The Tao Of The Individual?

undertheice · Aug 25, 2009

comparisons are being made more and more often between the various systems, healthcare being chief among them at present, of the united states and other countries and i can't help but feel that such a tactic is as counterproductive as it is futile. even two countries with as much in common as great britain or even canada and the united states have a radically different ethos rising from differing histories and environments. we readily admit that the mindsets of distant cultures may allow their societies to develop in ways that seem intolerable to each other, but even similar cultures will never be identical nor will their people react in a common manner to any situation. despite an ever increasing trend toward globalization, this still seems to be the case even among nations with so much in common.

the u.s. has a rather odd mixture of the puritanical and the rebellious that led its founders to insist that the individual was of paramount importance while clinging desperately to the forms and traditions of the past. an extreme distrust of authority seems to have become the hallmark of this slightly schizophrenic philosophy. while we demand more and more of our government with each passing generation, most of us still require a healthy distance between ourselves and the powers of the state. our affluence and position of power in the world fuels the natural avarice of the masses, inclining them to believe that they have been cheated out of their fair share of that wealth, but the promise of individual autonomy makes us loath to depend too heavily on the good graces of the state to remedy the situation. we have yet to experience the collapse and stagnation of older nations and our sheer size, both in population and area, leads us to believe in our own invulnerability. we are a child among nations and, as we leave our childhood behind, should not be so quick to follow in the footsteps of our elders.

reverence for the liberty of the individual and the limiting of the powers of the state are the concepts that have allowed the u.s. to excel in so many areas and to fail miserably in others. there is suffering and failure to be found in such freedom and very little relief without a powerful state to pick us up when we fall, but there is also the possibility of greatness. without that dominating father to force us to care for each other, we must depend on an innate generosity to relieve those who falter and, as the single most charitable nation on earth, we have shown that we have that capacity without being forced at gunpoint to perform our moral duty to those around us. this is merely another path, neither better nor worse than the paths chosen by others, but a path that someone must travel. at its end might lie either utopia or destruction, but veering from it into established ruts leads only to the same destination that so many before us have already reached. we have the ability and we have already started down this road, so why should we so easily give it up just because the journey has become difficult and the more weak willed among us become restive?

i realize that i am bound to be considered callous for considering the fate of the less fortunate to be an acceptable product of the american journey, but it matters little what is thought of me. i have always believed that compassion, being a deeply personal thing, is best left to the individual and not something to be forced from us by others. as i have been wont to say, failure is always a possible outcome to any endeavor. the only inexcusable sin seems not to try at all.

of course, i may merely be totally insane. :bigjoint:

medicineman · Aug 25, 2009

undertheice said:
comparisons are being made more and more often between the various systems, healthcare being chief among them at present, of the united states and other countries and i can't help but feel that such a tactic is as counterproductive as it is futile. even two countries with as much in common as great britain or even canada and the united states have a radically different ethos rising from differing histories and environments. we readily admit that the mindsets of distant cultures may allow their societies to develop in ways that seem intolerable to each other, but even similar cultures will never be identical nor will their people react in a common manner to any situation. despite an ever increasing trend toward globalization, this still seems to be the case even among nations with so much in common.

the u.s. has a rather odd mixture of the puritanical and the rebellious that led its founders to insist that the individual was of paramount importance while clinging desperately to the forms and traditions of the past. an extreme distrust of authority seems to have become the hallmark of this slightly schizophrenic philosophy. while we demand more and more of our government with each passing generation, most of us still require a healthy distance between ourselves and the powers of the state. our affluence and position of power in the world fuels the natural avarice of the masses, inclining them to believe that they have been cheated out of their fair share of that wealth, but the promise of individual autonomy makes us loath to depend too heavily on the good graces of the state to remedy the situation. we have yet to experience the collapse and stagnation of older nations and our sheer size, both in population and area, leads us to believe in our own invulnerability. we are a child among nations and, as we leave our childhood behind, should not be so quick to follow in the footsteps of our elders.

