okay. . . . so my only question is: how do we fix society/economics without destroying it? hmmm. why not let it be destroyed? i don’t want to destroy society because that would just lead to another fruitless society being formed. i just finished reading about the kronstadt sailors and can’t but wonder what the soviet union would have been like if they had actually been given voice. i mean those sailors wanted what was best for the people, not for the state.
it seems like all they wanted was what was promised them. isn’t it crazy that they stayed true while the state didn’t. but, i guess that is the problem with overthrowing of government. you can never know what will come next.
it’s like in pre-roman rule greece, when the king of a city-state was overthrown the tyrannus was put in power in hope that he would fix all problems. however, in the history of the greek city-states their where only a handfull of tyrants that gave up rule. in fact, we think of tyrant as a bad thing because of the multitude of tyrants that forcible rested control from the demos(public) and had to be themselves overthrown.
how do we fix society without destroying it? i don’t think that is an easy question. their are no brave leaders who are willing to do as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and go against their party in all matters no matter what. he fought for reform and had to go up against his own party, the Supreme Court, and economist simply to instate the New Deal. what we do have today is a bunch of old, greedy politicians who want to keep and consolidate power at the cost of freedom and good will.
i was recently told that the reason that the u.s.a.’s main social programs are failing isn’t because no one wants to fix them, but because no one wants to go far enough with them. health care can be fixed very easily. but the fixing will take time and one main thing: it will take a true overhaul, not patchworking but complete rewrite of all the laws going back to post-world war 2 when truman began to consolidate western allied power under the united nations(the begining of globalisation).
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal was not a perfect plan for all time but atleast he had a goal and his goal saw the contry through to the end of world war 2 and into our present era. the fat remains that all the laws writen in the last two decade have been patchwork, crossouts, of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s reforms.
the problem isn’t that the governmetn is wrong it is that the governmetn has been led by the rich and not lived up the hopes of the the founding fathers, like George Wahington who said:
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy….
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
—excerted from Geroge Washington’s Farewell Speech