Paul Krugman Issues a Warning About What We All Know Is Coming

[icanthearyou 4,468]

7 minutes ago, maxwere said:

No, the actual one.   Where the only art allowed on the walls are portraits of the leaders responsible for the deliverance of the proletariat.  Culture is religion externalized.

I suppose that is why money has displaced God as our driving force in life.

Left versus Right is merely a distraction.  Love the political theory but,,,in the end, money and power are the game.  

[maxwere 82]

38 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I suppose that is why money has displaced God as our driving force in life.

Left versus Right is merely a distraction.  Love the political theory but,,,in the end, money and power are the game.  

Money is just a means.  Power becomes god.  There is a myth that men exist that don't desire this (usually self proclaimed by the ones running to defeat an incumbent).  When man (or group of men) offers himself as salvation to the rest of society b/c of his great power (usually altruism), then we're talking about something messianic.  We look to that intelligentsia to lead us out of what ails us to the promised land.  Put another way, the State is Hegelianism externalized.  The problem isn't what kind of men we appoint or elect.  It's that we would move to cede or freedom and dollars to them in exchange for the empty promises they provide.  The problem of government is always a consequence of its people.

[homersapien 12,215]

3 hours ago, maxwere said:

No, the actual one.   Where the only art allowed on the walls are portraits of the leaders responsible for the deliverance of the proletariat.  Culture is religion externalized.

So a messianic state = a totalitarian state?

(BTW, I started Kissinger's book and I am enjoying it.)

 

 

[homersapien 12,215]

27 minutes ago, maxwere said:

Money is just a means.  Power becomes god.  There is a myth that men exist that don't desire this (usually self proclaimed by the ones running to defeat an incumbent).  When man (or group of men) offers himself as salvation to the rest of society b/c of his great power (usually altruism), then we're talking about something messianic.  We look to that intelligentsia to lead us out of what ails us to the promised land.  Put another way, the State is Hegelianism externalized.  The problem isn't what kind of men we appoint or elect.  It's that we would move to cede or freedom and dollars to them in exchange for the empty promises they provide.  The problem of government is always a consequence of its people.

So what's the antithesis of the democratic state - tribalism, totalitarianism?

And isn't "empty promises" rather subjective in making an abstract cases for or against government?

Bottom line, I don't get your point.

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

7 minutes ago, maxwere said:

Money is just a means.  Power becomes god.  There is a myth that men exist that don't desire this (usually self proclaimed by the ones running to defeat an incumbent).  When man (or group of men) offers himself as salvation to the rest of society b/c of his great power (usually altruism), then we're talking about something messianic.  We look to that intelligentsia to lead us out of what ails us to the promised land.  Put another way, the State is Hegelianism externalized.  The problem isn't what kind of men we appoint or elect.  It's that we would move to cede or freedom and dollars to them in exchange for the empty promises they provide.  The problem of government is always a consequence of its people.

I think you are attempting to make something rather simple, needlessly complicated.

And, I disagree.  I believe there are plenty of people who exist with no desire to impose their will upon others.

I think your problem is revealed in your last sentence.  Governments should not have people.  People should have a government.  Government used as an exploitation, control mechanism will be inherently bad.  Government utilized to promote the general welfare, security of society will be beneficial.  

[maxwere 82]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

So a messianic state = a totalitarian state?

(BTW, I started Kissinger's book and I am enjoying it.)

a totalitarian state is extremely messianic in nature.  smaller govts can be very messianic (state of CA).

I'm going to get back to World Order after I finish a couple of other things.  I anticipate it launching me into several other texts and I have little time.

 

[maxwere 82]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

So what's the antithesis of the democratic state - tribalism, totalitarianism?

And isn't "empty promises" rather subjective in making an abstract cases for or against government?

Bottom line, I don't get your point.

democracy is just a means to appoint.  it is ambivalent to the hierarchical aspects of governance.  that's where republic comes in.  statistically, you won't get your voice heard above the local sheriff level as it is.

the antithesis, if you call it that, would be just law & judiciary with means to enforce sanctions (constitutionally, that is the Sheriff).  But my point is toward self governance.  That comes at a sacrifice.

