As said by William Burke, All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing. I hear people complain all the time about corrupt officials and corporations and problems, while I never hear anyone even mentioning any kind of solutions or resolutions to them. People mention news articles reporting on more and more despicable actions happening throughout the world, and so often point the finger and fault find, as if that will somehow make a difference. Fact finding leads to breakthroughs and new discoveries, while fault finding only leads to frustration and conflict. I often mention to people who genuinely act like they want to change things for the better, that our founding fathers framed our system of checks and balances around a free, thinking people who understood and stood behind what is right, who were capable and competent enough to communicate this to their designated officials. I also mention that because we the people do not congress ourselves to honestly debate (not bicker and fault find) vital issues and discover resolutions to report to our representatives - the only voice our officials hear are those of the lobbyists. If we want things to change for the better, the only viable choice we have is to operate as an ethically minded society that owns our intrinsic moral and civic responsibility and duty, to know and stand up for what is truly and rightly needed. The only way evil and tyranny can exist, is through the ignorance and cowardice of others. The true root of all evil is an ignorant and negligent society. We have the choice before us every day to discover and support what, not who, is right. It is only a question of whether or not we will do this. There are groups like the SEI forming to revive democracy and implement ethical and sustainable resolutions. Please consider supporting them the next time you feel overwhelmed by the minor percent of the population that currently does care to both think and act in their best interest.
It's not a lack of people willing to try it is that the solutions are so different. There is no one common set of beliefs so what I may believe is the right thing to do may be completely opposite of what you believe.
To me It looks like another group of jackasses complaining that people won't listen to them but yet they know the secret to establishing utopia. Get real there is not now nor has there ever been or will there ever be a utopia. Why because we all define success, or self actualization if you prefer, differently. What is sufficient for me may not be even close to sufficient for another. In short, one man's utopia may well be another man's hell on earth.
These are issues I've seen for quite some time now, people defining utopia and prosperity differently. Basing a social support system on the ethical and sustainable provision of vital needs, provides value universally to everyone. From the vital needs onward, people can do what they will to create happiness. An efficient and just social support system would do just that; aid in the provision of vital need, while allowing and even supporting a free market. It is possible to balance social welfare and a free market. And soon people in communities the world over will discover a need for this when the current system fails. We can either create the best society human kind has ever seen, or we can repeat devastating mistakes that have been made throughout history and experience the worst. Now is the time for us to really think about and work toward sustainable prosperity.
No sir a just system provides you that which you are willing to work for and not so much as a sheet of toilet paper more. If you fall down I am more than willing to help you get back up but once you are up you are on your own and should be.
Our nation was founded in the ideal that Colonialist elites should not have to share with the British elite. George Washington did quite well as a land speculator.
Your own link has a mission statement that business should not be there to earn a profit but to support general welfare. That may not be communism but it is damn close.
Correct. The idea as of now with ethical businesses is to compensate people in proportion to the effort and time they invest and benefits they help in achieving. This (in theory) allows and encourages creativity through reward and community recognition, without encouraging people to take all they can simply because they can or want to. The SEI is still a new enterprise despite being under development for such a long time. Objective scrutiny such as this is really helpful.
Our voter turnout numbers tell a different story. If more people were willing to engage in the process (regardless of side), I think we'd all be better off. Indifference is the enemy.
Capitalism is merit based? I think this deserves it's own discussion. A glimps of reasoning: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TX8gg1lOa4w
Capitalism is merit based. It cannot help but be. But then if you think what we currently have in the US is capitalism I can understand your confusion.
I agree with you for the most part, though objective analisys brings this to light: cap·i·tal·ism (kăp′ĭ-tl-ĭz′əm) n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. The sad part of reality as we've had and have it, is that human beings and animals with technology are means to production and distribuion, that are in some way or another, owned by private corporate intetests, whom aim not to provide a superior quality of service, but to take all profit possible; regardless of the negative impacts it causes to society and environment. That is why I say capitalism isn't merit based, though I do see and generally agree with what you.
Nope in real capitalism the guy with the best quality and service get the most customers, and the single greatest asset any employer can have is the the good will of his employees and the guy who sacrifices either or both of these will, over the long run, go broke. What we have now is more akin to Mussolini's Italy than the US as it was in it's first 100 years.
Not necessarily I am quite glad that we still live in a country where a lot of people find the political process to be unimportant and the people engaged in same are the one's most interested in it. A country in which everyone is vitally interested in the governing authority is often one in which freedom is an illusion more than a reality.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. You don't agree that democracy works best when there is more participation? Of course people have the freedom to not participate, but in my opinion when they don't participate, they shouldn't complain.
Oh I agree whole heartedly and most of them don't. I'm merely saying that I have no problem if government isn't so intrusive as to compel everyone's interest in what it will do next purely on the basis of survival.
And then there is the spook, who if wrong, will not be accountable meaning any belief we actually must share will not be identified. Examples. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391740&page=2&p=1064645338#post1064645338 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391740&page=4&p=1064654681#post1064654681 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391946&page=2&p=1064655295#post1064655295 Relating to the bolded in my quote of you starshine. I have presented solution incessantly here, but you haven't seen it because of EXACTLY what you describe. There are covert agents here that centrally distribute and use links on "more and more despicable actions happening" for the purpose of diluting the presentation of solution and preventing unity upon it. Most of the very active members are of that type. What is curious is that the key to solution is also the test of sincerity here on forums. It cannot be said that any who refuse to agree with and accept these definitions of prime constitutional intent can be securely seen as sincere Americans. Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights? Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? Spook was asked, refused to agree and refused to say why. The links show that. By the a similar analysis, agreement by American people upon those prime constitutional intents brings to them he ultimate authority in America when used to control their states with the federal constitution then the states controlling the federal constitution through Article V. We have a right to a lawful and peaceful revolution.
