| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2003 : 04:28:53
|
Ivandial - I strongly diagree with both of your posts.
In the first one, you're assuming that the cause for neglect, abuse, etc, is "lack of love" and that there is a correlation to poverty. But it isn't. The bad social circumstances you're describing are part of a vicious circle with poverty - povery breeds violence and crime and negligence, which breeds more poverty, and so on.
Until we learn how to fill people with love ( a concept that sounds fascist to me) I suggest we deal with the part of the vicious circle we CAN cure - poverty.
As for your second post, I think it is condescending to describe a large percentage of the population as "lacking the mental capacity to take care of themselves" Especially as you directly associate the mental incapacity with poor people. That's degrading and unfair, in my opinion.
|
 |
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 06:03:28
|
Omar, there are indeed strong correlations between abuse/neglect and negative social consequences - including psychiatric disorders, drug abuse, homelessness and increased risk of being traumatized as an adult. If you want the references, I'd gladly give them to you. The cause of neglect/abuse is difficult to establish - and there are many probable cause - poverty included. However, there are high prevalences of neclect and abuse in all social classes. You are not doomed to abuse if you are poor.
Second, there are substantial social problems in scandinavia as well. Relative to other scandinavians, there are poor people. But compared to other countries, there is hardly any poverty here. Still - we have plenty of problems here too.
Third - I did not say "large percentage" but a significant portion - i am not talking about 50% of the population. I am talking about people with severe psychiatric disorders, drug abusers etc. - many of which end up poor or/and homeless - and which constitute several milliions in the usa alone (i admit i don't have exact figures here). I am not saying that they are permamently lacking this capacity. However, many do clearly not take care of themselves. This evident if one has ever worked in a psychiatric ward or an institution for drug abusers. We've even had rich people here, but they're too afraid to even bein using their money. 50% of schizophrenic patients will sooner or later qualify to a substance abuse disorder. When i am saying "taking care of" i am refering to basic abilities as taking a shower once in a while, remembering to eat, manage to talk to someone for 10 minutes without breaking down with anxiety, understanding that certain situations are dangerous so that you won't get raped again, finding other ways of soothing mental pain without using substances etc.
Further; it is often an advantage if one bothers to read the posts that one replies to. i never directly associated poor mental capacity to poor people in that people become poor because they are stupid. I never said that poor people are stupid. I was pointing out a necessary condition for libertian thought: people must be able to take care of them selves. What i was trying to convey was that many people who have been treated bad - end up poor. It's not their fault. It is not due to inherent mental deficiencies. I work with these people. They have my full respect.
Finally: i never said we should fill people with love, and i wonder why you'd even write that. If it sounds fascist to you, it is because you formulated it to be fascist. And frankly speaking, that pisses me off. I tried to point out that the core of the problem lies in people's ability to take care of each other, in other words - love and care - especially care. It is so basic it shouldn't even be necessary to point it out. Still it is - which is my second point. Yes, poverty has a lot to do with it. But money will not solve the problem. Ok, so if no-one is poor, maybe only 10% - and not 13% - will be sexually abused. There will still be big social problems.
Abuse and neglect are taboos. It is hardly ever discussed on television or in the news in general. People get upset reading about animals being treated bad, and still there are millions of kids living in abusive environments. Poverty is important - yes. And it is easy to point at because no-one gets hurt. So i am sorry if i seem a little overinvolved here, but my general feel is that society in large ignores children and their problems. And then they come to my office when they grow up. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 09:59:43
|
"Abuse and neglect are taboos. It is hardly ever discussed on television or in the news in general. "
You must be living in a world very, very different than the one I live in. I see stories of abuse, neglect, crime, etc, being shouted out of newspapers entirely.
I guess "a significant portion" means different things to you than they do to me. Or maybe not. You do estimate them as "several milliions in the usa alone". But I fail to grasp your point. Are you saying that millions of people in the US have "severe psychiatric disorders, [are] drug abusers,etc"? And you clearly do associate the illnesses with the poor "many of which end up poor or/and homeless"
So are you saying the poor are poor because they're crazy, or are you saying that the crazy are crazy because they're poor?
