The Struggle for the Soul of America

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Struggle for the Soul of America

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:29 pm

A_uk
How does one pursue Life? And Liberty for that matter. What do you mean by this? As your constitution actually seems to say a right to Life and Liberty which presumably just means the rights to not be unlawfully or unjustly killed nor unlawfully or unjustly imprisoned, basically the Magna Carta updated for the pleb.

As for the pursuit of happiness, well apart from being a pretty woolly term this sounds fair enough but what restrictions do you put upon this? As one man's happiness can be the cause of great misery to another.
Time to get back to basics

Henry
It's not complicated: most communitarians don't view communitarianism as slavery. Instead they see it as enlightened and practical
A commune without choice is a jail. Working together can be practical but forced servitude is not. I will post the difference between negative liberties defended by the Constitution and positive liberties furthered by progressives like Obama.

First the Preamble to the United StatesConstitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Negative liberties protect the people from the government.
“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise the original rights of self defense – to fight the government.” – Alexander Hamilton

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
Now read how Obama and the progressives want to transform America into a country preaching positive liberties.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderi ... f4f811593a

Obama’s radio interview offers four main take aways, which I summarize using his own words where possible:
First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” (Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy).

Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments. Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.

Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” Obama opines that the civil-rights movement’s court successes cannot be duplicated with respect to income redistribution: The “mistake of the civil rights movement was (that it) became so court focused” and “lost track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground…In some ways we still suffer from that (mistake)."

Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”

In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots.
So the struggle for the soul of America becomes clear. It is a basic struggle for freedom from government influence to impose its will beyond what the Constitution allows . Our founding fathers warned us against it but the Obama types are dedicated to transforming negative liberties which protect us from government into positive liberties which impose statist slavery.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:49 pm

"A commune without choice is a jail."

No shit.

The problem (insurmountable, I think) is convincing communitarians they're jailed...they don't believe they are.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:02 pm

they don't believe they are

And I'm inclined to let them rot there.

I'm far more interested in just being left alone than I am in 're-educating' folks who don't wanna be 're-educated'.

As long as they leave me be: the communitarians can sew themselves together, ass to mouth.

But they won't leave me be, and that's the real problem, Nick.

America's soul is not in danger: self-direction and -ownership are.

Nick_A
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re:

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:36 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:02 pm
they don't believe they are

And I'm inclined to let them rot there.

I'm far more interested in just being left alone than I am in 're-educating' folks who don't wanna be 're-educated'.

As long as they leave me be: the communitarians can sew themselves together, ass to mouth.

But they won't leave me be, and that's the real problem, Nick.

America's soul is not in danger: self-direction and -ownership are.

But at the same time, aren’t those with deeper understanding morally obligated to pass on the value of the American ideal to the young? It is bad enough that spirit killing is a norm in many schools but what of the young who have no conception of the American soul and no one to suggest, “You don’t know what you have here.”

Jacob Needleman describes a meeting his students had with someone capable of making that question meaningful. Ignorance is bliss until it is time to pay the piper. Then we will hear “but who could have known?"


https://www.dailygrail.com/blog/probing ... needleman/
The following is adapted from an interview that appeared in the July 2002 issue of Science of Mind magazine (www.scienceofmind.com).

Mitch Horowitz: Your book “The American Soul” opens with a scene from the Vietnam era, in which you bring a group of students to meet a man of learning. A student is complaining bitterly about what he sees as the nation’s hypocrisy. At one point, the man of learning turns to him and says, “You don’t know what you have here.” How do you understand that statement, and why do you open the book with it?

