| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#The3DArtistClub
#Typographers-Society
#3D-Artists
#3-Dimensions
#typola
#C4DUsers
#3d-magazine
#Doctrinaire
| Digital Art / Other / Political | ©2012-2013 ~BuckleyTypographics |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
Last idea (for this time
Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully comment, most appreciated. Anyway, let’s see how I do.
In the United States of America, we have documents which not only outline the formation of a federal government but for the most part limit what such a body can do and what powers, rights, freedoms and obligations are to be left to the individual, local government and states. There is an honorable contingent of folks who believe this compact would preclude the federal government from taking over large swaths of private enterprise’s economic and social function. In other words, controlling medicine, insurance and automobile manufacture (the GM takeover) is outside the purveyance of the fed.
What are the reasons for this? Quite frankly when the federal body takes over more and more, it limits the freedom of the individual and society to do those things (be truly free) that was the purpose of setting this country up apart from all others in the beginning. This is ultimately why slavery did not continue as it was totally at odds with our founding principles.
But I digress. Remember that Obamacare was sold as this great wonder and that everyone would see just how great it’s provisions were, but the list of names you see in the picture are groups, organizations and companies who have achieved waivers from this “wonder” of the democrats. One would find in this list a startlingly large number of unions, organization and companies (especially companies from Nancy Pelosi’s district) who are exempt. Well, why is that if this wonder is so great?
And there’s the rub. This is why the founders wanted to limit the scope of the federal government, because of the very great possibility of using other people’s money to hand out political favors for the sole purpose of getting reelected in a quid pro quo.
And this ultimately is the aim of the left who propose these kind of sweeping federal programs. It certainly has nothing to do with charity, in fact Mr. Obama has already signaled his contempt of American Christians, the famous clinging to their religion comment,) and if anyone had any question about his views on Israel and Jews one only has to crack open a paper and watch what’s happening between Netenyahu and O right now.
But back to the aim, which is to create a permanent dependent class of Americans who are so fully wards of the state that they will, fattened, bloated and supine due to government’s largess they will without fail vote to keep in power anyone who promises to keep the spigot open full force. This regardless what its ultimate effect is on the economy, on competitiveness itself or on the individual. Dependency of any sort be it drugs or handouts has a damaging effect upon the moral fiber of the dependent once they have crossed into the so to speak adult years.
This is not to say that the truly needy not be cared for. They should. And they can. And government can play a role. But it is not the aim of the left to provide, that is only the packaging of the drug they’re selling. The aim is, as stated, retaining power by forced coercion, enslavement and dependency.
As the wealthy and capable begin to leave France to escape the onerous and punishing taxation under proposal at home, you’ll see what you have left. The well is not bottomless, like a Ponzi, collapse is inevitable.
Hope this helps.
"Is charity compelled at the point of a sword truly charity? Or is it more like thievery?" I would say : yes, it's charity, because 90% of people are so... individualistic (not to use other words) that the only way to really have "charity" (or help,...) is to force it "with the point of a sword", as you say. But, by this way, "thinking people", or people attached to certain (moral) values, or simply honest people, will certainly feel cheated.
About the value of "full freedom", the value to which you seems very attached : So am I, but may be the difference between our two "ideas" is that I can do without in some cases and it's seems you don't accept any exemption. I couldn't tell which one of us is right, IF ONLY one of us is right. Thereupon, I propose this text of Benjamin Constant, swiss/french politician and intellectual of the 19th century; he compared the concept of freedom of the Ancients (= in antiquity) and Moderns : "Thus among the Ancients, the individual, almost sovereign usually in public affairs, is a slave in all his private relations. As a citizen, he decides peace and war, as an individual, he is circumscribed, observed, repressed, in all his movements. Among the Moderns, on the contrary, the individual, independent in private life, even in the freest states, sovereign only in appearance. his sovereignty is restricted and almost always suspended, and if at certain periods, but rares, he exercises this sovereignty, it is never as abdicate (abdicate = elect representatives who will decide for him). I hope the translation is quite correct. I think that not only he was right, but that this condition has increased in the 20th and 21st century : we're not becoming more "free" but more "enslaved", with the impression of freedom. If you can, let have a look about what Alexis de Tocqueville, often considered visionary, said about what he called "the new despotism" in America. Then you will may be see the reason I consider "freedom in USA" as a humbug. "Your" founders, and their french "follower"/"copiers" in 1789, are great and very moral people, but sad to say that it's been decades since their values have been neglected; U.S.A. isn't the country of freedom that US politicians proclaim, nor France or any of these countries proclaimed "democracies". Sadly, it's worse in many other countries...