And I don't understand your point about abuses among the rich. Are you saying that abuse and mental illness causes poverty? Then, are the Swedes more naturally sane then Americans?
(A Norwegian once told me that Scandinavians have a high suicide rate becuase of the long nights, I don't know if that's true:-)
It seems more reasonable to me that the majority of social problems are associated with poverty. I don't mean to be hard on you, but I think that living in Scandinavia, which is much, much better off then the majority of the world (even in the 1st world - let alone developing countries), might bias your observations. Yes, eliminating poverty won't solve all of the social and racial problems in the world - but it will ammeliorate most of them.
If I was agressive, I apologise. I guess it's because I'm sick of people who think that the way to solve problems is to change the Zeitgeist. I find that a condescending non-solution for real problems. If that's not what you meant, then we're only disagreeing about the diagnosis, not the solution.
|
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 10:18:27
|
I think that the comment that the poor choose to be poor is bullshit. Ya, like I'm going to make a conscious decision to be poor. There are way too many factors to take into account and I think that is an ignorant assessment.
|
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 10:54:09
|
Hey Omer, i think ivandivel means that abuse and neglect aren't *discussed*. Yeah, it's in the papers, whoopdeedo, but who actually *talks* about neglect and abuse?
I was neglected my entire childhood, which is a form of abuse. What did i do to deserve that? Why do i have to spend years of my life deprogramming myself from this, so i don't abuse and neglect others, as well as associating myself with people who will encourage this?
And why was this not brought up as a serious concern for me until i was in my mid-20's?
I completely agree that a LARGE portion of the US/CAN population is mentally under-developed and truly unfit to raise mentally healthy children. Case in point - my parents. My mom and dad had me, and then divorced when i was three. My mom then hooked up with my step-father, who wanted to be with my mom, and not me, and thus i spent my 14years with them neglected. Neither of these people are fit to have children, imo. Both my sisters left 'home' at an early age as well. (15 & 17) I can see similar patterns in almost every person and family i see.
Parenting is a HUGE task and responsibity. And if the parents aren't broken out of the negative cycles that their parents 'gave' them, they will most likely be passed onto the kids. And it's something like the first two years of your life that will ultimately shape how you will turn out. Very scary thought if you ask me.
I'm not laying the blame on any individual, our society is really fucked up, and there is very little in place to help people.
Even with the amount of knowledge and awareness i have about how i was raised, what the inner motivations of my 'programming' are, and the knowledge that i have made HUGE improvements and growth, i am still no where near being in a state where i believe i could raise a child without passing on a lot of negativity.
Sadly, most of my peers would get quite defensive on reading this, rather than really examining what i'm saying.
Oh, and Omer - my parents weren't 'poor'. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 11:35:06
|
1) You are very good at polarizing. I'll give you that. "So are you saying the poor are poor because they're crazy, or are you saying that the crazy are crazy because they're poor?".
Nope - i said neither and if you have an urgent need for one simple answer, ask your local party leader or priest ( sorry if i am being rude, but i feel that you are twisting and turning my points to the incredible). My point is very simple : aversive experiences increase the risk of ending up poor through mediating variables as the severe consequences mentioned in my previous post. I am not talking about the poor as class. But i am talking about one significant mechanism that recrutes (if that is the right woord) people to poverty.
Of the ten leading causes of disability worldwide in 1990, measured in years lived with a disability, five were psychiatric conditions
Further : lack of care can have just as severe consequences as lack of food. Spitz, an american psychologist, investigated a hospital for orphan infants (1950s). Those who lived near the corridor lived, those who lived away from the corridor had increased risk of dying. Why? Because those near the corridor were more likely to be picked up and cuddled with by the staff. Which leads me to:
2) The negative consequences of abuse/neglect are very well documented. To imply that abuse/neglect is a zeitgeist unrelated to facts seem horrendous to me, and i would like to know what you mean by that.
3) The word "Crazy" has been effeciently used to stigmatize a large group of people who could have been like me or you - and to a large extend is. It should be avoided.
4) I thought my point about "class" and scandinavia was pretty clear. I am saying that money does not prevent large groups of people from severe negative social consequences. And it is that which matters, right? Or is it the money itself? People don't kill themselves because of long nights or endless summer days. If one chooses to kill oneself, one has a very serious problem which one should have gotten qualified help for. Long nights may not help, but it doesn't lay the foundation for that choice.
