his constituents well? Anyone may have been brought to America as a baby & have lived there all their lives as a full American Citizen, but if they weren't actually born there then they can never stand for Presidency, because they don't have the right. So what if the Government (or 'People' that votes the Government in) were to give / grant that Right? Unlikely, as the cry goes up that that would be in Breach of the Constitution. This means that Democracy has failed by being bound by rules of previous generations when circumstances were totally different.
Of course we can change that. Women vote; slaves were freed; it requires an amendment to the Constitution, which ain't easy, but possible.
List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course rights are given. You call it 'Granted'. It boils down to the same thing. In a Democracy the People should have the Right to make changes, as opposed to being bound by constantly changing circumstances. For instance - according to the American Constitution (?), for anyone to be elected as President he/she has to have been born in America. OK, but what if the majority of the country want to vote, say, for Arnold Schwartzeneger (sp), who has been in US Politics a long time now, and seems to have served his constituents well? Anyone may have been brought to America as a baby & have lived there all their lives as a full American Citizen, but if they weren't actually born there then they can never stand for Presidency, because they don't have the right. So what if the Government (or 'People' that votes the Government in) were to give / grant that Right? Unlikely, as the cry goes up that that would be in Breach of the Constitution. This means that Democracy has failed by being bound by rules of previous generations when circumstances were totally different.
Of course we can change that. Women vote; slaves were freed; it requires an amendment to the Constitution, which ain't easy, but possible.
List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1461710 wrote:
At least Obama is trying to do something about the Gun Laws, but is facing massive protest against the NRA Lobbyists.
Some day, all good liberals...in the U.S. and elsewhere....wherever he still has fans, will wake up to the reality that Barack Obama is an empty suit! He never would have been handpicked by Penny Pritzker and introduced to Wall Street execs as their best candidate for president, if he did have a mind of his own! The facts are that the ideal candidate for the job will never get to the starting line of the nomination process in either Party!
He...like so many other lifelong politicos, is a classic narcissist, who has little if any concern for the issues that swirl about, and his focus will remain on doing what is best for Barack Obama. And, under the present political climate, that means doing what the oligarchs and military&security establishment want....not the common voters! And that's why he has betrayed his base supporters over and over and over again.
Unfortunately, unlike the mouth-breathing rightwingers who function as the base of the Republican Party, the liberal base of the Democratic Party don't have the guts to rise up against the big money candidates who are picked by the Party! They may grumble and bitch about how a more suitable candidate could have been chosen, but they NEVER rise up and go en-mass to the candidate nomination meetings and upend an established Democrat, like the tea party crazies do when they decide their Republican candidate isn't "conservative" enough....check Eric Cantor for the details on that one.
And that's why the Money that runs the Republican Party fear their base, and are always looking nervously over their shoulder, and making concessions to them. What concessions does the Democratic Party leadership ever make towards their base?
At least Obama is trying to do something about the Gun Laws, but is facing massive protest against the NRA Lobbyists.
Some day, all good liberals...in the U.S. and elsewhere....wherever he still has fans, will wake up to the reality that Barack Obama is an empty suit! He never would have been handpicked by Penny Pritzker and introduced to Wall Street execs as their best candidate for president, if he did have a mind of his own! The facts are that the ideal candidate for the job will never get to the starting line of the nomination process in either Party!
He...like so many other lifelong politicos, is a classic narcissist, who has little if any concern for the issues that swirl about, and his focus will remain on doing what is best for Barack Obama. And, under the present political climate, that means doing what the oligarchs and military&security establishment want....not the common voters! And that's why he has betrayed his base supporters over and over and over again.
Unfortunately, unlike the mouth-breathing rightwingers who function as the base of the Republican Party, the liberal base of the Democratic Party don't have the guts to rise up against the big money candidates who are picked by the Party! They may grumble and bitch about how a more suitable candidate could have been chosen, but they NEVER rise up and go en-mass to the candidate nomination meetings and upend an established Democrat, like the tea party crazies do when they decide their Republican candidate isn't "conservative" enough....check Eric Cantor for the details on that one.
And that's why the Money that runs the Republican Party fear their base, and are always looking nervously over their shoulder, and making concessions to them. What concessions does the Democratic Party leadership ever make towards their base?
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
LarsMac;1461681 wrote: Good question
Peace Train: Is the U.S. addicted to violence? - Colorado Daily
The main reason: Israel is the proving ground for new U.S. weapons as well as tactics and strategies for urban warfare and population management. Israel "advises" many other nations besides the U.S. in counter-insurgency, which is why they have a number of secret allies...like the dictator running Egypt and the Saudi royal family. Despots all around the world who only fear revolutions and armed uprisings, want to know how the Israelis do it. So, don't expect the peace train to leave the station!