All your writings shows your attachment to the idea of non-interference of governement in business, more generally, in the lives of Americans. But can you really and honestly assure that this influence is small ? From "here", it isn't so obvious...
I think I'll make some people scream, but, over time, at the present time, I think the best political system is a kind of enlightened dictatorship. As said an artist, though known to be a protester and a freedom lover : "The majority, there is nothing stronger: put 10 philosophers on one side and 11 idiots on the other side, idiots prevail". But, of course, no current leader is like near or far with the definition of an "enlightened dictator". It's a little paradoxal, I know...
"to create a permanent dependent class of Americans who are so fully wards of the state that they will, fattened, bloated and supine due to government’s largess". I don't think this will be the result. In France, this type of "obligatory help" exists for many decades and I have not yet seen the emergence of a class of people "fattened, bloated and supine"... discontent makes you predict that ? Or do you observe some evidences of your affirmation ?
"This is not to say that the truly needy not be cared for. They should. And they can." IMO, this is a debate about the "perfection of the system". Do you think the "truly needy" should wait until the politicians find the "~Perfect System~" ? In this case, they will wait for eternity... For exemple, a possible result of "Obamacare" : "The principle of this obligation is to prevent clients to take out insurance at the last moment, when their condition is critical, at a lower cost, benefiting from equal protection while avoiding the equitable distribution of health care costs"; don't you think this is (almost) one good result ? I was not very surprised to read in your text that the "Obamacare" was already perverted from birth (see "One Would find in this list a startlingly wide number of unions, companies and organization .."). After all , moderns politicians has discovered that Julius Caesar was right even after 2000 years : "give the people bread and games...", and you can reign in peace (eg. without a real opposition). However, I still think that "something", even perverted, is better than "nothing at all".
"As the wealthy and capable begin to leave France to escape the onerous and punishing taxation under proposal at home, you’ll see what you have left." on this point, you totally wrong. May be you refer to Bernard Arnault, leader of LVMH, a company of luxury goods, not a "builder", not somebody important for the World. You should know that the tax level only returns at the level "before Sarkozy", (the french champion of clientelism) = 5 years ago . These percentages of taxation were used during many decades, without a "brain escape" has been noted. No "wealthy and capable" left France, only very rich artists, sportsmen and few very rich leaders of company; I think I can say for sure it will be the same in the future. I can't endorse this lack of civic responsibility, this attitude has nothing to do with a "leak qualified people", it's just "GREED" (Big One). Anyway, the very greatest part of taxes (= the wealth of a country) comes from the middle class, the rich do in fact provide a small portion of all taxes... They can leave, if they want, but I can't named them "responsible"... During my economic university study, I study the exemple of Norge or Sweden, I don't remember exactly, which raise a lot taxation, especialy for people like leaders of small business or engineers,... the result was a raise of undeclared casual work and/or less office hours (so, in fact less of taxes collected); no "escapes". If think this kind of high/middle class, the "real ideas producers", never leave the country, especially after buy their house, built their family,...
Last words about "democracy" and "freedom": I become quite old now, and many years of observation show me that France follow the exemple of USA : same kind of medias, same kind of politicians,... French people are now "sheeps". Stéphane Hessel, a former French Resistance fighter in 2nd WW, writed "Time for Outrage!" to say them to "shift themself", without success. I think really that most of people of modern "democracies" fall asleep and let "others" decide in their place, in a very bovine manner... I don't think it's the good way to build a "DEMOCRACY" and it's not a way to be >FREE< but >ENSLAVED<. For this, even if we aren't agree on many points, it's a pleasure to discuss with you. Keep thinking
In fact, are we debating about freedom or the notion of individualism ?
(ouch !! what a big writing !)
Basically what you argue for in centralized control is a swap. We'll trade a distributed network of local expertise for distant central control residing in a few individuals, or one. To put it another way, swap a bunch of brains for a singleton. One head is better than two, or even thousands.
Ultimately the American Experiment is one of crowd sourcing. Let free people go forth and work it out themselves, then take the best ideas and see them flourish naturally. What you would argue is that enlightenment resides in a few individuals and they should be in control and make decisions for everyone else due to their enlightened state. That of course is baloney.
I wouldn't argue nothing, because it was just a working theory. "Enlightened dictatorship" or communism, both "theories" have the same obstacle: people. People will fight for idea of full "freedom" for the first theory and the idea of sharing what they earned (or simply possess) for the second theory.