adults and responsibility

Gathomas88 said:

True, but some cultures seem to be better suited towards producing those kinds of feelings than others. To use US history as just one example, "manifest destiny" lasted for well over 100 years.

Besides a few notable exceptions which weren't even particularly long lived, the only thing many people (especially of the younger generation) really seem to get worked up over these days is rabble rousing and the threat of impending benefit cuts.

Click to expand...

I had a ****ty 2013, but it motivated me to get off my ass. We have been too successful and too comfortable for too long.

sometimes when I pray and ask "why did this bad thing happen to me?" often times, the reason something bad was to snap me out of some behavior or point of view that would be self destructive if it goes on too long. Its the same lesson.

tacomancer said:

I think we are looking at two sides of the same coin here. The brain is pretty much wired to look to short term risks and pleasurable gains. In tribal times, such behaviors would keep us alive. our love of sugar and sweet foods is a great example, in nature that's hard to come by, but not any more, so as humans we regress to the LCD (as we always do) and make ourselves fat. In more complex societies, its a detriment. The problem is that humanity only has some much autonomy and will power from its own instincts, thus I believe any successful social engineering, like 401k or whatever we come up with in our future needs a bit of pokeyoke to account for our natures. We are too optimistic about ourselves and our abilities. The ideal of human choice is misunderstood, I think, because its based on philosophical grounds from 400-500 years ago and not modern neuroscience, which is painting a far different picture.

Click to expand...

I don't think nature favors either side of planning, it's more complicated than that. Sure, in primitive times the short term was the most important as hunter/gatherers had the highest priority in the tribe, however, holding and planning for lean times has been a concept of humans since ancient times.

I think it's more than nature, I think that there is an overall lack of discipline and unfortunately I think it's a cultural thing. We glamorize consumerism, which is fine, but the old school advice of making sure that there is a little left for later is unheeded. I partially blame the credit companies though, they have sold "easy money" for decades and the actual accumulation and discipline was thrown out of the window.

tacomancer said:

I had a ****ty 2013, but it motivated me to get off my ass. We have been too successful and too comfortable for too long.

sometimes when I pray and ask "why did this bad thing happen to me?" often times, the reason something bad was to snap me out of some behavior or point of view that would be self destructive if it goes on too long. Its the same lesson.

Click to expand...

It seems to be a good general rule of thumb to say that a person (or system, for that matter) can only indulge in decadent apathy for so long before it finally catches up with them and brings the whole shebang crashing down.

I'd say that our society is rapidly approaching that point. Hopefully, when and if we ever do "hit the wall," so to speak, we will rise to the occasion, as you did, rather than allow it to break us.

Gathomas88 said:

It seems to be a good general rule of thumb to say that a person (or system, for that matter) can only indulge in decadent and apathetic laziness for so long before it finally catches up with them and brings the whole shebang crashing down.

I'd say that our society is rapidly approaching that point. Hopefully, when and if we ever do "hit the wall," so to speak, we will rise to the occasion, as you did, rather than allow it to break us.

Click to expand...

I hope so, I am far more pessimistic.

tacomancer said:

I hope so, I am far more pessimistic.

Click to expand...

That's why I said "hopefully." :lol:

While I hope I'm wrong, my general knowledge of human nature leads me to believe that things will likely get a Hell of a lot worse before they get better.

Grand Mal said:

What you describe isn't liberalization, it's some kind of sheep-like, groupthink passivity that's the antithesis of liberal. Liberals believe in personal freedoms and power over all considerations of group, government or good-for-the-country.

Click to expand...

The bolded isn't generally the case, as practiced today in our society. American liberalism has come to represent the idea that the ideal place for power resides in government, and that the individual is only secondary, and only desirable if it happens to coincide with what the group values.

Gathomas88 said:

It seems to be a good general rule of thumb to say that a person (or system, for that matter) can only indulge in decadent and apathy for so long before it finally catches up with them and brings the whole shebang crashing down.

I'd say that our society is rapidly approaching that point. Hopefully, when and if we ever do "hit the wall," so to speak, we will rise to the occasion, as you did, rather than allow it to break us.

Click to expand...

tacomancer said:

I hope so, I am far more pessimistic.

Click to expand...

I don't share your pessimism and here is why. The Great Depression was as low of a time as the U.S. has seen, though there were depressions prior to it, the Great Depression followed a massive market boom, and with that came similar undisciplined financial structures, people spent, they spent what they didn't have, and in such a mass that the entire thing collapsed. The swing to that was a gradual rebuilding that led to great times economically in the 50s, only to swing down again in the late 60s to around the mid 80s. The 90s had a bit of a boom, and we are in the down swing right now, with a bit of discipline the future will swing back again.