5) "Then, are the Swedes more naturally sane then Americans". Again, did you read my post? We have a pretty good wellfare system. They (psychiatric patients) don't have to be homeless unless they want to. They have food on the table, and money for cigarettes. I am sure that a socialist would like the swedes to be more sane - but i'm afraid they're not. If there was no system though, very many of them would end up very poor.
6) Compared to other crimes - yes, they are taboo. Compared to other interventions from health care - yes they are taboo. From what people that have been abused have to tell - yes they are taboo. I have lived in the us for a couple of years - i might be wrong - but i can't remember that the consequences of abuse and neglect ever was a serious issue. And it is the consequences that i am concerned about.
7) And yes - there are several millions with severe psychiatric disorders in the usa alone. Approximately 1% of the population will sometime be diagnosed with schizophrenia, 2-4% with bipolar disorder or severe depression, how manay drug abusers there are - i don't know. Many of these end up poor because of their problems - yes. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 11:46:37
|
| I agree with Dave totally. A great amount (how vague is that hey) of people have no self awareness, they just dump their unresolved shit allover the people around them. I really think we should have mandatory courses in the curriculum in schools, its just as important as any social studies course. |
|
|
|
evilheat
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 12:33:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Oh, and there've also been no conclusive studies that prove that eggs can boost cholesterol, and for a long time there were no studies that linked cancer and smoking, but it is common sense. Likewise, the lack of a study is probably because it's quite likely that everyone already knows and accepts the fact that when you have high taxes, you discourage the people with money who would start businesses in these countries from doing so. How many businesses have moved from Saskatchewan to Alberta or the US? How many people have likewise had to leave to keep their job or found themselves unemployed? A lot. And there's no way that either of those inevitabilities can be construed as positive for the economy, even if we discount the whole 'reduced potential investment' scenarios.
Dean, I hate to say it, but you sound exactly like GW Bush or Ronald Reagan, lower taxes and everything will be better. It didn't work for reagan and it's not working for bush, their economy is not doing so well, despite some of the biggest tax cuts in history.....it simple thinking to say it's common sense, the fact of the matter is (as I explained above), things cost money, whether that money is tax dollars or your take-home pay, is irrelevant, it's common sense to go to where you get the best value for your money, all your moneyy --> both tax and take-home money. Yes, it does occur that large corporations may move to lower tax areas, similar to some moving to places with lower environmental regulations or labour regulations, does this benefit anyone???? Beside if this were the rule, businesses would be continuously moving and end up concentrating in the tax free areas. It doesn't happen.
People start businesses, people in your community, not some mystical capitalist with no connection to a city or any people and no costs for quickly moving, that is an assumption in economics, it's nothing more than an assumption.......so besides people not being able to afford to simply move on a moments (or years) notice, people can tied to their community....and above this with a couple hundred thousand people it's pretty hard for businesses not start up to supply those people. Disconnecting economics from the rest of society doesn't work, there are social and environmental issues that come into play.
And if it is so very common sense, that lower taxes is better (I know you were simply talking about attracting businesses, but they rely on people not the other way around), then it would as simple as to line up a hierarchy of taxes, with a hierarchy of growth/standard of living/successful community.
Millions of Economists spend every day trying to predict this, there is no conclusive evidence that it's a set rule, lower taxes = increase goodness, too many other factors come into play, and especially if a government provides services that citizens value, at a lower cost to them.
As I said above the sum of money spent/value recieved that is much more important than lower taxes = better value.
