Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are.We are a nation of our own special interests.You have blacks moving their interests ahead while voting against gays.You have gays moving their interests ahead while being against open religion.You have religious people against anything they think is not moral to the word.
You have some whites who feel they are superior due to being white.You have enviromentalists caring for the enviroment willing to limit others rights.You have liberals that want to ban or force their issues yet protect theirs,same in reverse with conservatives.On and on.
What keeps America together?Events like 9-11 all of a sudden everybody pulls together and is not a label except a labeled American.Donating blood,risking their life to save another person who all of a sudden is just a fellow American in their eyes,why?
Is it we are family and family will argue but dare you come inbetween that family they let you know blood is thicker than water?Is it like when a cop answers a domestic dispute the wife and husband arguing will both unite and turn their anger at the cop for interfering?
I haven't noticed most of this. I don't think that's how it really is. Blacks aren't usually anti-gay; gays aren't really anti-religion; whites seldom "feel superior"; and environmentalists are usually able to see what is and isn't reasonable.
I just don't see it. There are interest groups, sure, but I don't think their agendas are necessarily "against" anyone.
Having said that, there does need to be some unified visions we can start sharing. Have you read The Death of Environmentalism? It addresses this topic very well.
There are two big unified visions in America. One vision believes that government's primary role is to solve nearly every problem in society without being required to protect the freedoms of those hurt by the "solution". The other vision believes that government's primary function is to ensure an environment where people have the maximum possible freedom to pursue their interests and absolutely no business in fixing "problems" that result from this freedom.
Two extremes, I know, but this is the fundamental difference that will forever divide this nation. We can put whatever silly labels we wish on the two sides, but that will never make them come together. If there even were a possible compromise between the two ideologies it would simply result in one large nation in a moral war against each other.
Those who seek freedom and those who seek security through government force are almost different species of humans. This fundamental divide shapes nearly every other stance taken. Any policy or law can be traced directly back to one of these "camps".
So for anyone who wants to condemn or ridicule those taking stupid or kooky positions on either side of the political debate, please at least be aware as to the real reason as to why they do so. You may disagree on what is more important at the fundamental level, but no person is absolutely stupid or kooky.
All political debate comes down to a core belief about government's "proper" role. This is a philosophical position and is not, and never will be, something that can be "proven" wrong on either side.
You will find some otherwise very intelligent people on this forum debate the merits of a particular policy based on results that achieve a specific outcome. This would seem quite logical because it is natural for us to think in this manner. Their missing the point completely. Unless they can change the fundamental beliefs about what government should or should not do, debating results of what it has done or has not done is futile.
For example:
Suppose that there was a "Omniscient Bill" in congress. This legislation would eliminate all "problems" faced by our society. It would require that the causes of these "problems" to stop. Should the government pass this bill? Well that would depend entirely on your fundamental belief of what government should be, because the "problems" are a result of people acting freely.
So do you take away the freedoms of people to solve "problems" or do you accept these "problems" as a result of people acting freely and protect freedom for all? That is the stance that everyone must take with only their deepest belief to guide them.
Am I a kook, sure. Am I stupid, if you say so.
Sorry for the rant....I threw it into a new thread.
irspow- I don't consider a word you've said as a rant. I share your concerns that civilization wanting to somehow have a utopic society & perfect justice for all when they've encouraged increasing levels of dependence on itself... this trend cannot work without creating an environment ripe for those who mean to be herding sheople to thrive.
The biggest divide in our country I see- a weird war between rural and city mentality. Cities have had success by pooling their resources and have amenities that rural communities envy as a result. They've been the innovators of technology, the engine of economy. Rural folks have been the firmament of our country, the bread basket making sure chicago doesn't starve because they can't grow their own carrots. Rural success is rooted more in self sufficiency, or in profiting off the economy of a city while living in a low cost of living area. Rural attitude towards city folks is that they 'ought to' be self sufficient (which isn't practicable!). City attitude towards rural folks- build a city where you are and you'll have media access. Neither party is in touch with the realities of the other. I love them both but enough with the hatfield and mccoy BS. Neither is giving proper deference to the other, and go ahead- fill in the blanks-- who whipped up the flames of hatred between these two to garner power over all?
As a centrist I listen to them both and hear elitist nonsense from both sides. Frankly I want to shoot them both because I'm stuck between clowns to the left of me jokers to my right for decades. hahahaaa <runs out to stock up on ammo>
Can we agree that if you create a mess you're responsible for it? Create a chemical you rushed to market or grossly mishandled that hurts all (including companies doing the right thing) that attitude of entitlement from industrialists of old is ridiculous. If you can't manage to have the intelligence to see what it is you're doing, buy a vowel about the true cost of doing business, you have no business calling yourself a business.
As a former environmental enforcement 'cop' (USCG), I heard both sides of the argument first hand... the purpose of those laws are sensible and protect all. The rules as written for citizens/ business are mind boggling and not easy to stay in compliance with when not using common sense language. The laws are authored by people who have no comprehension of the industry they're trying to regulate. We're a nation of lawyers? Judges tell us failure to understand a law that PhD's could argue 20 yrs about interpretation is no defense? Agencies understaffed can't explain laws they're expected to enforce yet they can't understand themselves & afraid of liabilities for their own incompetence? Get an earful of your local building permits dept in any town USA you'll see it first hand at micro level. How nuts is this?
Equally, I was shocked out of my own naivete many moons ago seeing first hand how industry rides the lines of acceptable levels of pollution and buys itself out of trouble the way no citizen or small business could. Spiteful attitudes like flaunting the one more tablespoon of spill with a smirk because they're still in compliance with acceptable limits. It's despicable how far they go out of their way (at great expense) to circumvent the law. 20yrs of lawyering from exxon cost what and saved them what? Make sure you've got the right politicians priming the climate and the right judges in the supreme court before you close the case. Spend millions on environmental ad campaigns yet shareholders vote down every single proposal for meaningful change in operations up for shareholder decision.
The greenies are wrong, and they're right. Commerce is wrong and they're right. There's a better solution to be had IMO. Populous- Beating up the gas attendants over the price of gas mentality in our country needs to be quashed permanently. Commerce- accountability tied to your profits isn't optional. Government- you need to be beholden primarily to populous, secondarily to commerce, knowing the symbiotic nature of populous to commerce. That's a start.
Great post. I disagree with a lot of what you said, but it is good to see someone who can state their opinion without going postal on everybody else. If more people expressed themselves in this manner, we would be far better off.
Government force. Oh, and the hope that we can get government to give us something.
I think you "nailed it" with your second sentence!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