My grandparents were in their prime during the depression, they had to scrounge, fight, and save and with that they became very savvy with their money, they wouldn't spend a dime they didn't have to minus maybe a nice car for my grandmother and some race horses(investment, but they loved those animals) and they did alright. The Depression forced their generation to mind their finances and I think that if things ever got that bad again, we would see another generation like them, there wouldn't be a choice.

The bulk of society was like minded and middle class in production, values and job positions the past 50 years but it's becoming a disjointed, hodgepodge of separate sections. I see that as a minus for the direction of the country as a whole.

Gathomas is on to something as far as the history of human nature and the rise and fall of empires. Our generation did not work for all the knowledge, wealth and infrastructure that previous era's built and freely gave to us. We don't have an appreciation for it and are pissing it away.

Grand Mal said:

What you describe isn't liberalization, it's some kind of sheep-like, groupthink passivity that's the antithesis of liberal. Liberals believe in personal freedoms and power over all considerations of group, government or good-for-the-country.

Click to expand...

Maybe the word you're thinking about is libertarian. Liberals aren't like that. Liberals are people walking in lockstep who want to control what you can say and think (political correctness). They don't want you to be personally responsible for your own actions, they want the government to tell you what to do.

grip said:

The bulk of society was like minded and middle class in production, values and job positions the past 50 years but it's becoming a disjointed, hodgepodge of separate sections. I see that as a minus for the direction of the country as a whole.

Gathomas is on to something as far as the history of human nature and the rise and fall of empires. Our generation did not work for all the knowledge, wealth and infrastructure that previous era's built and freely gave to us. We don't have an appreciation for it and are pissing it away.

Click to expand...

Which is basically what I think we are witnessing today; the beginnings of the "fall" of an empire. I don't mean just the United States either, but the Western World in general.

Westerners have basically "ruled the world" for the last three hundred years, and we've clearly let it go to our heads. The United States (essentially serving as the Rome to Europe's Greece) is the last bastion of the effortless economic, military, and social supremacy our culture once held over global affairs.

When and if we finally lose our grasp on things (which is looking to be more and more inevitable as China and India continue their ascent), Western Civilization will very likely find itself fading into "Byzantine" irrelevancy as the rest of the world passes it by.

grip said:

The bulk of society was like minded and middle class in production, values and job positions the past 50 years but it's becoming a disjointed, hodgepodge of separate sections. I see that as a minus for the direction of the country as a whole.

Gathomas is on to something as far as the history of human nature and the rise and fall of empires. Our generation did not work for all the knowledge, wealth and infrastructure that previous era's built and freely gave to us. We don't have an appreciation for it and are pissing it away.

Click to expand...

I think though, once the protectionist programs start to fall apart we can turn that around provided there is still a sense of who we are. The current path is unsustainable, meaning we'll all have to wake up and smell the coffee at some point, or fail, those are our two options.

Gathomas88 said:

Which is basically what I think we are witnessing today; the beginnings of the "fall" of an empire. I don't mean just the United States either, but the Western World in general.

Westerners have basically "ruled the world" for the last three hundred years, and we've clearly let it go to our heads. The United States (essentially serving as the Rome to Europe's Greece) is the last bastion of the effortless economic, military, and social supremacy our culture once held over global affairs.

When and if we finally lose our grasp on things (which is looking to be more and more inevitable as China and India continue their ascent), Western Civilization will very likely find itself fading into "Byzantine" irrelevancy as the rest of the world passes us by.

Click to expand...

LaMidRighter said:

I think though, once the protectionist programs start to fall apart we can turn that around provided there is still a sense of who we are. The current path is unsustainable, meaning we'll all have to wake up and smell the coffee at some point, or fail, those are our two options.

Click to expand...

Part of the recipe for success is also going to be a cause for the downfall, which is endless growth. The planet and species simply cannot overcome the hurdles of what a continous pattern of increase ultimately accomplishes in a world of limitation. From financial to ecological, resources will be forced by nature back into a form of equilibrium and balance. And a majority of civilization will go thru disatsterous times during this painful retraction. As usual certain areas of society will be better insulated than others.