The author is fundamentally on the right track by his assessment in the subheading: "If barbaric attacks is a part of civilization, there's little hope." But, it should be noting, that what he is calling 'civilization' is a form of social organization that developed late in human development - about 5000 years ago with the addition of animal agriculture, and the patriarchal norms that were established and reinforced socially through the religions that established patriarchal hierarchies as the norms of behaviour, did not become completely worldwide until the modern age. Nowadays, there is almost no one outside of the reach of what we deem as civilized, and the economic system that has been refined to create a global capitalism, prevents any large scale withdrawal from a system that thinks only of short term gain/ and cannot deal with long term consequences.
*should add that the main reason why the U.S., Israel and just about everyone else seems to be more violent and ruthless today, is because this world is reaching resource limits - especially oil; and capitalism is a ruthless economic system based on exploitation: first exploiting nature for useable and consumable products, but as raw materials become scarcer, nations of the world become more aggressive and violent in the effort to keep their ways of living functioning and their economies growing. Nearly all of the regional hotspot wars presently going on today, can be directly connected with resource prices and rising food prices because of increasing droughts at mid-latitudes due to climate change.
Our entire economic system is incompatible with long term survival of the human race, and there is less willingness to examine how we live today than there was 30 or 40 years ago....so, it seems more than likely that we will be steered along the present course in the years and decades to come, until there is no one left to fight about anything.
Peace Train: Is the U.S. addicted to violence? - Colorado Daily
The main reason: Israel is the proving ground for new U.S. weapons as well as tactics and strategies for urban warfare and population management. Israel "advises" many other nations besides the U.S. in counter-insurgency, which is why they have a number of secret allies...like the dictator running Egypt and the Saudi royal family. Despots all around the world who only fear revolutions and armed uprisings, want to know how the Israelis do it. So, don't expect the peace train to leave the station!
The author is fundamentally on the right track by his assessment in the subheading: "If barbaric attacks is a part of civilization, there's little hope." But, it should be noting, that what he is calling 'civilization' is a form of social organization that developed late in human development - about 5000 years ago with the addition of animal agriculture, and the patriarchal norms that were established and reinforced socially through the religions that established patriarchal hierarchies as the norms of behaviour, did not become completely worldwide until the modern age. Nowadays, there is almost no one outside of the reach of what we deem as civilized, and the economic system that has been refined to create a global capitalism, prevents any large scale withdrawal from a system that thinks only of short term gain/ and cannot deal with long term consequences.
*should add that the main reason why the U.S., Israel and just about everyone else seems to be more violent and ruthless today, is because this world is reaching resource limits - especially oil; and capitalism is a ruthless economic system based on exploitation: first exploiting nature for useable and consumable products, but as raw materials become scarcer, nations of the world become more aggressive and violent in the effort to keep their ways of living functioning and their economies growing. Nearly all of the regional hotspot wars presently going on today, can be directly connected with resource prices and rising food prices because of increasing droughts at mid-latitudes due to climate change.
Our entire economic system is incompatible with long term survival of the human race, and there is less willingness to examine how we live today than there was 30 or 40 years ago....so, it seems more than likely that we will be steered along the present course in the years and decades to come, until there is no one left to fight about anything.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
A fly attacks me, it's not big enough to cause me any real harm, but I'll flatten it nonetheless. However, if it leaves me alone & keeps out of my way I'll tend to leave it alone.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Well........thats really cheered me up RC.....thanks.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1461757 wrote: A fly attacks me, it's not big enough to cause me any real harm, but I'll flatten it nonetheless. However, if it leaves me alone & keeps out of my way I'll tend to leave it alone.
And what about a spider ?
And what about a spider ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
recovering conservative;1461755 wrote: S the liberal base of the Democratic Party don't have the guts to rise up against the big money candidates who are picked by the Party! ?
That's not true. Every time I see another candidate, even not a mainstream one, that I think is more capable and qualified, I vote for them.
The last one I found was Ross Perot.
That's not true. Every time I see another candidate, even not a mainstream one, that I think is more capable and qualified, I vote for them.
The last one I found was Ross Perot.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Ross Perot was a lunatic. IMO.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
AnneBoleyn;1461768 wrote: Ross Perot was a lunatic. IMO.
LOL! Well of course he was. But I was only twenty-something and lunatics appeal to the young. Besides, I loved how he talked smack to the other presidential candidates in the debates. The young today are just as infatuated with Rand and Ron Paul for the same reasons despite the fact the they, too, are lunatics.
LOL! Well of course he was. But I was only twenty-something and lunatics appeal to the young. Besides, I loved how he talked smack to the other presidential candidates in the debates. The young today are just as infatuated with Rand and Ron Paul for the same reasons despite the fact the they, too, are lunatics.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bruv;1461760 wrote: And what about a spider ?