[maxwere 82]

18 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

And, I disagree.  I believe there are plenty of people who exist with no desire to impose their will upon others.

How many of them run for federal office?  state?

18 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I think your problem is revealed in your last sentence.  Governments should not have people.  People should have a government.  Government used as an exploitation, control mechanism will be inherently bad.  Government utilized to promote the general welfare, security of society will be beneficial.  

second follows from the first. if you believe democracy need only find the right people (ie "to fill the swamp"), then it can promote the beneficial, will be honest, hardworking etc.  I don't.  (This is a personal anthropological presupposition on my part: Humans who submit their power to no one will eventually abuse it in the worst way)  I do believe the government we have is a reflection of our own culture and priorities (different than govt of the people).

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 minute ago, maxwere said:

How many of them run for federal office?  state?

second follows from the first. if you believe democracy need only find the right people (ie "to fill the swamp"), then it can promote the beneficial, will be honest, hardworking etc.  I don't.  (This is a personal anthropological presupposition on my part: Humans who submit their power to no one will eventually abuse it in the worst way)  I do believe the government we have is a reflection of our own culture and priorities (different than govt of the people).

Sorry but, I fundamentally disagree.  Too many people aren't happy with with where we are going.  Their inability to recognize reasons does not diminish the fact.

IMO, the problem lies in the fact that we do NOT have a government that reflects our culture and priorities.  It is not a government of the people.  It is a government that serves the interests of those with enough money to purchase special consideration.  And unfortunately, we play along with the illusions of partisanship, ideology to create a political divide that ensures the continuation.

We have been systematically indoctrinated, herded, divided.  Most of us are now too stupid to realize that we are suppose to be on the same team.

We need to dismantle the business models of the parties.  They have undermined our government long enough.  I'm not saying dismantle the parties themselves, just the systems that allow them to collect huge sums of money and prizes.  It is an overt, in-your-face, corruption.

 

[maxwere 82]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Sorry but, I fundamentally disagree.  Too many people aren't happy with with where we are going.  Their inability to recognize reasons does not diminish the fact.

Are these people that are upset willing and able to fore go free government benefits?  ...opt out of social security, pay healthcare out of pocket, take their kids out of school, stop borrowing endless amounts for college?  Make the kind of economic sacrifices that reflect denial of these mythical positive rights?

Upset?  Yes.  Willing and able to "put up"?  Based on personal debt alone, I seriously doubt it.  If you don't like the trap, don't take the cheese.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

8 minutes ago, maxwere said:

Are these people that are upset willing and able to fore go free government benefits?  ...opt out of social security, pay healthcare out of pocket, take their kids out of school, stop borrowing endless amounts for college?  Make the kind of economic sacrifices that reflect denial of these mythical positive rights?

Upset?  Yes.  Willing and able to "put up"?  Based on personal debt alone, I seriously doubt it.  If you don't like the trap, don't take the cheese.

You are going in circles.

Social Security is/was a good idea.

Sure you can opt out of healthcare.  You can die.  But, what is your point?  Who is the power at work?

Sure you can opt out of college, education.  Again, your point?

Your logic is failing.  The programs aren't inherently bad.  The administration of the programs has become corrupt.  The greater/broader interests are not being served.  Limited financial interests have the power and, that power is being exercised.  It can be checked.  Ultimately, it will be.  One way or another.

Giving up on government and society is not the answer.  Perhaps it would be better to give up being so dogmatic, ideological, inanely political beliefs?

I think an "awakening" is preferable to simply giving up.  

Instead of destroying government and government programs, why not focus on the "trap"?

No matter what direction you go, you ultimately come back to reconciling the interests of capital with the interests of all of society.  Balance is the answer, not destruction.

 

[Mims44 1,991]

I'm starting to root for the end of the world.

It's gonna be so sweet hearing all these people saying "told ya so" to Raptor.