How fast this occurs and to what degree if affects the US in comparison to other nations is dependent upon a whole set of unforseen circumstances. The USA may literally restructure its boundaries in a financial collapse. One thing is for sure that once the wealthy top 85 individuals who are worth as much as half the total population decide to stop loaning money because it doesn't work the rest of us will be scrambling. Cash will be king and credit a thing of rarity.

grip said:

Part of the recipe for success is also going to be a cause for the downfall, which is endless growth. The planet and species simply cannot overcome the hurdles of what a continous pattern of increase ultimately accomplishes in a world of limitation. From financial to ecological, resources will be forced by nature back into a form of equilibrium and balance. And a majority of civilization will go thru disatsterous times during this painful retraction. As usual certain areas of society will be better insulated than others.

How fast this occurs and to what degree if affects the US in comparison to other nations is dependent upon a whole set of unforseen circumstances. The USA may literally restructure its boundaries in a financial collapse. One thing is for sure that once the wealthy top 85 individuals who are worth as much as half the total population decide to stop loaning money because it doesn't work the rest of us will be scrambling. Cash will be king and credit a thing of rarity.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why we need to start seriously considering taking steps to move beyond such limitations, rather than pretending like they represent only irrelevant flights of fancy. We've grown to be too large a fish in too small a pond. :lol:

It is simply unfortunate that there is so little any one individual can do to alter such a state of affairs. If the social conditions for a societal leap forward are not just right, it will not occur, regardless of whether the innate potential for it can be said to exist or not.

The Greeks and Romans, for instance, easily could have facilitated their own industrial revolution. They ultimately failed to do so simply because they viewed the technologies which could have made it possible as being mere toys, and possessed such a glut of cheap and readily available human raw materials in the form of slaves that they saw no need for reform until it was too late.

I get the definite feeling that our own society's potential for space travel and the exploitation of the limitless raw resources contained therein might very well end in much the same way.

grip said:

Part of the recipe for success is also going to be a cause for the downfall, which is endless growth. The planet and species simply cannot overcome the hurdles of what a continous pattern of increase ultimately accomplishes in a world of limitation. From financial to ecological, resources will be forced by nature back into a form of equilibrium and balance. And a majority of civilization will go thru disatsterous times during this painful retraction. As usual certain areas of society will be better insulated than others.

How fast this occurs and to what degree if affects the US in comparison to other nations is dependent upon a whole set of unforseen circumstances. The USA may literally restructure its boundaries in a financial collapse. One thing is for sure that once the wealthy top 85 individuals who are worth as much as half the total population decide to stop loaning money because it doesn't work the rest of us will be scrambling. Cash will be king and credit a thing of rarity.

Click to expand...

Can't say I disagree with this. Eventually everything in nature resets, people don't believe me at times when I say this but economics simply is a study of the natural interaction of trade, when something is unsustainable it will eventually lead to shrinkage and at the point of equilibrium it will simply swing up again.

Growth can be good or bad, it depends upon what is supporting it. Too much in and not enough output will become a liability, not true growth, however if a dollar spent produces two, there is a reasonable expectation of sustainability, etc.

Gathomas88 said:

Which is exactly why we need to start seriously considering taking steps to move beyond such limitations, rather than pretending like they represent only irrelevant flights of fancy. We've grown to be too large a fish in too small a pond. :lol:

It is simply unfortunate that there is so little any one individual can do to alter such a state of affairs. If the social conditions for a societal leap forward are not just right, it will not occur, regardless of whether the innate potential for it can be said to exist or not.

The Greeks and Romans, for instance, easily could have facilitated their own industrial revolution. They ultimately failed to do so simply because they viewed the technologies which could have made it possible as being mere toys, and possessed such a glut of cheap and readily available human raw materials in the form of slaves that they saw no need for reform until it was too late.

I get the definite feeling that our own society's potential for space travel and the exploitation of the limitless raw resources contained therein might very well end in much the same way.

Click to expand...

LaMidRighter said:

Can't say I disagree with this. Eventually everything in nature resets, people don't believe me at times when I say this but economics simply is a study of the natural interaction of trade, when something is unsustainable it will eventually lead to shrinkage and at the point of equilibrium it will simply swing up again.

Growth can be good or bad, it depends upon what is supporting it. Too much in and not enough output will become a liability, not true growth, however if a dollar spent produces two, there is a reasonable expectation of sustainability, etc.

Click to expand...

Unless we face an extinction event we'll continue to push forward in some fashion. I don't realistically believe we'll lose all the knowledge and technology we've gained though it may eventually be limited into the hands of a fewer and fewer elite ruling class.

We need off planet resources and the governments know it but the sheer financial costs are unfathomable. In time that will become a reality where we populate the oceans (floating cities), space stations, moons and planets like mars, until scientific breakthroughs allow for stellar travel. If we shrink into a healthier, positive and more effectively advanced species, then we'll prosper across the board but that won't occur, until the great reduction happens.

