Posting here because I can't figure out how else to do it.
If we had a country that consisted of small diverse units, mostly self sustaining energetically and agriculturally, and cooperating and trading with each other, we would then have free markets, not because they are an "ism" supported from an organized "top" but because they are natural, and form organically when given a chance. Mostly, they are small enterprises. The problem is the size and top-heavy structure of what we have. Another problem, less obvious, is that the ideals of the Constitution and Declaration were not followed by the founders, in that they were mostly rich white men who wanted to keep it that way - no women, no poor people, no people of other colors. That is not specifically what you address, except that it is the beginning of the "from the top." The other item that is not addressed is that in order to achieve the ideal, the good, a substantive change must occur within the human heart/mind. I still say that the problem is not with the "isms" but with the top heavy structure and the size, which corrupt any "ism". Check out the intentional communities. Not that any of them is "the" answer, but it is interesting to see what can be accomplished within small, self govening units, producing a variety of products and services and often self-sustaining. It's good talking with you. Elizabeth
Thanks Elizabeth. I hear this a lot, that people don't want to take sides on "isms", but I am not taking a side for an "ism", but rather I am standing for freedom. What we have now is not free markets, is crony capitalism, which means that big businesses are in bed with the government and they both work together to screw the little guy, which is what you said by it being corrupted. What we need is to get government out of it, stop rewarding big business and we need to have true free markets. This is the only way to achieve what you are referring to. The path forward is the Constitution and to reinforce individual freedom, and then we as individuals will create the best possible society.
SOCRATES GOLD by Glenn Meder
Glenn Meder replied to your comment
Thanks Elizabeth. I hear this a lot, that people don't want to take sides on "isms", but I am not taking a side for an "ism", but rather I am standing for freedom. What we have now is not free markets, is crony capitalism, which means that big businesses are in bed with the government and they both work together to screw the little guy, which is what you said by it being corrupted. What we need is to get government out of it, stop rewarding big business and we need to have true free markets. This is the only way to achieve what you are referring to. The path forward is the Constitution and to reinforce individual freedom, and then we as individuals will create the best possible society.
Glenn, on most things, I agree with you, but not on the issues of the "isms" and not on creating new countries - primarily because neither side will rest until the other side is subjugated. This is so because what you call the deep state or the elite does not really embrace any "ism" but simply wants everyone marching to the same drummer, the one that they control to their advantage. Read "Brave New World" and Huxley's later commentary, "Brave New World Revisited" There is no "ism" there, just people all marching to the same tune.
As far a left and right go, there is good and not good on each side. For example, how can either side call itself pro life. The left wants to destroy the unborn and any unproductive elders (perhaps any elders with memories of how it was before ) and the right is totally uncaring of how its support of big business is destroying the planet and the lives of people who can afford to live only in marginalized areas. Both are, each in their own way, agents of death. We need not a one side over the other, but a complete change in human attitude.
As far as the "isms' go, socialism, communism, AND capitalism are corruptible, by the control from the top. Any of these three works just fine on a small scale, in individual communities which support whatever "ism" works for them - probably some adaptation or mix. Intentional communities give witness to this (www.fic.org) The key is to keep the control by the people at grass roots level, and for this we need direct participatory systems, which by definition must be small enough so that people of shared values can form them and so that everyone in the organization is aware of the other people there and of what they are doing. There needs be no control by one person or one small part of a group, and certainly no huge entities. This is in direct opposition to what we have now. People living in small, perhaps tribal sized, groups around the country, self-governing but cooperative and trading openly with each other is something unheard of and what most will say cannot happen because these groups will simply fight with each other for dominance until we have again what we have now. But, the issue is, that change cannot come from the top down and be successful. I pray for a growth of human consciousness (and yes, in love and compassion and reverence) to be able to accomplish being beside each other without the need to conquer each other or have everyone be just the same way. Elizabeth
The Constitution does NOT allow for anyone to choose to give up their freedom. This is because one who is willingly oppressed also must have an oppressor. Oppressors are in violation of the Constitution. (Think "king of England"- the reason we even have our founding documents, right?) So, you cannot choose to enslave someone NOR be enslaved. I think this argument about "we can choose to give up our freedom" is not supported by any of our founding documents or laws. Not one. Which is the lithmus test for what one "can do" in America. Not to mention it is pretty absurd construct when given anything more than lip service.
Hi, Glenn
Posting here because I can't figure out how else to do it.
