Is the American sense of justice and morality dead?

I'm damned happy, that this system did NOT turn out to be purely capitalist. I've noted what corruption does in that sense; I've learned about it in history AND seen it with my own eyes for nearly 5 decades as an American citizen.

Bottom line, ANY system, engine or generator requires 'regulation'... our rather 'hybrid' system tends to regulate itself. That is... capitalism/socialism sometimes interacting with one another, does provide a generally regulating effect.

So, all the 'doomsayers' and anti-socialist "Chicken Little" types prancing around, don't get much attention from me, and I tell them so.

There IS a balance between give/take... and we damned sure need to maintain that in this society.

 

Do you have any idea how passive aggressive this post is?

I am refusing to respond to your demands in order to not reinforce your methodology, which is offensive.

Much of what you say is true in one sense or another, but you make it all sound like some sort of weird conspiracy theory.

Additionally, you basic thesis that free speech is essential to a free society is obvious, but your solution is fraught with peril...not because of any danger to you, but because IMO you lack the awareness and skills to avoid subversion by the very people you seek to curb.

In fact, most of what you say is obvious, but snarled up in verbosity and pomposity.

 

Government is just a natural development from the tendency of the less able or knowledgeable to seek out the leadership and protection of the more knowledgeable and able. That in itself is reinforced by language, by which people are able to learn of such differences and communicate intent.

Watching what someone actually does to determine intent is an earlier skill which some to their detriment forget to apply. That is not the fault of politics.

Politics developed as a means for larger populations to still be able to obtain similar benefits.

A free society is one in which a person not desiring such benefits is able to find loopholes that allow independent functioning within the larger whole.

Most actively desire the protections inherent in good government.

Government is not evil, but large government requires compromise and fairness to succeed. When a social group in control ceases to be fair problems develop.

In the West, for government to be desirable, IMO most members of society must believe in and practice the the classical virtues. Other cultures may have other criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_virtues

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by justice. I am more troubled by the lack of a broad view of the legal system among the masses. Tactical victories to make sure a bad guy didn't get away with something like having a pot plant hidden on their property is why the government is now sitting beside you at your computer which, depending on your view of freedom, may be a strategic failure.

 

At any one point in time, world wealth is fixed, defined as capital and assets. The world has abundant POTENTIAL wealth in the form of raw material which can be converted into assets at a later time. (I'm not going to get into artificial methods of creating money.) Money is no more than a universal bartering tool with accredited value.

You're getting into Mitt Romney's argument that "I created this". No billionaire succeeds alone, but does it by maximizing returns while minimizing expenses. Profits made are a direct result of contributions directly made by overly-exploited workers and consumers. Nevertheless, loyal subjects such as you steadfastly defend them.

 

The amount of wealth in the world changes hourly if not quicker these days. And wealth is far more than raw materials or Hong Kong and Abu Dubai would be the world's poorest places rather than The Congo which has far more mineral wealth than either. Information is as much if not more wealth than raw materials. And again money is not wealth, it is simply a way to measure wealth. Creating money does not create wealth. It measures value but it is not value in and of itself.

Further your notion of what constitutes creation is also highly flawed. Does Micro soft exist without the early work of Bill Gates? Does Apple computers exist without Steve Job's early work. The same question can be asked of virtually any other major corporation There was some guy at the very beginning who transformed an idea into wealth and provided thousands of jobs into the bargain.

 

If not for workers that produced and consumers that purchased, where would Bill Gate's and Steve Job's wealth have originated??? I don't fault capitalism, but effective regulation is necessary to prevent Monopoly game endings.

 

We've had effective anti-monopoly legislation since the late 1800's. The problem is when government tries to do everything such legislation is subverted by congress in order to make the bureaucracy's task simpler. After all would you prefer to try and steer two elephants or their equivalent weight in kittens? The American Democratic party has hel one or both houses of congress and the presidency as often as not for seventy of the last 83 years almost entirely on their watch we have gone from more than forty to two American car companies. from twenty plus defense industries to 3or four with declines in almost every other major industry and CEO's have gone from independent operators to the primary implemeters of government policy.

 

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I see no point in continuing this charade, even if you consider this your victory by default.

 

Why would I consider your refusal to accept reality as it is rather than as you wish it were a victory?

 

Your distorted perception of reality is based on your personal opinion, which is by no means original. The only victory that I strive for is the united support of ALL Americans for the sanctity of individual rights, as were enumerated in our Declaration of Independence. The policies that you endorse have been responsible for the progressing evolution of a once-confident, freedom-loving nation into a fearful society dependent on a “trickle-down” economy.

Truth is absolute, independent of our awareness or beliefs, and questioning it will not cause it to change. On the other hand, opinion may be misconception, unsubstantiated truth or individual preference based on values. Opinions in the last category are the primary basis for the majority of our conflicts, and as long as our values differ, conflicts will continue and unity will remain unattainable.

Appeal of the conclusion in no way validates the argument, and if the argument is baseless, that conclusion becomes merely a wish.

Although I have addressed your arguments, your posts clearly indicate that my responses have been totally ignored; this discussion is non-productive and therefore pointless.

 

Dude I did not ignore your arguments I countered them such as they were. 'Dialectical Materialism' is self serving garbage, Das Kapital is worse. And yeah my opinion is based upon reading it and studying it and fifty years of studying and observing history.

 

Merwin has not addressed the effect of preparatory amendment. This is not being accountable making further assertions empty. This is added to the fact that it has not stated what the framers intended to serve the purpose of enabling the unity needed to alter or abolish if it is NOT free speech.

Cognitive distortions cannot be used to conduct critical thinking.

 

The fact that you are implying that I endorse socialism proves that you have been ignoring (or maybe not comprehending) my arguments. Reading, studying, and observing serve no purpose if they do not lead to understanding.

 

Anarchism is an even worse joke and always leads right back where we are now. It is the ever lasting trouble of dealing with human beings who are selfish and self-centered animals as well as social animals.

 

There is no justice in vigilantism. Justice requires proof of guilt. Vigilantism requires only that one believe's someone is guilty, whether or not that guilt can be proven means nothing to vigilantes. Rule of law means one can not take the law into one's own hands. Justice requires a fair and impartial trial.

 

You have challenged my imagination to its limits. I have NO IDEA what thoughts you intended to express; I only know that you failed.

Your attempt to either define or exemplify anarchism was also a failure.

 

I attempted to do neither I was just telling you that Anarchism is not stable long term in a sort of society numbering more than a relative handful of people.

 

You are obviously a conservative, which means you favor minimal governmental regulation; I feel that government is necessary, serving as the conscience of those who have none. Since anarchism is a COMPLETE absence of government, you seem to be defending my position more than your own. . . ?????????

Semantics I can deal with . . . . gibberish, not so much. If you actually understand what you are trying to say, enlighten me IN LOGICAL TERMS.

 

When your thinking produces such nonsense as "government serving a conscious for those who have none" it is already doubtful that logic is your friend. First you declaim socialism than you declaim anarchism and yet you speak in terms common to both, then you call Marx a socialist. frankly I'm having trouble figuring out exactly where the hell your coming from now.