If you want to read some generally accepted economics books on this look for stuff by Charles Tiebout, his theories are in relation to housing prices and taxes, basically in an area with higher taxes and more services provided by the government, houses are cheaper. In an area with lower taxes and fewer services provided by the government, houses are more expensive. The reason being that with lower taxes/fewer services more of the costs must be met through the market. In the end the costs to the consumer end don't differ much, it's just who they pay that makes the difference. Things aren't free just because their are provided by the government, and the same goes for the market, the money comes from somewhere. It's common sense. Who can provide a service at a better value is a more appropriate question. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 14:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by evilheat
Dean, I hate to say it, but you sound exactly like GW Bush or Ronald Reagan, lower taxes and everything will be better. It didn't work for reagan and it's not working for bush, their economy is not doing so well, despite some of the biggest tax cuts in history.....it simple thinking to say it's common sense, the fact of the matter is (as I explained above), things cost money, whether that money is tax dollars or your take-home pay, is irrelevant, it's common sense to go to where you get the best value for your money, all your moneyy --> both tax and take-home money. Yes, it does occur that large corporations may move to lower tax areas, similar to some moving to places with lower environmental regulations or labour regulations, does this benefit anyone???? Beside if this were the rule, businesses would be continuously moving and end up concentrating in the tax free areas. It doesn't happen.
But you're taking only half of what I said and arguing against it. I said that yes, there are benefits to lower taxes, and yes, there are benefits to higher social spending, but going too far in either place is ultimately self-defeating. We had a premier (like a governor in the US) in the 80's whose solution was spend-spend-spend and cut-cut-cut, and we're still recovering from the devestation that caused. Likewise, we now have a premier who is ultra-socialization, which was good for awhile as it balanced the capitalistic spending habits of the previous leader, but now we are starting to swing too far in that direction and the negativity is showing. All I say is that you need both sides of the equation or the balance is lost. Extremism = bad. And comparing me to GWB, even in terms of economic policy, is about the most offensive thing I've heard all day, and I popped in at 7-11 over lunch.
You're absolutely right that if we didn't pay for some of these things in our taxes, we'd be paying them in different ways. No social welfare might mean more money spent on law enforcement and the prison system, for example. I think it's more a question of deciding what should be public and what private and achieving that balance than of crowning everything or privatizing everything.
quote:
People start businesses, people in your community, not some mystical capitalist with no connection to a city or any people and no costs for quickly moving, that is an assumption in economics, it's nothing more than an assumption.......so besides people not being able to afford to simply move on a moments (or years) notice, people can tied to their community....and above this with a couple hundred thousand people it's pretty hard for businesses not start up to supply those people. Disconnecting economics from the rest of society doesn't work, there are social and environmental issues that come into play.
And if it is so very common sense, that lower taxes is better (I know you were simply talking about attracting businesses, but they rely on people not the other way around), then it would as simple as to line up a hierarchy of taxes, with a hierarchy of growth/standard of living/successful community.
True. Obviously there are still businesses here and Saskatchewan would probably be doing quite well for itself were it not for an agriculturally based economy, some childish bastards in the white house, a little less dependance on gambling revenue, and perhaps a more business friendly environment. Because people start businesses to make money, some, as you say, will do this at home (and not move), and others with no strings or perhaps considering a place to relocate may be more motivated by economic factors. I never said that all such decisions were solely economic, but I did say there is no denying that such things don't play a part (even a significant one) in the grand scheme of things. This is what I refer to as being common sense.
As for the businesses relying on people and not the other way around, you are both correct and incorrect at the same time. It is actually a circle, as businesses allow people to live and earn money which can then be spent on other businesses, allowing them to survive and employ people which...
Anyway, that covers the rest of what you said as well. I thought I was fairly clear that I believe in a balance of socialistic and capitalistic policies, and I'm sure you'll see that if you look again, but as you say, those are my theories, I'm not an economist, and I have nothing other than what I see as 'common sense' (since I wasn't formally educated in such a thing beyond 2nd level stuff) to defend my opinions and points-of-view; It's not intended to imply that you (or anyone who reads what I write and makes comparisons between me and the biggest idiot alive today) lack it. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 15:07:46
|
Dave Noisy
OK, let's assume for the moment that lots of people are not competente to have children. My question is - Who gets to do the chosing? I'm terribly afraid of any authority that will get to decide who can have children and who can't. But If you're talking about HELPING people who are unfit to have children... well, I support that, even if I wouldn't put it like that.
ivandivel - I'm sorry that you still feel like I attacked you. If my original tone was somewhat offensive, I apologise.
I don't think I'm polarizing: "My point is very simple : aversive experiences increase the risk of ending up poor" In other words: people are poor because they're crazy.