reverence for the liberty of the individual and the limiting of the powers of the state are the concepts that have allowed the u.s. to excel in so many areas and to fail miserably in others. there is suffering and failure to be found in such freedom and very little relief without a powerful state to pick us up when we fall, but there is also the possibility of greatness. without that dominating father to force us to care for each other, we must depend on an innate generosity to relieve those who falter and, as the single most charitable nation on earth, we have shown that we have that capacity without being forced at gunpoint to perform our moral duty to those around us. this is merely another path, neither better nor worse than the paths chosen by others, but a path that someone must travel. at its end might lie either utopia or destruction, but veering from it into established ruts leads only to the same destination that so many before us have already reached. we have the ability and we have already started down this road, so why should we so easily give it up just because the journey has become difficult and the more weak willed among us become restive?

i realize that i am bound to be considered callous for considering the fate of the less fortunate to be an acceptable product of the american journey, but it matters little what is thought of me. i have always believed that compassion, being a deeply personal thing, is best left to the individual and not something to be forced from us by others. as i have been wont to say, failure is always a possible outcome to any endeavor. the only inexcusable sin seems not to try at all.

of course, i may merely be totally insane.

Well under your own pretext then, it would seem a sin not to try public health care.

tinyTURTLE · Aug 25, 2009

it sure took an awful lot of words for you to contradict yourself just twice.
the US is not puritanical, merely ostensibly so. At the core we are selfish, combative
and egotistical. pains me to say it, but it's true.

undertheice · Aug 25, 2009

medicineman said:
Well under your own pretext then, it would seem a sin not to try public health care.

taking my words out of context is rather disingenuous.

the much touted public option is a dodge to remove the necessity of moral action and place more power into the hands of the state. the individual is not served by allowing him to avoid such responsibility. such a divergence from the path takes us further from our goals. the individual is represented by entities within a free market over which he has some control, not by an opaque and unresponsive government bureaucracy that merely seeks to grow itself.

despite any belief in the lie of the ballot box, most sensible folks realize that the force of government is antithetical to the ideal of personal liberty. we strive to rid ourselves of the necessary evil of governmental restrictions. allowing ourselves the backward step of investing even more of the power of the people into government is "not trying" to come up with an acceptable answer to our problems within the private sector. it is giving up without a fight.

tinyTURTLE · Aug 25, 2009

undertheice said:
taking my words out of context is rather disingenuous.

the much touted public option is a dodge to remove the necessity of moral action and place more power into the hands of the state. the individual is not served by allowing him to avoid such responsibility. such a divergence from the path takes us further from our goals. the individual is represented by entities within a free market over which he has some control, not by an opaque and unresponsive government bureaucracy that merely seeks to grow itself.

despite any belief in the lie of the ballot box, most sensible folks realize that the force of government is antithetical to the ideal of personal liberty. we strive to rid ourselves of the necessary evil of governmental restrictions. allowing ourselves the backward step of investing even more of the power of the people into government is "not trying" to come up with an acceptable answer to our problems within the private sector. it is giving up without a fight.

if, at this point, you still beleive in a responsible free market... you think that corporations will act responsibly with regard to communities or the environment or even their own employees. you are a fool and poor student of history.

medicineman · Aug 25, 2009

undertheice said:
taking my words out of context is rather disingenuous.

the much touted public option is a dodge to remove the necessity of moral action and place more power into the hands of the state. the individual is not served by allowing him to avoid such responsibility. such a divergence from the path takes us further from our goals. the individual is represented by entities within a free market over which he has some control, not by an opaque and unresponsive government bureaucracy that merely seeks to grow itself.

despite any belief in the lie of the ballot box, most sensible folks realize that the force of government is antithetical to the ideal of personal liberty. we strive to rid ourselves of the necessary evil of governmental restrictions. allowing ourselves the backward step of investing even more of the power of the people into government is "not trying" to come up with an acceptable answer to our problems within the private sector. it is giving up without a fight.