I love spiders & go out of my way to make sure they're not harmed by putting them into a safe place.
I love spiders & go out of my way to make sure they're not harmed by putting them into a safe place.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
posted by ecovering conservative
and capitalism is a ruthless economic system based on exploitation
Actually no it's not. That is what it has become at the hands of right wing think tanks that ignore the simple fact that socialism has the same roots - adam smith also advocated universal health care, free education (he was scots after all which was the first country to have free and compulsory education to at least primary level) since these things were inportant to ensure a well educated healthy work force good grief he even advocated the education of women. A high wage economy was what would generate the surplus to buy manufactured goods and generate demand - without disposable income there was no market - one of the reasons the UK was the first to industrialise was a burgeoning middle class and well paid working class generated demand for consumer goods that in turn generated industrial growth.
Recent american history with the movement of jobs overseas to reduce labour costs the long term effect has been to destroty the home market for those goods now made so cheaply.
America does not have a capitalist economy it has a fascist one.
In terms of a love of violence the US isn't really any worse than any other just at the moment one of the most powerful. The gun culture is a bit unique though. You are overtly more violent in reality most other nations are equally so. After all can you think of any nation the british haven't gone to war against?
and capitalism is a ruthless economic system based on exploitation
Actually no it's not. That is what it has become at the hands of right wing think tanks that ignore the simple fact that socialism has the same roots - adam smith also advocated universal health care, free education (he was scots after all which was the first country to have free and compulsory education to at least primary level) since these things were inportant to ensure a well educated healthy work force good grief he even advocated the education of women. A high wage economy was what would generate the surplus to buy manufactured goods and generate demand - without disposable income there was no market - one of the reasons the UK was the first to industrialise was a burgeoning middle class and well paid working class generated demand for consumer goods that in turn generated industrial growth.
Recent american history with the movement of jobs overseas to reduce labour costs the long term effect has been to destroty the home market for those goods now made so cheaply.
America does not have a capitalist economy it has a fascist one.
In terms of a love of violence the US isn't really any worse than any other just at the moment one of the most powerful. The gun culture is a bit unique though. You are overtly more violent in reality most other nations are equally so. After all can you think of any nation the british haven't gone to war against?
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Even the Vulcans were Capitalists - "Live Long & Prosper".
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1461788 wrote: Even the Vulcans were Capitalists - "Live Long & Prosper".
Ah but prosperity is not just about material thing is it? Mind you according to one televangelist if you are right with god wealth will come to you - seemed to work for him.
Ah but prosperity is not just about material thing is it? Mind you according to one televangelist if you are right with god wealth will come to you - seemed to work for him.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
LarsMac;1461681 wrote: Colorado Daily.
"If this is Western civilization, there is little hope."
This, to my way of thinking, says everything about everything. "If this is Western civilization ... ". A rhetorical-conditional question that makes the assumption that this is exactly what "Western civilization" stands for. After all, it is members of the "Western world" who are perpetrating the treachery so it must be our collective purpose, right? This misconception is why certain ethnic-religious people gives us a wide berth. Another example is the U.S. in particular. It boasts itself as the "Leader of the free world and Democracy". I think that we do understand it is neither of those things but how should the Third World know that?
The Democratic, non-violent nations need to separate themselves from America's misdeeds. We must point out the great faults in U.S. Democracy and so-called Freedom. We must make it clear that the U.S. DOES NOT represent Democracy, "Freedom", nor "Western Civilization". This we must do on a daily basis. It must be noted in every news broadcast where "western" treachery is perpetrated. We must not continue allowing ourselves to be continuously included in the broader "Western Civilization" enigma where the loudest mouth self-appoints itself as our representative.
"If this is Western civilization, there is little hope."
This, to my way of thinking, says everything about everything. "If this is Western civilization ... ". A rhetorical-conditional question that makes the assumption that this is exactly what "Western civilization" stands for. After all, it is members of the "Western world" who are perpetrating the treachery so it must be our collective purpose, right? This misconception is why certain ethnic-religious people gives us a wide berth. Another example is the U.S. in particular. It boasts itself as the "Leader of the free world and Democracy". I think that we do understand it is neither of those things but how should the Third World know that?
The Democratic, non-violent nations need to separate themselves from America's misdeeds. We must point out the great faults in U.S. Democracy and so-called Freedom. We must make it clear that the U.S. DOES NOT represent Democracy, "Freedom", nor "Western Civilization". This we must do on a daily basis. It must be noted in every news broadcast where "western" treachery is perpetrated. We must not continue allowing ourselves to be continuously included in the broader "Western Civilization" enigma where the loudest mouth self-appoints itself as our representative.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bring back the Knights Templar.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1461781 wrote: I love spiders & go out of my way to make sure they're not harmed by putting them into a safe place.
