quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

So the selfishness etc phrase is an unsuitable basis from which to proceed.

For the record, it derives from the idea inherent in all religions that it is by way of selfishness that we cut ourselves off from God (or the Truth, or whatever). The word sin comes from the same root as sunder, indicating division. Sacrifice of self being the means of connection with God/the Truth/ etc.

For the purposes of a basic idea, it was used in that context and could be seen to be useful as a basis to describe the division of one citizen from another when the overall aim is to bring about unity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Very well Firmhand, thanks.

So then (again!) - selfishness in all its forms is the root of all social problems

I think we all understand the negatives of selfishness and what goes with it, arising from the idea that I am the only important person in the universe, of which I am the centre. As such I deserve everything I want, and if others presently have it then I may take it from them. Clearly in such a negative aspect, selfishness is only going to cause me problems, especially when I brush against others with the same outlook.

But you did raise the point of the likes of ambition earlier too. From a spiritual perspective, this would count as selfishness too, but clearly when it comes to ambition, enterprise and so on, these can be positive as well as negative in social terms, dependent on the means by which they are achieved and the motivations in carrying them out. The person who wants to become a doctor to help others is an example of this positive selfishness - he will have to develop himself through education and experience, and will likely not succeed unless he has sufficient positive self image - another example of spiritual selfishness.

So then, the original designation of a basis is now insufficient, since selfishness can be a socially positive thing too as long as the aims of it are socially positive and it is conducted in a way that does not harm others. We would then have to move to a position where the basis has to be adapted to allow this. Such as (?)

Selfishness at the expense of others is the root of all social problems

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Is the root of the issue selfishness at the expense of others, or is it the flawed value system of a core group being imposed upon society? I'm thinking of the market driven society, are people necessarily being selfish? Do people actually realise what is going on, or are they simply following a path chosen for us by our leaders, without actually understanding what that path is? Are the values of the core thinkers necessarily selfish, or do they geuninely believe they are offering freedom?

Obviously, I have more questions than answers...at this point.

1. ... is it the flawed value system of a core group being imposed upon society?

2.  Do people actually realise what is going on, or are they simply following a path chosen for us by our leaders, without actually understanding what that path is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Is the root of the issue selfishness at the expense of others, or is it the flawed value system of a core group being imposed upon society? I'm thinking of the market driven society, are people necessarily being selfish? Do people actually realise what is going on, or are they simply following a path chosen for us by our leaders, without actually understanding what that path is? Are the values of the core thinkers necessarily selfish, or do they geuninely believe they are offering freedom?

Obviously, I have more questions than answers...at this point.

NG

What I think I am seeing here is the beginnings of something that I really have a problem with:

1. ... is it the flawed value system of a core group being imposed upon society?

2.  Do people actually realise what is going on, or are they simply following a path chosen for us by our leaders, without actually understanding what that path is?

This seems to be doing a very dangerous thing: dividing up society into an oligarchy of evil users, and the larger population of unware, exploited dunces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Is the root of the issue selfishness at the expense of others, or is it the flawed value system of a core group being imposed upon society? I'm thinking of the market driven society, are people necessarily being selfish? Do people actually realise what is going on, or are they simply following a path chosen for us by our leaders, without actually understanding what that path is? Are the values of the core thinkers necessarily selfish, or do they geuninely believe they are offering freedom?

Obviously, I have more questions than answers...at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

For what it is worth. I think the problem is everybody wants to tell everybody else what to do, how to feel, what to say, what is important, etc...

True. That wont ever work anyway as I mentioned earlier in the thread. The only thing that will work in my view is to get agreement from within the people as to what kind of society they want - it cant be imposed.

Some one please tell me what exactly is wrong with a system were nobody gets a forced hand-out(poor or rich), where you can say what you want(on your property or public land), and the only thing enforcement is there for is punishing physical actions against a person or their property.  Why should government / the state / geographic state/city, etc... be in the business of imposing moral behaviour on people. I trully believe this is the problem.

I see a problem here, in that even if there is an agreement from within the people as to what kind of society they want, we would still need an administrative apparatus of some sort to make sure that the agreed upon societal agreement is in place and is supported. In respect of your comment about free speech, we always have to remember two things - that freedom must not be at the expense of another's and that whatever we might like to think, words are as dangerous as any gun, and possibly more so, when used to stir up hate.

Why does one person say islamic people are wrong because they view their wife as property, as if they can't participate in society with that belief, why not? If she is fine with it, then it is arrogance, to feel the self important compulsion to fix that which they'd argue isn't broken. I think it is wrong personally, but also feel it wrong to force my views on someone else, who is not threatening me.

