People originally gathered together into large groups for commerce-- to trade. The innovations of society skyrocketed, as we needed organizational tools like accounting systems. It soon becomes apparent that public works (like a system of roads) boost the efficiency of civilization-- at it's core, a mutually beneficial system wherein everyone's quality of life improves. We-- humans, whose fundamental nature is social and cooperative, develop a system where we pool our resources, and collectively allocate funds into public projects-- the size and scope of which are not achievable at the individual level. This is the hallmark of a modern civilization, and it is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

Any political ideology which organizes around decrying public works and public funds is by definition anti-civilization, and anti-American.

Last edited by Flint (12/17/2020 2:28 pm)

Flint wrote:

People originally gathered together into large groups for commerce-- to trade. The innovations of society skyrocketed, as we needed organizational tools like accounting systems. It soon becomes apparent that public works (like a system of roads) boost the efficiency of civilization-- at it's core, a mutually beneficial system wherein everyone's quality of life improves. We-- humans, whose fundamental nature is social and cooperative, develop a system where we pool our resources, and collectively allocate funds into public projects-- the size and scope of which are not achievable at the individual level. This is the hallmark of a modern civilization, and it is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

Any political ideology which organizes around decrying public works and public funds is by definition anti-civilization, and anti-American.

I love how that other thing enshrined in the constitution (and foundational to civilization)  -- liberty -- never shows up in your lil essay...  👍

Last edited by henry_quirk (12/17/2020 6:30 pm)

henry_quirk wrote:

Flint wrote:

People originally gathered together into large groups for commerce-- to trade. The innovations of society skyrocketed, as we needed organizational tools like accounting systems. It soon becomes apparent that public works (like a system of roads) boost the efficiency of civilization-- at it's core, a mutually beneficial system wherein everyone's quality of life improves. We-- humans, whose fundamental nature is social and cooperative, develop a system where we pool our resources, and collectively allocate funds into public projects-- the size and scope of which are not achievable at the individual level. This is the hallmark of a modern civilization, and it is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

Any political ideology which organizes around decrying public works and public funds is by definition anti-civilization, and anti-American.

I love how that other thing enshrined in the constitution (and foundational to civilization) -- liberty -- never shows up in your lil essay... 👍

Lots of things that we all do have and enjoy are absent from his lil essay, but you can be sure the public roads, mentioned above, are a fine way to exercise that liberty.

You're not really suggesting that his post should be an exhaustive, comprehensive enumeration of the hallmarks of civilization enshrined in the Constitution, are you?

You're not really suggesting...

all I'm doin' is pointin' out the conspicuous absence of liberty in flint's lil essay on government & civilization


It's not the subject of this thread.

What if the role of government was to serve people?: some folks think preserving individual liberty is one of the roles of government and that a true civilization is undergirded by individual liberty

the problem is that some people have radically different ideas about what "individual liberty" means and what things are intolerable violations of liberty. some people think that the idea of a landlord being able to take half your money so that you can live in your house, a much bigger violation of liberty, than curtailing your right to extort people for housing. some people's have a view of "liberty" that considers taxation a more onerous overreach of power than corporate profiteering or economic exploitation. some people don't.

erika wrote:

the problem is that some people have radically different ideas about what "individual liberty" means and what things are intolerable violations of liberty. some people think that the idea of a landlord being able to take half your money so that you can live in your house, a much bigger violation of liberty, than curtailing your right to extort people for housing. some people's have a view of "liberty" that considers taxation a more onerous overreach of power than corporate profiteering or economic exploitation. some people don't.

 
your house: if you rent, it ain't yours

taxation:ain't nuthin' wrong with it if all parties involved are on the same page

gimme me a concrete example of corporate profiteering or economic exploitation

Flint wrote:

Still a non-sequitur. And apparently, just another excuse to incessantly accuse me of weird, random crap you read online, regardless of whether it has anything to do with my actual beliefs, which you haven't made even a cursory attempt to understand or ask about.

 
guy, I care as much about your beliefs as you do mine

and: pointin' out liberty is germane to a discussion about government is a non sequitur...who'd a thunk it?

as for pop-culture: don't bring up no pop-culture and there won't be no pop-culture

Well, let's hear that great case you're making for Liberty. So far, you managed to cause a big stink but you ain't said sh!t to explain yourself.  What I learned is-- people whose favorite vocabulary word is Liberty can't tell you what it is, why it's good, or one single concrete policy that would increase and/or decrease it..

Last edited by Flint (12/18/2020 11:05 pm)

I'd also like to hear Henry's vision of liberty. So far we know he's free to spread a virus because a mask is an enormous infringement. I'd like to put his vision against the idea of government as a platform for maximizing human potential. This is an actual conversation I'd like to read and maybe even engage in.

griff wrote:

I'd also like to hear Henry's vision of liberty. So far we know he's free to spread a virus because a mask is an enormous infringement. I'd like to put his vision against the idea of government as a platform for maximizing human potential. This is an actual conversation I'd like to read and maybe even engage in.

 
nah, I ain't doin' that, not here, not with you

I've shot my load multiple times on this subject, and related topics, over at the philosophy now forum...what I've learned is, folks don't move...and why should they?

the free man will never accommodate or compromise with the slaver; the slaver will never accommodate or compromise with the free man

there is no middle ground between them

so, no, I won't repeatin' myself here

if anyone has an interest: they can go over to the old cellar and read some of what I wrote there, and -- if anyone wants more -- they can visit the philosophy now forum

hell, here, in this place, I've posted some lil bits in the philosophy section

Undertoad wrote:

"What if the role of government was to serve people?"



It's a COOKBOOK!!

Actual out loud laughter alone in my home. Thanks, I needed that.

government can improve or make worse:

poor health and poor healthcare

toxic environment, food, and water

homelessness

hunger

* hours a week at $7.25 per hour.

poor education

and?