Then stop killing their food.
Then stop killing their food.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bruv;1461811 wrote: Then stop killing their food.
Ah, but it's a case of being cruel to be kind. Obesity is such a problem in the world of arachnids these days. After all they spend all their time of the Web.
Ah, but it's a case of being cruel to be kind. Obesity is such a problem in the world of arachnids these days. After all they spend all their time of the Web.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Saint_;1461763 wrote: That's not true. Every time I see another candidate, even not a mainstream one, that I think is more capable and qualified, I vote for them.
The last one I found was Ross Perot.
And, even a candidate with Ross Perot's money, can't get in the game anymore since the Parties took over the management of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters.
You'll never see a third party or independent candidate on the stage with the duopoly candidates again. Not that the debates...even real debates not based on pre-approved, scripted questions...win or lose the election, but if third party candidates are squeezed out of the debates, they have no chance of getting their message through to the voters.
Even if Perot couldn't win the presidency...and it's debatable whether he would have been able to manage Congress and the machinery of Government....he did put NAFTA and free trade on the table for debate. Clinton and Bush had to lie about trade and their intentions, but at least NAFTA became an issue. As things turned out, Perot was right about everything he said about NAFTA and then some!
The last one I found was Ross Perot.
And, even a candidate with Ross Perot's money, can't get in the game anymore since the Parties took over the management of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters.
You'll never see a third party or independent candidate on the stage with the duopoly candidates again. Not that the debates...even real debates not based on pre-approved, scripted questions...win or lose the election, but if third party candidates are squeezed out of the debates, they have no chance of getting their message through to the voters.
Even if Perot couldn't win the presidency...and it's debatable whether he would have been able to manage Congress and the machinery of Government....he did put NAFTA and free trade on the table for debate. Clinton and Bush had to lie about trade and their intentions, but at least NAFTA became an issue. As things turned out, Perot was right about everything he said about NAFTA and then some!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
gmc;1461785 wrote: posted by ecovering conservative
Actually no it's not. That is what it has become at the hands of right wing think tanks that ignore the simple fact that socialism has the same roots - adam smith also advocated universal health care, free education (he was scots after all which was the first country to have free and compulsory education to at least primary level) since these things were inportant to ensure a well educated healthy work force good grief he even advocated the education of women. A high wage economy was what would generate the surplus to buy manufactured goods and generate demand - without disposable income there was no market - one of the reasons the UK was the first to industrialise was a burgeoning middle class and well paid working class generated demand for consumer goods that in turn generated industrial growth.
The kind of socialism you are describing is social democratic rather than socialist. Real socialist economic options like the worker co-op movements have had to fight against both governments and their financiers to try to establish worker-owned enterprises. The fact that it is happening in some of the wastelands of closed factories and businesses are examples of perseverance and determination.
Aside from the issues of ownership of the workplace, the larger issues of today's capitalism that is based largely on consumer demand through sophisticated manipulation of potential buyers, shows how deeply entrenched in the collective psyche our crazy modern way of life has become. Saving a future for our children and future generations is ultimately not a technical problem that can be fixed; it's a social problem that has to be addressed by reconnecting people to the simple facts that we live in a world with real limits, and have to live within nature's limits. This is a way of thinking that is completely foreign to people who have been brainwashed to see nature as a collection of raw materials to exploit for fun and profit. Even, the modified capitalism of the social democrats, and unions to counterbalance the power of the CEO's does not point the way forward to a sustainable future. I could cite as a quick example here in Canada, all of the trade unions that are lining up behind tar sands exploitation out in Alberta. This modified capitalism at best, would just slow down the rate of destruction of the planet; it wouldn't lead the way towards a sustainable future.
The basic fundamentals of a modern capitalist economic system require continuous, unending economic growth. Capitalism is about more than the simple markets that existed in farming communities between farmers and tradesmen in the local village. Today, our entire banking and financial system is based on creating new money out of new debt obligations. And, through the magic of Fractional Reserve Banking - the major banking institutions only are required to have 3% assets to cover their outstanding loans....and that's why economists were running around with their hair on fire warning that the entire banking and international trading system could collapse. This is something that most of us who took little or no interest in finance issues before the 2009 meltdown weren't even aware of! But since then, we are told over and over again that GDP growth that is consistently below about 3% will mean depression and possible deflation and currency collapse.
So, as long as there is plenty of land and plenty of renewable and non-renewable resources, capitalism can work; but that is not the world we are living in today. A number of ecological catastrophes are looming in the near future - mostly notably climate change, and we are stuck in an economic system that has no capacity to avoid disaster, because the other facets of capitalism are to focus on near-term gain, even at the cost of eventual disaster....the tar sands, gas and oil fracking, and deep sea drilling operations sprouting up to keep the petroleum age going at any cost, would be the prime example of our system's unwillingness to change or reduce energy requirements.