If we had a country that consisted of small diverse units, mostly self sustaining energetically and agriculturally, and cooperating and trading with each other, we would then have free markets, not because they are an "ism" supported from an organized "top" but because they are natural, and form organically when given a chance. Mostly, they are small enterprises. The problem is the size and top-heavy structure of what we have. Another problem, less obvious, is that the ideals of the Constitution and Declaration were not followed by the founders, in that they were mostly rich white men who wanted to keep it that way - no women, no poor people, no people of other colors. That is not specifically what you address, except that it is the beginning of the "from the top." The other item that is not addressed is that in order to achieve the ideal, the good, a substantive change must occur within the human heart/mind. I still say that the problem is not with the "isms" but with the top heavy structure and the size, which corrupt any "ism". Check out the intentional communities. Not that any of them is "the" answer, but it is interesting to see what can be accomplished within small, self govening units, producing a variety of products and services and often self-sustaining. It's good talking with you. Elizabeth
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 19:51:59 +0000 Glenn Meder <forum@mg1.substack.com> writes:
Thanks Elizabeth. I hear this a lot, that people don't want to take sides on "isms", but I am not taking a side for an "ism", but rather I am standing for freedom. What we have now is not free markets, is crony capitalism, which means that big businesses are in bed with the government and they both work together to screw the little guy, which is what you said by it being corrupted. What we need is to get government out of it, stop rewarding big business and we need to have true free markets. This is the only way to achieve what you are referring to. The path forward is the Constitution and to reinforce individual freedom, and then we as individuals will create the best possible society.
SOCRATES GOLD by Glenn Meder
Glenn Meder replied to your comment
Thanks Elizabeth. I hear this a lot, that people don't want to take sides on "isms", but I am not taking a side for an "ism", but rather I am standing for freedom. What we have now is not free markets, is crony capitalism, which means that big businesses are in bed with the government and they both work together to screw the little guy, which is what you said by it being corrupted. What we need is to get government out of it, stop rewarding big business and we need to have true free markets. This is the only way to achieve what you are referring to. The path forward is the Constitution and to reinforce individual freedom, and then we as individuals will create the best possible society.
LikeReplyViewMute thread
754
Glenn, on most things, I agree with you, but not on the issues of the "isms" and not on creating new countries - primarily because neither side will rest until the other side is subjugated. This is so because what you call the deep state or the elite does not really embrace any "ism" but simply wants everyone marching to the same drummer, the one that they control to their advantage. Read "Brave New World" and Huxley's later commentary, "Brave New World Revisited" There is no "ism" there, just people all marching to the same tune.
As far a left and right go, there is good and not good on each side. For example, how can either side call itself pro life. The left wants to destroy the unborn and any unproductive elders (perhaps any elders with memories of how it was before ) and the right is totally uncaring of how its support of big business is destroying the planet and the lives of people who can afford to live only in marginalized areas. Both are, each in their own way, agents of death. We need not a one side over the other, but a complete change in human attitude.
As far as the "isms' go, socialism, communism, AND capitalism are corruptible, by the control from the top. Any of these three works just fine on a small scale, in individual communities which support whatever "ism" works for them - probably some adaptation or mix. Intentional communities give witness to this (www.fic.org) The key is to keep the control by the people at grass roots level, and for this we need direct participatory systems, which by definition must be small enough so that people of shared values can form them and so that everyone in the organization is aware of the other people there and of what they are doing. There needs be no control by one person or one small part of a group, and certainly no huge entities. This is in direct opposition to what we have now. People living in small, perhaps tribal sized, groups around the country, self-governing but cooperative and trading openly with each other is something unheard of and what most will say cannot happen because these groups will simply fight with each other for dominance until we have again what we have now. But, the issue is, that change cannot come from the top down and be successful. I pray for a growth of human consciousness (and yes, in love and compassion and reverence) to be able to accomplish being beside each other without the need to conquer each other or have everyone be just the same way. Elizabeth
The Constitution does NOT allow for anyone to choose to give up their freedom. This is because one who is willingly oppressed also must have an oppressor. Oppressors are in violation of the Constitution. (Think "king of England"- the reason we even have our founding documents, right?) So, you cannot choose to enslave someone NOR be enslaved. I think this argument about "we can choose to give up our freedom" is not supported by any of our founding documents or laws. Not one. Which is the lithmus test for what one "can do" in America. Not to mention it is pretty absurd construct when given anything more than lip service.