You say
" I am saying that money does not prevent large groups of people from severe negative social consequences"
and I agree with that.
So, where exactly do we disagree:
OK, a few points:
1. Fighting poverty should not be made secondary to other agendas, worthy as they may be. If you're over emphasizing neglect as the cause of people's unhappiness and poverty, you MAY BE INTERPRETED as saying that solving people's spiritual (for the lack of better word) problems comes before society's responsibility for the weak.
2. I am worried that talk on neglect becomes abstract attacks on culture, rather then specific calls for change and reform. Using a well thought transfer policy that encourages work, helping schools for the poor, etc, we can immilorate poverty, if not entirely solve it. Can we do the same for 'neglect'? How do you solve the social problems that traumatise children and cause them to grow up as fucked up adults? I'm afraid that instead of offering concrete solutions involving institutions and public policy, solutions to the neglection problem (actually, many different problems which should probably each have different solutions) will tend to be of the generalized and moralistic kind, and not actually do anything.
That's what I was talking about when I mentioned zeitgeist.
Cult of Frank - A lot of what you say makes sense. However, that's the problem with common sense. IT doesn't have to be true. And again, there has been NO LINK EVER FOUND BETWEEN EXPLICIT TAXES ON INCOME AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. All attempts to build highly logical stories as to why there should be such a link clash against the facts.
|
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 15:59:37
|
Omer, i appreciate your comments. I shall try to be brief (for once).
To say that adversive experiences increases the risk of being poor does not imply that people are poor because they are crazy. There may be many reasons for people becomming poor - one of them is definetely psychiatric problems. It should be possible to have more than one idea in the head at one time. I still feel that you are trying to put meanings into my mouth which does not correlate with what i'm actually saying.
I am totally for fighting poverty, and I have never talked about spirituality. Love and care are basics in anyone's life - either as basic building blocks or because it is missing. I seriously mean that people's emotional problems, at large, is the main cause. Escape from poverty can make the transfer into a more stable and predictable life easier - yes, for many it is a necessary first step. One example; one treatment approach to schizophrenia which has been very successfull, does not help the patient if he/she has no stable living arrangements (appartment/live with family etc). However - stable living conditions does not help if the person does not receive help on how to deal with difficult issues.
I somewhat agree with your second point. I surely don't want to attack specific cultures, and change is (almost) always good - but reforms are often cheap political tricks with little real consequence for people. The main solution for neglect and abuse relies on individuals - not the government (if you want to prevent it). You'd be surprised to know how many that actually have seen abuse/neglect and never done anything about it. People close their eyes - everyday. It's often even documented in journals that come with patients. There is a limit for government involvement in peoples lives, and most nations/cultures have placed the responsibility for raising kids in the family. For most, it turn out ok. For some, it is not ok. An infant needs love and care (here i go again) - which the government can't provide. It needs to come from somebody - not an organization. When it comes to "helping" (or "repairing the damage") - one needs government (institutions, housing-options, treatment options etc) and individual actions. If you see someone beating her son - you tell her not to. And you report her so that she can get help (of course - help must be available). Best of all - you treat your kids good so they'll grow up with plenty resources of self-care. If you want to help - join a local organization that helps homeless people and psychiatric patients. An hour a week can be gold for someone who needs someone to drink coffee with. If you want to help - stop calling them crazy. Stigamtization of mentally ill is bad enough as it is - and they do suffer from it.
I wasn't brief now was i? Well, a brif summary; one needs involvement from the government - no doubt. But i think that as long as individuals turn their back on unpleasant things - it won't get much better. You need both. That's why i am afraid that the focus on poverty, structural change and public focus - takes the focus away from the responsibility each one has in making sure that people of all ages have ok lives.
|
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 16:03:54
|
| I have a serious writing problem. I can see that now. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 16:04:31
|
| And i am refering to my spelling. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 16:05:14
|
| so that i can reach 100 posts. uh! |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 22:52:44
|
| Ivandivel - OK, my problem is, that I don't believe you can change individuals. I often wish I could, but I don't believe that kind of social engineering works. And here is my main worry about your line of reasoning: you (to some extent) shift the balance from organizations and governments, on which we have control, to the individuals, on which we don't. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 06:48:35
|
Nope - i say one needs focus on both. And the focus on individuals responsibilty is neglected - especially so in so-called "socialist" countries. People can change. One can change the environments of maltreated children. However - if one does not believe that, then there is no reason to intervene in other people's lives either. If you want to surrender to the pharmacolgy industry, do that. Let's just "maintain" these people with drugs the rest of their lives.