And, a straight line can be drawn from today's desperate large capitalist interests, who are seeking ways to maintain their rates of return on investment, and the increases in violence and wars in the world today. There are major financial and business interests lined up behind all of these ongoing conflicts in Africa, the ME and Ukraine. As climate-related droughts increase in severity over the coming years, we can expect wars and conflicts over food, water and resources to increase.
Actually no it's not. That is what it has become at the hands of right wing think tanks that ignore the simple fact that socialism has the same roots - adam smith also advocated universal health care, free education (he was scots after all which was the first country to have free and compulsory education to at least primary level) since these things were inportant to ensure a well educated healthy work force good grief he even advocated the education of women. A high wage economy was what would generate the surplus to buy manufactured goods and generate demand - without disposable income there was no market - one of the reasons the UK was the first to industrialise was a burgeoning middle class and well paid working class generated demand for consumer goods that in turn generated industrial growth.
The kind of socialism you are describing is social democratic rather than socialist. Real socialist economic options like the worker co-op movements have had to fight against both governments and their financiers to try to establish worker-owned enterprises. The fact that it is happening in some of the wastelands of closed factories and businesses are examples of perseverance and determination.
Aside from the issues of ownership of the workplace, the larger issues of today's capitalism that is based largely on consumer demand through sophisticated manipulation of potential buyers, shows how deeply entrenched in the collective psyche our crazy modern way of life has become. Saving a future for our children and future generations is ultimately not a technical problem that can be fixed; it's a social problem that has to be addressed by reconnecting people to the simple facts that we live in a world with real limits, and have to live within nature's limits. This is a way of thinking that is completely foreign to people who have been brainwashed to see nature as a collection of raw materials to exploit for fun and profit. Even, the modified capitalism of the social democrats, and unions to counterbalance the power of the CEO's does not point the way forward to a sustainable future. I could cite as a quick example here in Canada, all of the trade unions that are lining up behind tar sands exploitation out in Alberta. This modified capitalism at best, would just slow down the rate of destruction of the planet; it wouldn't lead the way towards a sustainable future.
The basic fundamentals of a modern capitalist economic system require continuous, unending economic growth. Capitalism is about more than the simple markets that existed in farming communities between farmers and tradesmen in the local village. Today, our entire banking and financial system is based on creating new money out of new debt obligations. And, through the magic of Fractional Reserve Banking - the major banking institutions only are required to have 3% assets to cover their outstanding loans....and that's why economists were running around with their hair on fire warning that the entire banking and international trading system could collapse. This is something that most of us who took little or no interest in finance issues before the 2009 meltdown weren't even aware of! But since then, we are told over and over again that GDP growth that is consistently below about 3% will mean depression and possible deflation and currency collapse.
So, as long as there is plenty of land and plenty of renewable and non-renewable resources, capitalism can work; but that is not the world we are living in today. A number of ecological catastrophes are looming in the near future - mostly notably climate change, and we are stuck in an economic system that has no capacity to avoid disaster, because the other facets of capitalism are to focus on near-term gain, even at the cost of eventual disaster....the tar sands, gas and oil fracking, and deep sea drilling operations sprouting up to keep the petroleum age going at any cost, would be the prime example of our system's unwillingness to change or reduce energy requirements.
And, a straight line can be drawn from today's desperate large capitalist interests, who are seeking ways to maintain their rates of return on investment, and the increases in violence and wars in the world today. There are major financial and business interests lined up behind all of these ongoing conflicts in Africa, the ME and Ukraine. As climate-related droughts increase in severity over the coming years, we can expect wars and conflicts over food, water and resources to increase.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bruv;1461759 wrote: Well........thats really cheered me up RC.....thanks.
I haven't been in a very cheerful mood since I read that study on increasing methane releases in the Arctic, that was published in Nature a week ago. Some scientists studying methane and trying to focus attention on the likelihood that methane is already starting a positive feedback loop, had previously been dismissed as alarmists 5 or 10 years ago. Now, it appears that the major tipping points to uncontrollable carbon release have already been tripped, and it gets almost no attention in the media.
I haven't been in a very cheerful mood since I read that study on increasing methane releases in the Arctic, that was published in Nature a week ago. Some scientists studying methane and trying to focus attention on the likelihood that methane is already starting a positive feedback loop, had previously been dismissed as alarmists 5 or 10 years ago. Now, it appears that the major tipping points to uncontrollable carbon release have already been tripped, and it gets almost no attention in the media.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Saint_;1461763 wrote: .... Every time I see another candidate, even not a mainstream one, that I think is more capable and qualified, I vote for them.
What more can you do? Take to anarchy?
