Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Kerry and Bush both are a member of the Skull and Bones. Thus they are two sides of the same coin. In fact, an argument can be made that this is a crucial move by the status quo in the arena of putting to use the Hegelian Dialect. Strange how the media supported Bush and his War antics in the initial phase of things, and now it is turned against him. You create a problem ( Bush, war ), you get a reaction ( war becomes unpopular, economy falls, criticisms appear ), you offer a solution ( Kerry and the Democrats ). Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. Eh, I guess them masses never learn. I'll just be observing all this from my shack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 INDEED. All those are philosophical issues that would be solved if it weren't for politicians. You and anon and others like you without kids, mortgage, responsibility can Philosophize practical aspects of life without a clue until you need the very same services others fought hard to have available for you! That is very philosophical indeed! Get over your high chair! Did you apply for a financial aid in school? Probably yes and if yes why? Why did you not refuse that funding since it came from the government and voted in place by politicians with the help of responsible people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Kerry and Bush both are a member of the Skull and Bones. Who isn't when it comes to power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 You and anon and others like you without kids, mortgage, responsibility can Philosophize practical aspects of life without a clue until you need the very same services others fought hard to have available for you! That is very philosophical indeed! Get over your high chair! Did you apply for a financial aid in school? Probably yes and if yes why? Why did you not refuse that funding since it came from the government and voted in place by politicians with the help of responsible people? This assumes that only the government can give you services such as the things you listed. On the contrary, government is a monopoly of force, and in order to legitimize its existnece, it must convince the people that only it can provide such services as freeways, firefighters, police, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Oh and on a side note, I got loans for school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 You and anon and others like you without kids, mortgage, responsibility can Philosophize practical aspects of life without a clue until you need the very same services others fought hard to have available for you! That is very philosophical indeed! Get over your high chair! Did you apply for a financial aid in school? Probably yes and if yes why? Why did you not refuse that funding since it came from the government and voted in place by politicians with the help of responsible people? It's a matter of benefiting from a governmental factor that surmounts our choices and every day activities, yet boycotting the system for the sake of some idealistic and romantic philosophy. Sort of like children that want freedom to make their own decisions and establish their own rules, yet taking money from their parents and living in a home at no personal expense. I think many start out that way and once they face the world on their own they realize that sides must be chosen, and we can fight it until we are blue in the face but nothing will change. Egh, there is a hypocrite in each and everyone of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 One can argue, and indeed many have, and perhaps it is deserving of a thread of its own, that Democracy is the worst form of government. What is your alternative-Anarchy? Fascism? Communism? Problem with libertarians is that “minding my business” is impossibility while you drive your car on public roads-paid by tax payers-send your kids to public schools-paid by tax payers-and go vegetate procrastinate about the government, not paying taxes etc. This is why Libertinism is a form of anarchy which has no practical bases in real life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 "Tent".... Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend saying "Look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson replied, "I see millions and millions of stars." Holmes said "What does that tell you?" Watson pondered for a minute and responded "Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?" Holmes was silent for a moment, then spoke. "Watson, you idiot, somebody stole our tent." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 You and anon and others like you without kids, mortgage, responsibility can Philosophize practical aspects of life without a clue until you need the very same services others fought hard to have available for you! That is very philosophical indeed! Get over your high chair! Did you apply for a financial aid in school? Probably yes and if yes why? Why did you not refuse that funding since it came from the government and voted in place by politicians with the help of responsible people? Who says I am not married and don't have kids? Who says I don't pay mortage or rent? Who says I don't have responsibilities? Who says I don't have a job? No, I did not apply for financial aid. I work part-time and do my Master's part-time, otherwise I wouldn't be able to afford it. And for the record, the money that goes into student loans comes from responsible PEOPLE, not politicians. Politicians only have the "duty" of privatising that money. If we had a non-political, philosophical system for the distribution of funds, we would not be having problems of discrimination or reverse discrimination. It is politicians who seek to put a band aid on the problem. Philosophers aim to analyse it and find a permanent solution to it. They are the bridge between the abstact and the practical, between the material and the immaterial. And for the record, I worked, went to school, paid my tuition fees, AND my cancer treatment costs all at the same time, while undergoing treatment. How's that for politicians? Let's see how many of them are willing to do something as minute as sticking to their word, let alone trying to implement a fair system for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Who isn't when it comes to power? That is a good question for which I ask another question. If you realize this then why vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 What is your alternative-Anarchy? Fascism? Communism? Problem with libertarians is that “minding my business” is impossibility while you drive your car on public roads-paid by tax payers-send your kids to public schools-paid by tax payers-and go vegetate procrastinate about the government, not paying taxes etc. This is why Libertinism is a form of anarchy which has no practical bases in real life. You seem like you're taking this way too personally. Lighten up will ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 we