It might be wrong to generalize, but I see a lot of friends (socialists) demonstrate against Israel, during strikes, against racism etc - and i think it is a good thing. But when it comes to "real-life" solidaruty - they're a bunch of cowards and self-serving intolerants. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 07:33:53
|
| Since I'm from Israel, I'm not one hundred percent convinced demonstrating against Israel is always the best thing - but my point not withstanding. As much as we may wish that humans were changeable, I doubt that it can happen, and that focusing too much on that may mean neglecting the changes that can be made. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 09:47:57
|
I am sorry that your feelings about change is so negative (you might feel they are realistic). If you base your opinion on the situation in the middle-east, i can understand your sceptisism.
However, the system consists of individuals. If change is gonna come about, it requires change on the individual level. If that does not happen, your reforms were a waste of money. Period. Second, people don't change all alone. The most effective change-mechanism is some kind of interaction with other people. If you don't believe in change, you won't see it. If one expects the other to be a criminal, one behaves like the other is a criminal, the risk of the other acting criminal increases. If i expect to get hurt, i'll avoid you or be hostile, and i'll never get to learn that i wont get hurt. These are the most basic principles in learning psychology. We know we can change such assumptions and behavior.
I admit that social change is a complicated matter, and some change may take decades while other change can happen after a brief episode. Poverty is an important factor, I agree. And poverty should always be fought against. But - as long as people do not take care of their fellow human beings, there will always be large groups of people living on the outside.
Anyway, nice quarreling with you. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 15:19:46
|
Aye, i think progressive social change is something akin to evolution..and in the case of us hominids, i think we'll need to 'think outside the box', and force ourselves to think in a new way.
Proof is in the pudding that our current systems are all failing us miserably. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2003 : 08:58:06
|
Ivandivel - I would make a distinction. I believe in the ability to change human institutions, but, for better or worse, I don't believe we can change human nature much.
I think changes in human perceptions, ideals, belief systems, behaviours, etc, are for the most part independant of human agency, but work through much more complicated social, political and economic forces, what we may call zeitgeist.
Furthermore, I believe that for all the changes in humans, people stay pretty much the same throughout the centuries. I don't think humans in 21th century America are very different then people in 2nd century china.
Frankly, I'm not sure if that's a bad thing - I would hate to live in a world in which governments and influential people could cause major changes in people's attitudes. That sounds scary and possibly fascist to me.
However, I believe that people's institutions can be changed a great deal. Those changes probably require some amount of persuasion and/or propaganda, but for the most part they involve reconstructing structures and diverting resources.
Thus I think that great changes can be made in the environments people live in, but very few changes can made in the people themselves.
So, if there will ever be peace in the middle east (or in Ireland, or Africa, or any other place) it won't be (or at least won't primarily be) because people are more enlightened, but because the institutions and the incentives people get will direct them towards peaceful rather then violent solutions.
|
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2003 : 22:26:30
|
I'd like to think that if a positive and ground-breaking idea put forth (say, a la Gandhi), people would adopt it.
Generally people are too busy feeling too sorry for themselves to care about anyone else tho. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2003 : 16:26:48
|
quote:
I assume you were referring to legislative representation proportioned on the basis of ethnicity, race, or something similar.
This isn't proportional representation. Proportional representation is if an election is held and 45% of the votes go democrat, 45% republican, and %10% green, then the legislature would be 45% democrat, 45% republican, and 10% green. It gives more voice to smaller parties.
I don't know if that means in the election you vote for a party rather than for a person. |
|
|
|
massif snake
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
282 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2003 : 16:53:26
|
i think hate of government is fucking justified when you have a wanker like george w.bush as president. who wants an illiterate cousin fucker with his finger over the red button that destroys the world.
not me, bitches, not me.
have sex with the nuns at my school. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