But Obama had all the right merits and all of the right motivation (as I saw it personally) but look how it ended. I have to agree with RC by paraphrasing his anguish that no one “has the guts to rise up against the big money. Or to put into one of Hollywood's most famous lines, “Making an offer that cannot be refused. Play or die.
What more can you do? Take to anarchy?
But Obama had all the right merits and all of the right motivation (as I saw it personally) but look how it ended. I have to agree with RC by paraphrasing his anguish that no one “has the guts to rise up against the big money. Or to put into one of Hollywood's most famous lines, “Making an offer that cannot be refused. Play or die.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
High Threshold;1461868 wrote: What more can you do? Take to anarchy?
But Obama had all the right merits and all of the right motivation (as I saw it personally) but look how it ended. I have to agree with RC by paraphrasing his anguish that no one “has the guts to rise up against the big money. Or to put into one of Hollywood's most famous lines, “Making an offer that cannot be refused. Play or die.
Disgusting, isn't it? And if one's choice is anarchy they'll shoot you down like a rabid dog. It's always been this way, but the stakes are higher & the population more informed.
But Obama had all the right merits and all of the right motivation (as I saw it personally) but look how it ended. I have to agree with RC by paraphrasing his anguish that no one “has the guts to rise up against the big money. Or to put into one of Hollywood's most famous lines, “Making an offer that cannot be refused. Play or die.
Disgusting, isn't it? And if one's choice is anarchy they'll shoot you down like a rabid dog. It's always been this way, but the stakes are higher & the population more informed.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
recovering conservative;1461867 wrote: I haven't been in a very cheerful mood since I read that study on increasing methane releases in the Arctic, that was published in Nature a week ago. Some scientists studying methane and trying to focus attention on the likelihood that methane is already starting a positive feedback loop, had previously been dismissed as alarmists 5 or 10 years ago. Now, it appears that the major tipping points to uncontrollable carbon release have already been tripped, and it gets almost no attention in the media.
You are a barrel od laughs aint you?
You are a barrel od laughs aint you?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
posted by recovering conservative.
The kind of socialism you are describing is social democratic rather than socialist.
It's still socialism. Being british the word has greater nuances than it seems to have in the states. What kind of socialist is the usual question anyone claiming to be one is asked. MBut let's not argue semantics. Most european governments are more or less social democratic in nature in that they accept the role of givernment is to make things better for people. revolutionary socialism never really got hold in the UK. Though now it's a moot point if labour are still socialist (I would say no more tory light which is why thei membership has fallen o muich) ) the tories look set to unwind all the acheevements of socialism in post war britain certainly thatcher took an axe to the nationalised industries and her die hard supporters still can't see the damage she has done. I think adam smith would be birling in his grave at the way things have turned out.
We don't have capitalist economies, especially in america where legislation to control companies and their activities seems to be anathema.
The kind of socialism you are describing is social democratic rather than socialist.
It's still socialism. Being british the word has greater nuances than it seems to have in the states. What kind of socialist is the usual question anyone claiming to be one is asked. MBut let's not argue semantics. Most european governments are more or less social democratic in nature in that they accept the role of givernment is to make things better for people. revolutionary socialism never really got hold in the UK. Though now it's a moot point if labour are still socialist (I would say no more tory light which is why thei membership has fallen o muich) ) the tories look set to unwind all the acheevements of socialism in post war britain certainly thatcher took an axe to the nationalised industries and her die hard supporters still can't see the damage she has done. I think adam smith would be birling in his grave at the way things have turned out.
We don't have capitalist economies, especially in america where legislation to control companies and their activities seems to be anathema.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
AnneBoleyn;1461869 wrote: Disgusting, isn't it?
It certainly is.
gmc;1461883 wrote: ... thatcher took an axe to the nationalised industries and her die hard supporters still can't see the damage she has done.
Another disgusting situation.
It certainly is.
gmc;1461883 wrote: ... thatcher took an axe to the nationalised industries and her die hard supporters still can't see the damage she has done.
Another disgusting situation.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
That's because her supporters got richer & richer off the backs of the poor. It's a win, win, win situation for them - more wealth, more power, more control.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Bruv;1461873 wrote: You are a barrel od laughs aint you?
thanks for taking the time to read the link!
thanks for taking the time to read the link!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
gmc;1461883 wrote: posted by recovering conservative.
It's still socialism. Being british the word has greater nuances than it seems to have in the states. What kind of socialist is the usual question anyone claiming to be one is asked. MBut let's not argue semantics. Most european governments are more or less social democratic in nature in that they accept the role of givernment is to make things better for people. revolutionary socialism never really got hold in the UK. Though now it's a moot point if labour are still socialist (I would say no more tory light which is why thei membership has fallen o muich) ) the tories look set to unwind all the acheevements of socialism in post war britain certainly thatcher took an axe to the nationalised industries and her die hard supporters still can't see the damage she has done. I think adam smith would be birling in his grave at the way things have turned out.