are all entitled to have our own opinion, having an opinion and acting upon it are two different things, yes i dont like certain aspects of democracy, but i am thankful for everything i have now because of a democratic government....we have minds...therefore we think.....all i can say...but i see where you are coming from, im sure id have a different approach to it if i was older and had children and more responsibilities...but it is only human to question and to analyze/criticise...please keep in mind that you were onece young and careless...not that im careless...i have more on my plate than anyone can imagine...trust me you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Ani jan the poses for me are just that poses which attracts me to an interesting composition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Philosophers aim to analyse it and find a permanent solution to it. Please name a philosopher who achived that! On a side note Do you think Armenia needs more philosophers to solve the dire social issues there?or You think Armenian population should rise up and change the leadership much like what took place in Georgia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) It is a major pastime of trying to equate government criticism to a few idealistic pimply faced teenagers, and assume that we are romanticists in the search of the perfect world. On the side note, yes I live at home, so do most people and that has nothing to do with government. One can live and contribute and take personal accountability and responsibility. Those who seek political solutions to all the ailments of the world are the ones who are least self-responsible and rely on politicians babying them and solving problems for them. It is precisely peoples need to lead self-directed lives and not depend on others, nor on politicians that people are facing the real world. Only those who are not accustomed to making decisions for their future and themselves are the ones who hopelessly defend government. It is this same thinking that allows us to direct all our energies on the State and politicians, and collective thinking that the State is able to mobilize in destructive tendencies. The State can murder and steal, yet we criminalize individuals. Of course, the psychologists call this projection. We are uncomfortable with the awareness that "who we are" with our darkside attributes is inconsistent with the virtuous qualities around which we have built our self image. Were we in reality brave enough to look deeply within ourslves, we'd discover that we do have capacities for violence, dishonesty, anger, sloth, cowardice, indolence and other characteristics that conflict with the image of goodness we have created for ourselves. We unconsciously believe that the way to purge ourselves of these undesired qualities is to project them onto scapegoats, against whom we proceed to take punitive action. This is where the State comes in and mobilizes our fears, as it is acting as the transference object, where we transfer our fears. Going into the real world is precisely what a self-responsible and individual person does, not someone who is dependent on politicians to make decisions for them and what to do with their money. It is precisely my disagreement with the income tax that I am taking a self-responsible position on how I should spend my money, not have government take it, but since government uses coercion there isn't much one can do. We would call taxation "theft" if done by any other private individual working outside of political affiliations, but our political conditioning won't allow us to call it 'theft". Edited February 9, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 You seem like you're taking this way too personally. Lighten up will ya. There was nothing personnal about my comments.Just trying to get the bottom of it instead of half baked ideas being flanked around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Please name a philosopher who achived that! On a side note Do you think Armenia needs more philosophers to solve the dire social issues there?or You think Armenian population should rise up and change the leadership much like what took place in Georgia. Pardon me, I must be going to bed, it's 6 a.m here, but I will address your post when I wake up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 One can live and contribute and take personal accountability and responsibility. Those who seek political solutions to all the ailments of the world are the ones who are least self-responsible and rely on politicians babying them and solving problems for them. You are construing the topic. Nobody on this forum advocate having all the ailments solved by politicians.( impossibility)You are confusing larger context verses personnal contex. It is precisely peoples need to lead self-directed lives and not depend on others, nor on politicians that people are facing the real world. Only those who are not accustomed to making decisions for their future and themselves are the ones who hopelessly defend government. You are operating, living, perhaps working in this government, correct? The argument is why would you not be able to do those things in countries like Afghanistan -plenty of individual freedom-The answer is obvious .We are talking about a framework where democratic government is much more then politicians in which it propels stability, respect of law, economic progress, jobs, prosperity. All achieved because of active individuals. On a personnal note I do the thinking and the doing . It is this same thinking that allows us to direct all our energies on the State and politicians, and collective thinking that the State is able to mobilize in destructive tendencies. The State can murder and steal, yet we criminalize individuals. Enough people vote and raise their objections on things we don't want our government to engage in then we would not cry wolf when the crap heats the fan. democracy is a living active process and that is sorely missed when taken away from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 It's a matter of benefiting from a governmental factor that surmounts our choices and every day activities, yet boycotting the system for the sake of some idealistic and romantic philosophy. Sort of like children that want freedom to make their own decisions and establish their own rules, yet taking money from their parents and living in a home at no personal expense. I think many start out that way and once they face the world on their own they realize that sides must be chosen, and we can fight it until we are blue in the face but nothing will change. Egh, there is a hypocrite in each and everyone of us. Very well said, Anileve. I was like the people described above but now I think there's no point in trying to fight the system, and no matter what, this is the best form of government the humans have come up with. It's not perfect, it's not flawless, it's not ideal - but if enough people participate, there will be a difference. No matter how small or insignificant, there will be a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Enough people vote and raise their objections on things we don't want our government to engage in then we would not cry wolf when the crap heats the fan. democracy is a living active process and that is sorely missed when taken away from you. You are construing the topic. Nobody on this forum advocate having all the ailments solved by politicians.