Jacob Needleman: This person was a man of wisdom but also a man of the world, a businessman, and a great teacher. I had known him for many years and considered him the one who most helped me to understand the nature of the spiritual path. He never talked much about politics but more about the path or way of the spiritual tradition. I wanted these young students to meet him because of his wisdom about philosophical and spiritual ideas. The subject of the Vietnam War came up, as it always did with my students–this was a time when the country was really in agony and young people were outraged. In my own life, I never was able to put together spirituality and political issues. I considered them two entirely separate worlds, and what I thought of as politics was a world mainly full of illusions. This man had come from Scotland and jokingly referred to himself as “the last American.” He really loved this country. The students with me were speaking vehemently against America, and suddenly he said, in a way that commanded complete attention, “You don’t know what you have here.” He stunned everybody. There was a chilling moment of complete silence. Coming from this man of wisdom and depth of spiritual understanding, his words settled in on us like a great question, a deep spiritual shock that made us think and wonder. That was thirty years ago. The statement just sat in me, like a time bomb, over the years. And then about ten or so years ago, I realized that in trying to make a bridge between spiritual ideas and the issues of our contemporary world – to see what light the great wisdom traditions of the world could throw on current problems – I was facing the burning questions of: What is America? What does it mean? What is it for? Who are we, as Americans? What do we have here? These questions, which had simmered in me all those years, drifted to the surface of my mind and propelled me toward writing this book.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:18 am

"aren’t those with deeper understanding morally obligated to pass on the value of the American ideal to the young?"

Sure. I do this daily with mine. Not a damn thing I can do about the other guy's kid, though. So, along with teaching mine about self-direction and -ownership I also teach him about self-defense (which is what the 'or else' in 'mind your own business and keep your hands to youself, or else' means).

Face it, Nick: the war between 'I can' and 'I can't' is as old as humanity and it'll be with us well after we leave Earth for orbital platforms and hollowed out asteroids.

This particular iteration of the war -- what you call the struggle for America's soul -- is just that, a particular iteration of an on-going event that won't end till humanity is dust.

Not sayin' 'don't fight the good fight'; am sayin' 'keep your perspective' about these things cuz this shit will make you bonkers if you let it.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11267
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:31 am

henry quirk wrote:It's not complicated: most communitarians don't view communitarianism as slavery. ...
That'll be because it isn't. As far as I can understand it your health insurance policies work in principle pretty much the same way as our National Insurance contributions, so they rely upon most not getting ill at the same time so they have a cash pot to pay individual costs and put up premiums across the board if the payouts begin to hurt the pot or do you think you pay enough to actually cover the medical costs you might incur?
Instead they see it as enlightened and practical (see A_uk's comments in this thread regarding healthcare/insurance as example). Comes down to individual, subjective, priorities:: a body assess itself, assesses the world, assesses itself in the world, and determines 'I can' or 'I can't'.

It's an unbridgeable gulf between two irreconcilable stances. ...
But I doubt you could afford your medical costs without insurance? And if you have it you are using a communal pot I'd have thought?
I could say the same (you do us [Americans] a diservice)...meh.
I doubt it, I tend to try and do what I call the 'Yank' a disservice when they appear here but on the whole I like America and Americans and can understand their positions, I just don't agree with some of them as personally I think we are a social and co-operative species first and foremost.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:17 am

"As far as I can understand it your health insurance policies work in principle pretty much the same way as our National Insurance contributions, so they rely upon most not getting ill at the same time so they have a cash pot to pay individual costs and put up premiums across the board if the payouts begin to hurt the pot or do you think you pay enough to actually cover the medical costs you might incur?"

The ACA forces folks to buy that which they (as individuals) may not need or want.

Justify coercion of the individual. Justify one size fits all.

I've been uninsured for goin' on a decade now (yes, I'm a criminal according to the ACA and the IRS)...in that time, I've had some medical issues...one cost 'me' in excess of two grand...I paid it, not members of a pool, or taxpayers...'I' paid my bills...I pay ALL my bills.

I'll get insurance again when the ACA is a memory and when I can get the minimal catastrophic coverage I had pre-ACA.

#

"But I doubt you could afford your medical costs without insurance?"

Wrong, and I'm on a budget. Know how I do it? I treat medical care like any product or service: I shop around, compare prices and quality, and I demand an accounting for every expense. I don't get ripped off, I don't get double-billed. Lot of providers are willing to work one-to-one if it means thry can avoid lengthy and expensive paperwork. And cash in hand is always preferred to vouchers.