We don't have capitalist economies, especially in america where legislation to control companies and their activities seems to be anathema.
Okay, but my point isn't whether capitalism modified to even out income and wealth disparities qualifies as socialism....it does to some people; but my issue is economics based on continuous growth. Any economic system...whatever it calls itself...in China they still call their government - communist...but it's still a system that demands more energy, more production, more extraction, more water, more of everything. We were warned by a small group of economists who met in Rome prior to 1970 - The Club of Rome, that the trajectory of population and economic demands, would start bumping up against nature's limits to provide in the 21st century. Looks like we're already there. The only surprise is that the entire world is addicted to growth and demanding growth at all costs, even though it will end with economic collapse and likely collapse of ecosystems as well.
It's still socialism. Being british the word has greater nuances than it seems to have in the states. What kind of socialist is the usual question anyone claiming to be one is asked. MBut let's not argue semantics. Most european governments are more or less social democratic in nature in that they accept the role of givernment is to make things better for people. revolutionary socialism never really got hold in the UK. Though now it's a moot point if labour are still socialist (I would say no more tory light which is why thei membership has fallen o muich) ) the tories look set to unwind all the acheevements of socialism in post war britain certainly thatcher took an axe to the nationalised industries and her die hard supporters still can't see the damage she has done. I think adam smith would be birling in his grave at the way things have turned out.
We don't have capitalist economies, especially in america where legislation to control companies and their activities seems to be anathema.
Okay, but my point isn't whether capitalism modified to even out income and wealth disparities qualifies as socialism....it does to some people; but my issue is economics based on continuous growth. Any economic system...whatever it calls itself...in China they still call their government - communist...but it's still a system that demands more energy, more production, more extraction, more water, more of everything. We were warned by a small group of economists who met in Rome prior to 1970 - The Club of Rome, that the trajectory of population and economic demands, would start bumping up against nature's limits to provide in the 21st century. Looks like we're already there. The only surprise is that the entire world is addicted to growth and demanding growth at all costs, even though it will end with economic collapse and likely collapse of ecosystems as well.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
recovering conservative;1461963 wrote: Okay, but my point isn't whether capitalism modified to even out income and wealth disparities qualifies as socialism....it does to some people; but my issue is economics based on continuous growth. Any economic system...whatever it calls itself...in China they still call their government - communist...but it's still a system that demands more energy, more production, more extraction, more water, more of everything. We were warned by a small group of economists who met in Rome prior to 1970 - The Club of Rome, that the trajectory of population and economic demands, would start bumping up against nature's limits to provide in the 21st century. Looks like we're already there. The only surprise is that the entire world is addicted to growth and demanding growth at all costs, even though it will end with economic collapse and likely collapse of ecosystems as well.
I would actually agree with you there. Capitalism is just an economic theory not some kind of poilitical/religious dogma though you'd think it was the way people go on about it. Communism and socialism was a response to the naked exploitation of resources and labour in the century when europe was industrialising and people left the country en masse and ended up working in factories for fourteen hours a day just as the magna carta and declaratiion of the people in 1649 was a response to injustices and exploitation by ruling classes that just wanted to run things fior their own benefit It's the same basic arguments over and over again with different words and concepts. Once upon a time the ruling classes claimed a right to rule given to them by god now things ar a bit more subtle instead of heresy now environmentalists are tree huggers anyone protesting the acticities of big companies is a socialist/communist (the two get conflated for convenience) or anti-capitalist terrorist (seems to be the new catch phrase. ) Put a label on something and you end up arguing about the label rather than the issues. Peacenik was a deogatory term the list goes on and on.
The only surprise is that the entire world is addicted to growth and demanding growth at all costs, even though it will end with economic collapse and likely collapse of ecosystems as well
Anyone with half a brain can see the problem most of the world is not addicted to growth at all costs and can see the looming environmental catastrophe trouble is the debate get reduced to name calling especially in america where scientific evidence about the environmental problems seems to be seen as another religion that you can choose to believe or not - It's the same basic question for hundreds of years why do we let the bastards away with this?
I don't have any nice pat answers but to me just blaming capitalism as if it's a real thing is pointless. The problem liberals or anyone that is semi intelligent have is that being rational they tend to think everyody else is and if you just explain things properly that we are all in this together people will change. People are not reasonable or rational brining religion in to the mix and you may as well go home and pull the covers over your head.
I've just made myself depressed.