This is an interesting point. Given that the wife is consenting, then is it really society's business to intervene at all? Subject to the wife being able to withdraw consent and there being no attempt to impose such relationships on the rest of society or expect others to participate in them in their interactions with the wife, I suppose it is no one else's business. Not to compare bdsm relationships with Islam, but isnt this what we want too? I would expect though, that such arrangements would have to be on a strictly opt-in basis, with the default being the reverse.

Or why if someone is on drugs, does one person feel they have the right to steal(taxes from one to another) from another citizen to support them. It is your right to support them, but not your right to take from others to support them. It is their choice to do drugs, and obviously if they can do drugs and still support themselves via the states handouts(stolen money), they'll be more likely to do drugs. Or why is it anyones responsibility to provide anything to others that have made a life of bad choices.

This comes to an important point; that we are all individuals but that we are all also in this together, and anyone can fall on bad times for any reason, and enter the downward spiral that can end in substance abuse too, since you mentioned it. If the ideal is to build a coherent society, then there has to be some form of safety net as one of the advantages of contributing to it in better times. The alternative is to not contribute but then to expect no help when evil times visit. Some might suggest that charity should be the safety net, but given our record on charity giving now, I dont feel anything would work unless it is compulsory to give through taxes - though perhaps if people dont want to contribute then this could be permitted subject to them receiving nothing when unemployment et al comes along.


One can talk of civility, or freedom until they are blue in the face. But at the end of the day responsibility comes from suffering from ones bad decisions whether that be bad grades, piss poor job, poor health, etc.. The system is not set up for that. It breeds irresponsibility on the backs of the responsible.

This is something I very much agree with. We have in the UK a sizeable number of people who make no effort whatever and have a successful lifestyle based on social benefits. This is unacceptable. Understandable in that social benefits are often in excess of their likely earnings, but unacceptable. This again though is another issue of advantage in return for contribution and can be dealt with by way of strong encouragement to contribute to the society if the advantage is to be retained - not necessarily in terms of financial contribution either. Overall, we cannot throw out the safety net for all, because of the poor example of some who have come to rely on it.

This permeates the whole system. Government bailouts of failing Huge businesses support this same behaviour. Grants and preferred loans to businesses to entice them to set up shop, encourages this bad behaviour(It is not the right of the city, to take the taxpayers money and arbitrarily give it to a business). It seems to me all of these problems are all extended from the same source, and that is the central thought that "One has the right to take from one and give to another for no benefit to themselves". And a further extention of that belief is to dictate core beliefs to others. How can anyone ever talk of freedom, and hold that view simultaneously. It is beyond me.

Inducements to have business locate in a certain place are unfortunately necessary in the global economy where businesses can locate almost anywhere. Businesses mean jobs for local people, and that should be the sole reason for such inducement. You speak of taking from one person at no benefit to them, but is this true? Jobs enable the workers to spend more and pay tax, and businesses in an ideal world pay tax on their profits, so this does (or should) benefit everyone in the long term - indirectly as it might be, in terms of lower taxes because of greater revenues perhaps.

It is not like if everyone wasn't paying 40-60 percent taxes(once you add federal, state, local, vice taxes, phone taxes, fees, etc) supporting this give take system, that the economy wouldn't be flush with cash to provide more than enough jobs and opportunity for those who wanted them.

This is a political issue and not really the subject of this thread, but yes we have a similar tax burden here. If we were to work out by agreement within the people what sort of society we wanted - one where there are public services and a safety net, or one where we are to do everything ourselves for instance, then we would have the answer on that one.

It's is quite absurd... but yet we go on proposing this should be legislated or thiat should be legislated. LOL, we are already defeated, that much is obvious, because when people try to think of a solution it is always via more government, or more manipulating thought to encourage conformity to what the individual thinks is right.

We are not defeated until we admit it. We are in a mess, thats for sure in my opinion, but we've been in a mess before and solved it, so we can do it again albeit that this mess is different to any other before. You are right though, in that legislation is unsuitable to producing a solution, in that is imposed and we cannot impose any view on the people but rather it must be formed from amongst the people.

The problem is the manipulation, whether that be thought manipulation, or economic manipulation. It's all the same, at the end of the day and teaches the same lesson.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

A general reply on the subject, to no one in particular.
 
There is a balance needed for an individual to feel that they are a valued part of a society.
A reasoned person would ask questions such as:
 
What am I contributing to the larger society?
What am I receiving in return?
Are my needs being met?
Will my children benefit from the current society model?
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

E,

What is a "fair exchange"?  And a "fair deal"?

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

These are the basic questions that totally confound the "general purpose do gooders", IMO because they lack either the imagination or quite frankly the intellect to see how subjective is their position when they try to answer them.