#

"I tend to try and do what I call the 'Yank' a disservice..."

Yeah, I'm a "yank" so when you piss on 'them' you're pissin' on me.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:20 am

"I think we are a social and co-operative species first and foremost."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Here's the thing: there's no universal standard for our 'social-ness' or 'cooperativness'...some of us truly need others while others don't.

One size does NOT fit all.

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re:

Post by thata23 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:43 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:20 am
"I think we are a social and co-operative species first and foremost."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Here's the thing: there's no universal standard for our 'social-ness' or 'cooperativness'...some of us truly need others while others don't.

One size does NOT fit all.
Oh yeah, you would be able to do everything yourself on this Earth (no teachers, no internet, etc.). Get out - borders need to and will be erased.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:45 am

"Get out - borders need to and will be erased."

Get bent - walls exist: always have, always will.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:53 am

What I need...

paid proxies to do that which I can't

to be left alone


What I get...

overpaid proxies who tell me what to do

messed with by hired hands and well-intentioned idiots

thedoc
Posts: 6438
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Re:

Post by thedoc » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:00 am

thata23 wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:43 am
borders need to and will be erased.
Borders will be erased when everyone else thinks like an American, you can't expect Americans to degenerate to the level of the savages and slaves (every other country) on Earth.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11267
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:50 am

henry quirk wrote:The ACA forces folks to buy that which they (as individuals) may not need or want. ...
Had to look this 'ACA' up and from what I can see it is a right old bodge. I think whoever thought it up should have gone down the Swiss model as it'd suit your system better I think.
Justify coercion of the individual. Justify one size fits all.
It's cheaper than your system but pretty much achieves the same outcomes across the board and one does not have to worry about getting and illness and dying because one can't afford the treatment or ones insurance doesn't doesn't cover that illness.
I've been uninsured for goin' on a decade now (yes, I'm a criminal according to the ACA and the IRS)...
Really? I'm surprised not having medical insurance is a criminal offense over there? You mean you dodge paying your taxes?
in that time, I've had some medical issues...one cost 'me' in excess of two grand...I paid it, not members of a pool, or taxpayers...'I' paid my bills...I pay ALL my bills. ...
Lucky you're so healthy and lucky in general. A friend of mine got knocked down by a cab in the US and the emergency treatment cost $10,000 alone. You think you could pay for cancer treatment or some other life-threatening illness or major surgery dur to an accident?
I'll get insurance again when the ACA is a memory and when I can get the minimal catastrophic coverage I had pre-ACA.
Sounds risky, especially since you have a dependent?
Wrong, and I'm on a budget. Know how I do it? I treat medical care like any product or service: I shop around, compare prices and quality, and I demand an accounting for every expense. I don't get ripped off, I don't get double-billed. Lot of providers are willing to work one-to-one if it means thry can avoid lengthy and expensive paperwork. And cash in hand is always preferred to vouchers.
And if you get a serious disease or have a major accident? How will you shop around in these cases?
Yeah, I'm a "yank" so when you piss on 'them' you're pissin' on me.
Nah! Notice I use 'Yank' and despite your 'folksy' tone I don't think you the kind of Yank I'm thinking about.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11267
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Re:

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:51 am

thedoc wrote:Borders will be erased when everyone else thinks like an American, you can't expect Americans to degenerate to the level of the savages and slaves (every other country) on Earth.
I think a lot of those 'savages' and 'slaves' would be happy if you just kept within yours and stopped killing them.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Struggle for the Soul of America

Post by Greta » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:08 am

The seeds of discontent lie in the USA's name. A nation that is truly united does not need "united" in its name; unity is a given.

The "united" in this case was a reminder to warring factions that their rifts must be glossed over for the betterment of all. That worked for a long time but the old rivalries and hostilities have re-emerged, like Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Each side blames the other for the conflict because they refuse to submit - as though complete submission was the only option. There seems to be no taste for compromise. Tensions have reached a point where another American civil war would seem more than likely in the next decade, resulting in further diminished global competitiveness and trust.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TimeSeeker and 9 guests