I would actually agree with you there. Capitalism is just an economic theory not some kind of poilitical/religious dogma though you'd think it was the way people go on about it. Communism and socialism was a response to the naked exploitation of resources and labour in the century when europe was industrialising and people left the country en masse and ended up working in factories for fourteen hours a day just as the magna carta and declaratiion of the people in 1649 was a response to injustices and exploitation by ruling classes that just wanted to run things fior their own benefit It's the same basic arguments over and over again with different words and concepts. Once upon a time the ruling classes claimed a right to rule given to them by god now things ar a bit more subtle instead of heresy now environmentalists are tree huggers anyone protesting the acticities of big companies is a socialist/communist (the two get conflated for convenience) or anti-capitalist terrorist (seems to be the new catch phrase. ) Put a label on something and you end up arguing about the label rather than the issues. Peacenik was a deogatory term the list goes on and on.
The only surprise is that the entire world is addicted to growth and demanding growth at all costs, even though it will end with economic collapse and likely collapse of ecosystems as well
Anyone with half a brain can see the problem most of the world is not addicted to growth at all costs and can see the looming environmental catastrophe trouble is the debate get reduced to name calling especially in america where scientific evidence about the environmental problems seems to be seen as another religion that you can choose to believe or not - It's the same basic question for hundreds of years why do we let the bastards away with this?
I don't have any nice pat answers but to me just blaming capitalism as if it's a real thing is pointless. The problem liberals or anyone that is semi intelligent have is that being rational they tend to think everyody else is and if you just explain things properly that we are all in this together people will change. People are not reasonable or rational brining religion in to the mix and you may as well go home and pull the covers over your head.
I've just made myself depressed.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Not sure if this link really conforms to the title of this thread but it's worth seeing and there might be some parallel thought to the U.S./violence theme:
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Oh no ! There buying up all the Adidas shirts with their Iraqi dinars. The end of the world as we know it. The west should arm Nike immediately
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
Snowfire;1462005 wrote: Oh no ! There buying up all the Adidas shirts with their Iraqi dinars. The end of the world as we know it. The west should arm Nike immediately
An amazing report, isn't it!
An amazing report, isn't it!
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
The net is absolutely crammed with outrageous falsehoods and smears from Fox News. I suppose they are successful in the sense that people will always be attracted to the car crash approach. A bit like the Youtube nutcases, they make things up just to attract the viewers and increase advertising revenue. I rarely watch Fox without my chin on the floor and my mouth open in sheer disbelief.
Do you think they say what they do for affect or do you really think they believe all that bollocks ?
Do you think they say what they do for affect or do you really think they believe all that bollocks ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
I've always felt that Fox news are the TV version of the Daily Sport.
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
FourPart;1462012 wrote: I've always felt that Fox news are the TV version of the Daily Sport.
Well at least the Daily Sport doesnt pretend to be anything other than what it is. Nobody buys the Sport to find out what's going on in the world. The tragedy is, there are people who tune in to Fox for exactly that.
Well at least the Daily Sport doesnt pretend to be anything other than what it is. Nobody buys the Sport to find out what's going on in the world. The tragedy is, there are people who tune in to Fox for exactly that.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Is the US ( world) addicted to violence?
High Threshold;1462003 wrote: Not sure if this link really conforms to the title of this thread but it's worth seeing and there might be some parallel thought to the U.S./violence theme:
]
Like most Faux News reports, it's not good for much aside comedic value. But, it's worth noting that the rest of the MSM doesn't do much better! There are no in-depth reporting going on to get beyond the Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurds etc. brand names of the combatants.
Just going from the ISIS target list, it's obvious that their main priorities are oil wells and refineries. Fighting infidels is a construct to justify seizing resources that are high in value. Their war and their "Islamic State" is a justification for seizing resources and using them for monetary gain. If it was about religious purity and fighting infidels, ISIS wouldn't be in the business of selling oil to the Assad Government in Syria: Syrian Interim Government: Assad is the Sole Buyer of ISIS’s Oil
Just goes to show, that if you look below the surface a little and try to figure out why the world is becoming a more dangerous place each day, the answers are not found in the superficial differences between different groups; because beneath all these surface tensions are real conflicts over dwindling resources and higher food prices.
]
Like most Faux News reports, it's not good for much aside comedic value. But, it's worth noting that the rest of the MSM doesn't do much better! There are no in-depth reporting going on to get beyond the Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurds etc. brand names of the combatants.
Just going from the ISIS target list, it's obvious that their main priorities are oil wells and refineries. Fighting infidels is a construct to justify seizing resources that are high in value. Their war and their "Islamic State" is a justification for seizing resources and using them for monetary gain. If it was about religious purity and fighting infidels, ISIS wouldn't be in the business of selling oil to the Assad Government in Syria: Syrian Interim Government: Assad is the Sole Buyer of ISIS’s Oil
Just goes to show, that if you look below the surface a little and try to figure out why the world is becoming a more dangerous place each day, the answers are not found in the superficial differences between different groups; because beneath all these surface tensions are real conflicts over dwindling resources and higher food prices.