( impossibility)You are confusing larger context verses personnal contex. You are operating, living, perhaps working in this government, correct? The argument is why would you not be able to do those things in countries like Afghanistan -plenty of individual freedom-The answer is obvious .We are talking about a framework where democratic government is much more then politicians in which it propels stability, respect of law, economic progress, jobs, prosperity. All achieved because of active individuals. On a personnal note I do the thinking and the doing . I don't know about the comparison to Afghanistan since the problems over there are a result of too much government ( U.S. ) destroying it. It is anarchic because of war, and war is something only governments bring since they are institutionalized violence. A framework for a democratic government can perhaps be worse than anything else. Our own "Democracy" was originally a Republic, a far more different concept than a Democracy, and in fact it wasn't a "Democracy" until it was coined so in the early 20th century. Politics, whether Democracy, or Socialistic, and politicians, have nothing to do with economic progress, they only hamper on it. You are precisely right that all of those things are a result of active individuals workin for their desired ends and cooperating to gain as in the marketplace. Enough people vote and raise their objections on things we don't want our government to engage in then we would not cry wolf when the crap heats the fan. democracy is a living active process and that is sorely missed when taken away from you. Well if you want to vote, that's fine with me, but I respectfully disagree my friend. Voting and Democracy are based on majoritarianism, meaning might is right, and even "truth" becomes a matter of majorities. It gives leaders an excuse to do what they do. If a leader is elected and is a tyrant, all he has to do is show that it was the will of the people. And while there are indeed those of us who would like to vote our lives away into the hands of tyrants in a democracy, it throws everyone else into the hands of the tyrant as well. So when you vote you are not only voting for yourself, but you are voting for everyone, and hence why politics is a game of telling your neighbor how to live. If those of us who are truly of the principle "live and let live", then we wouldn't vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Please name a philosopher who achived that! All of political thought is based on philosophy. What popular culture nowadays portrays as politics and parliamentary sessions has its roots deeply in philosphy, political philosophy, which is why there is something called political science (compared to politics). People like Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, More, Orwell (read Animal Farm!!!), etc. have all had their share of contribution. And if you think politics was developed and formed by people like Bush, well then, feel free to continue to think so! On a side note Do you think Armenia needs more philosophers to solve the dire social issues there?or You think Armenian population should rise up and change the leadership much like what took place in Georgia. I think Armenia (and all other countries), need a sane and working political system, one that is not based on practicality and materialism (like "democracy" is), but rather on philosophical and moral values. Once we achieve that, we would no longer need to attempt to make the world a Utopia, and in the process making it a Dystopia. Democracy is not a Utopia, and it cannot possibly achieve anything remotely close to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend saying "Look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson replied, "I see millions and millions of stars." Holmes said "What does that tell you?" Watson pondered for a minute and responded "Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?" Holmes was silent for a moment, then spoke. "Watson, you idiot, somebody stole our tent." HAHAHAHA!!! Good one Gamavor jan! You just had it ready and waiting for the right moment, and what a perfect moment it was. Armat, I was simply teasing you but I do find it peculiar that you often choose such "broad" avatars. He he he. Something tells me that you like broad horizons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 I think Armenia (and all other countries), need a sane and working political system, one that is not based on practicality and materialism (like "democracy" is), I disagree,Armenia needs democracy badly and materialism as well.I see materialism in the broader context -that which creates pruducts jobs etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 Armenia needs a dictator. *raises hand as a volunteer* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 I don't know about the comparison to Afghanistan since the problems over there are a result of too much government ( U.S. ) destroying it. It is anarchic because of war, and war is something only governments bring since they are institutionalized violence. A framework for a democratic government can perhaps be worse than anything else. Our own "Democracy" was originally a Republic, a far more different concept than a Democracy, and in fact it wasn't a "Democracy" until it was coined so in the early 20th century. Politics, whether Democracy, or Socialistic, and politicians, have nothing to do with economic progress, they only hamper on it. You are precisely right that all of those things are a result of active individuals workin for their desired ends and cooperating to gain as in the marketplace. Well if you want to vote, that's fine with me, but I respectfully disagree my friend. Voting and Democracy are based on majoritarianism, meaning might is right, and even "truth" becomes a matter of majorities. It gives leaders an excuse to do what they do. If a leader is elected and is a tyrant, all he has to do is show that it was the will of the people. And while there are indeed those of us who would like to vote our lives away into the hands of tyrants in a democracy, it throws everyone else into the hands of the tyrant as well. So when you vote you are not only voting for yourself, but you are voting for everyone, and hence why politics is a game of telling your neighbor how to live. If those of us who are truly of the principle "live and let live", then we wouldn't vote. I disagree with everything you wrote and it is my impression that it would be a wasted effort to continue this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.