Fesponse to Wilbs; -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:27:20 04/22/04 Thu
Author: Grumpy no more
Author Host/IP: 24-117-156-162.cpe.cableone.net / 24.117.156.162
Subject: Fesponse to Wilbs;

"Republicans believe in the elevation of man. It's not a "production and consumption" thing. I'm not sure I said that right, and I'm more than positive that Donk would find a way to try and say that was a lie. I only know what I think, and I didn't become a Republican because my parents made me. Actually, my dad was a union Democrat for a lot of years, until about 10 years ago. He's 72. The union was screwing the new guys, he changed his mind."

Democrats too believe in the elevation of man. The question is, how do you define "elevation"? The impression I've formed is that Republicans believe elevation is the result of material progress; of gains in production efficiency, primarily/exclusively. That is the entire thrust, the reason for existence, of the capitalist system in use, although one has to define capitalist very loosely to make it pertinent to the present economic structure. The fact is, our society is reverting to a more or less feudal system, wherein each member of society is born into a certain stratum, and only great good fortune can change the course of a life for the better.

"We are all very aware of what production and consumption does for the economy. God, without it, we'd still be ruled by Britain."

I don't see the relevance of the second sentence to the first, but just for the record, the British felt the same way about the colonies that the present-day Republican Party feels about capitalism. You're quite right that the economy is important, but how many people must live in poverty to make the system work with maximum efficiency? I'll tell you; the ultimate result, although absurd on the face of it, is everybody but one person. Now, obviously, such a state of affairs is for all intents and purposes impossible, but that is nonetheless the goal striven for by every good capitalist. Under the capitalist scheme, if a business stops growing, it starts dying.

"Is that not, along with our independence, and our need to live under our own terms, what has elevated us?

No. What has elevated us has been our unwillingness to tolerate inequitable restrictions on the activities of individuals, our willingness to band together to achieve a common good for the nation. The GOP is quite willing to sacrifice the well-being of a large fraction of the population in order to achieve a greater degree of efficiency in production, which is what is being demonstrated today by the unprecedented growth in productivity touted by the government. The growth in productivity is a statement that fewer people are now required to achieve the same result - in other words, that people have become expendable to a greater degree. The perfect machine will displace all labor.

"I am not Ivy League. Yes, I have a degree. My husband graduated from Sumner Memorial High School in Sullivan Maine, in 1965. That was pretty much it (education wise) for him. But he did take some tech courses when he got out of the service, learned to fix oil (and gas, but gas goes boom according to him, and he prefers not to work on that)furnaces.

I stayed home with our three kids for let's see . . . in January of 1973, I left work to have my first child. I did not go back to work (nor did I have my degree up to that point - you probably remember me getting it just maybe 3 years ago) until 1984, when my youngest was in school for at least 1/2 day.

It wasn't any kind of a comfortable thing then, we raised goats, chickens, and pigs, (although the pigs were more than too expensive when you consider what they ate) but we were probably happier than we have ever been. I can't tell you how much we looked forward to the goats giving birth every spring. God - I took them to the breeder in my CAR!!"

And because you did all that, you find it credible that anyone could do the same. That's why our conversations are so frustrating - you seem to think that the possibilities are equal for everyone, but they're not.

"I digress - but please, it has nothing to do with goods and services, or inanimate things. It has everything to do with independence and the spirit that takes us to find ways to take care of ourselves when we need to. It has everything to do with not asking anybody to take care of us because we don't want to "owe" anything. Maybe that's a New England thing???

Efficiency and production? This country has always been VERY good at it. We would rather work than be on the dole. Being on the dole creates a problem with self-image. But it breeds generation after generation of people who know no other way to live. I agree that there are times when people need help. But those are not the people who make it an art.

Sorry - this should have been shorter. I understand what you said above. But the impression is not what I see about what I belive."

You continue to confuse the means (efficiency and production) with the end - a better life for PEOPLE. If the means are destructive of the end, shouldn't something different be tried?

The welfare state which you decry I find equally loathsome since it is equally destructive of humanity. I do not believe, however, that a laissez-faire approach as advocated by your Republican brethren is as humane, in the end, since it acknowledges and accepts the wastage of human potential inherent in the commercial application of the capitalist philosophy.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]