When too many people exist that can't be of a benefit to the species as a whole, let's say nature doesn't tolerate that very well. Like LMR says there's a cyclical pattern to nature of gain & loss that is regenerative and usually an advancement in evolution.

lizzie said:

The bolded isn't generally the case, as practiced today in our society. American liberalism has come to represent the idea that the ideal place for power resides in government, and that the individual is only secondary, and only desirable if it happens to coincide with what the group values.

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

Maybe the word you're thinking about is libertarian. Liberals aren't like that. Liberals are people walking in lockstep who want to control what you can say and think (political correctness). They don't want you to be personally responsible for your own actions, they want the government to tell you what to do.

Click to expand...

To be fair here, the attitudes he describes are quite applicable to modern "Liberals" when it comes to their views on social and moral matters. The modern Left is very much "anything goes" when it comes to traditionally "taboo" behaviors, with individualistically centered personal gratification being the only goal they view as being in any sense salient or worthy of consideration in pursuing them.

i.e. "If it feels good, do it."

I think this would be more generally indicative of "Libertinism" than "Libertarianism," however.

Gathomas88 said:

To be fair here, the attitudes he describes are quite applicable to modern "Liberals" when it comes to their views on social and moral matters. The modern Left is very much "anything goes" when it comes to traditionally "taboo" behaviors, with individualistically centered personal gratification being the only goal they view as being in any sense salient or worthy of consideration in pursuing them.

i.e. "If it feels good, do it."

I think this would be more generally indicative of "Libertinism" than "Libertarianism," however.

Click to expand...

I am referring to liberalism as today's Americans often self-identify, as opposed to the actual meaning of the word, as it relates to government and its role in the lives of individuals.

lizzie said:

I am referring to liberalism as today's Americans often self-identify, as opposed to the actual meaning of the word, as it relates to government and its role in the lives of individuals.

Click to expand...

True. I was simply saying that it is not entirely clear whether he was speaking in terms of government policy, ideology, or cultural attitudes there. While the attitudes he described do not fit modern "Liberal" government policy, they do fit modern Liberal ideology and culture where social matters and freedom of personal conduct are concerned.

The most apt way to put things here, I believe, would be to say that Liberals feel that individualism and individual gratification should be the primary concern of a society, and that they should be "free" to do whatever they damn well please as such without consequence so long as they do not harm others in the process. They simply feel that Government should unconditionally provide for them in doing so, keep them safe and comfortable, and be on stand-by to pick up the pieces and kiss their "boo-boos" should they ever happen to fall flat on their faces.

They are basically really slutty hobbits with codependency issues. :lol:

Gathomas88 said:

True. I was simply saying that it is not entirely clear whether he was speaking in terms of government policy, ideology, or cultural attitudes there. While the attitudes he described do not fit modern "Liberal" government policy, they do fit modern Liberal ideology and culture where social matters and freedom of personal conduct are concerned.

The most apt way to put things here, I believe, would be to say that Liberals feel that individualism and individual gratification should be the primary concern of a society, and that they should be "free" to do whatever they damn well please as such without consequence so long as they do not harm others in the process. They simply feel that Government should unconditionally provide for them in doing so, keep them safe and comfortable, and be on stand-by to pick up the pieces and kiss their "boo-boos" should they ever happen to fall flat on their faces.

They are basically really slutty hobbits. :lol:

Click to expand...

hobbit orgies in something I don't want to contemplate. hairy feet everywhere

Gathomas88 said:

True. I was simply saying that it is not entirely clear whether he was speaking in terms of government policy, ideology, or cultural attitudes there. While the attitudes he described do not fit modern "Liberal" government policy, they do fit modern Liberal ideology and culture where social matters and freedom of personal conduct are concerned.

Click to expand...

Except that's not how it works in practice. If everyone was just free to do and believe whatever they wanted, you wouldn't have so many vocal liberals out screaming about racism and sexism and gay marriage and all of that. It would be acceptable for whoever wanted to believe those things to believe those things and so long as people didn't act on their beliefs to discriminate against others, they should be free to think and say what they want. We all know that's not how things work in liberal circles.

Cephus said:

Except that's not how it works in practice. If everyone was just free to do and believe whatever they wanted, you wouldn't have so many vocal liberals out screaming about racism and sexism and gay marriage and all of that. It would be acceptable for whoever wanted to believe those things to believe those things and so long as people didn't act on their beliefs to discriminate against others, they should be free to think and say what they want. We all know that's not how things work in liberal circles.

Click to expand...

Yes, which is sort of the paradox of the thing. You are free to do pretty much whatever you want, EXCEPT anything that happens to hamper their fun (i.e. cultural Conservatism), or makes them feel threatened (i.e. owning guns, smoking, making more money than they view as being seemly, etca). If you do any of those things, they feel that you are a bad person, and should be harassed and shamed into submission.

Naturally, they also want to use the power of Government to enforce their vision of how society should be run, so that they can ensure that the sanctity of their little Libertine "utopia" is not questioned.

It's a rather bourgeois philosophy, all told. They are almost inhumanely pleasant and "tolerant" towards those they view as warranting it, but viciously authoritarian towards those they view as threatening their goals or peace of mind.

Gathomas88 said:

It's a rather bourgeois philosophy, all told. They are almost inhumanely pleasant and "tolerant" towards those they view as warranting it, and viciously authoritarian towards those they view as threatening their goals.

Click to expand...

But this is what he actually said, which you tried to defend:

What you describe isn't liberalization, it's some kind of sheep-like, groupthink passivity that's the antithesis of liberal. Liberals believe in personal freedoms and power over all considerations of group, government or good-for-the-country.

Click to expand...

He was correct in the use of what the term actually means. My point was that this isn't what we see in the US today, often posing as liberals. There are a good number of actual liberals in this country, and they come from different political persuasions.

lizzie said:

But this is what he actually said, which you tried to defend:

He was correct in the use of what the term actually means. My point was that this isn't what we see in the US today, often posing as liberals. There are a good number of actual liberals in this country, and they come from different political persuasions.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I was pointing out that what he said is actually true of the other variety of "Liberal" as well. They simply have a slightly different take on it.

You have to understand that a lot of the modern Left finds its basis in the works of philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He wrote the following regarding the nature of "freedom."

Rousseau: Social Contract: Book I

In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body.

This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.

Click to expand...

That is, in essence, what modern "Liberals" attempt to do. They want to force our society, and the people living within it, to be "free" (as Liberals define the term) regardless of whether they want it or not.

As I said, it's a strange kind of paradox. It's both socially Libertarian and politically Authoritarian at the same time.

People are taught that the govt will take of them, so why invest?

Gathomas88 said:

Yes, but I was pointing out that what he said is actually true of the other variety of "Liberal" as well. They simply have a slightly different take on it.

You have to understand that a lot of the modern Left finds its basis in the works of philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He wrote the following regarding the nature of "freedom."

Rousseau: Social Contract: Book I



That is, in essence, what modern "Liberals" attempt to do. They want to force our society, and the people living within it, to be "free" (as Liberals define the term) regardless of whether they want it or not.

As I said, it's a strange kind of paradox. It's both socially Libertarian and politically Authoritarian at the same time.

Click to expand...

yes and no. when discussing issues of freedom, it always gets murky as there are different shades and view of exactly what we want to be free from. as a progressive (which I view as being both compatible with conservatism and liberalism) to me, the question is "free from what?". In the end, we are all subject to frailties that physical existence subjects ourselves to from instinctual drives, to biological, to emotional, to spiritual, to social needs (and other categories), which in the end makes us subjects or something whether we like it or not. some traditions of liberalism like to make a distinction between society and the individual in some cases, but I personally don't see the need for it and such a distinction as being wholly artificial. Some would promote the idea that this distinction is where the line to freedom truly is. but even then we are still subject to all sorts of forces and are our lives any better as a result?

that question, obviously is unanswerable as there is no determinism in what it asks. it simply states that without one force, we are simply better off in a metaphysical sense that may or may not control for practical benefits. so yes, modern liberalism offers freedom and so does old school liberalism, and frankly so does theocracy, communism, and any other ism, its just a matter of "which freedom". Even despotism offers freedom from the burden of choice (which can be attractive for a higher % of the population than most would suspect, unfortunately) and certain types of consequences.

In the end, we are just a mess and bundle of drives and needs a smattering of logic thrown on top for self justification and rationalization. which freedom is best? I personally am not sure. I don't see the old models as realistic, but idealistic in light of what we know about how the brain functions, yet at the same time, there is use for high expectations and stretch goals as it brings out the best in people (but then the libertarians would be in horror in that i would even see their philosophy as only useful in the same practical and social engineering considerations I see in the use of any philosophy) in certain ways, but it also brings out the worst in people as well.

So in a sense mill had it right and wrong as there is no clear standard because humans just ain't built with a single overriding drive, but a mix of competing drives which is what gives rise to all styles of political philosophy in the first place.