I took nothing out of context. Your "opinion" that the private sector is the be all save all of the medical or anything else for that matter belies the truth way more abstractly then my contention that a public health care plan would be good for america. If you look at just one corporation, General motors, you would see that the main reasons for bankruptcy were medical costs for their employees, and retirees. Multiply that by the thousands of corporations that are being raped by the insurance companies and you could surely see why our corporations can't compete on a world market with countries that have a public health care system. The single payer medical option would instantly free corporations from the atrocious costs of health care and share that burden accross the board with the citizenry. For a capitalist, what's not to like?

jeffchr · Aug 25, 2009

The founders never envisioned a legistlature that was so totally influenced by business and evolving into a pure capitalist society. capitalists don't care about individuals.

undertheice · Aug 25, 2009

tinyTURTLE said:
the US is not puritanical.....

At the core we are selfish, combative and egotistical.....

though our society is constantly evolving, our history cannot help but leave us with a streak of the puritan ethic from which the nation grew. a rather prudish nature and a clinging to the concepts of duty and personal responsibility are leftovers from our beginnings and, though they may be fast eroding, an important part of our national ethos. i suppose it is a matter of opinion whether these things are important enough to survive much longer.

all people are at heart self-centered, but doesn't the fact that the u.s. has historically donated more of its wealth to charity than any other nation show that we are no more selfish than other countries? called upon by others in their time of need, we seldom fail to lend the support of our finances, our technology and even our blood when needed. combined with the purely material benefits of such entanglements there must also be some small spark of altruism for us to risk so much for so many so often. even our most misguided attempts at stabilizing this violence prone world hold some bit of an essential morality.

what powerful nation has never warred on its neighbors? aggression is at the very heart of our species, yet we have seen no wars of expansion since our borders became fixed well over a century ago. while other nations have sought empire by force of arms, we have sated that desire by expanding our economic and cultural influence. not that some blood has not been shed in those endeavors, but we have not attempted the geographical empires of so many great nations of the past. how much wasted effort and senseless death went into planting the flags of europe's great colonizing nations around the globe? in less than two hundred years we went from being a warrior nation, as so many of our contemporaries, to a nation called upon, more often than not, to keep the peace.

though pride may be considered a sin, some self-satisfaction is inescapable in the face of the many accomplishments achieved thanks to this cult of the individual derided by those who seek the supremacy of the state. no nation is immune to such pride, no people so self-deprecating that they see no supremacy in their way of life. blaming a society for one of mankind's baser instincts is merely another of those disingenuous plays we use to undermine ideas with which we disagree.

i readily admit that i might be guilty of glossing over some of our bloodier adventures, but how much of that was the result of the engines of government staking claim to a wider swath of the power that rightfully belongs to the individual? much of our most senseless violence has been perpetrated on our own people by the very agents we set to represent us. the massacres of wartime might almost be excusable as madness in the heat of battle, but the massacres of peacetime are purely the result of the power hungry nature of political animals in their quest to dominate. america is not its government, but its people and they have almost always shown a compassion far beyond any possible by the bureaucracies of the state.

undertheice · Aug 25, 2009

jeffchr said:
capitalists don't care about individuals.

but capitalists are individuals. though capitalism without a heart may be destructive, the same can be said of any other philosophy. at least a market freed of the nearly insurmountable influence of the state and in the control of the people themselves has some chance of catering to the needs of the individual. a market at the mercy of government has no choice but to follow the will of the armed force of government and those in control of it. such political animals are seldom concerned with anything more than retaining that control and the natural expansion of the governmental bureaucracy.

once again, maybe i'm just crazy. maybe all of our representatives are altruistic saints, intent only on caring for us poor pitiful peons.

MuyLocoNC · Aug 25, 2009

Despite a couple of very poor attempts to twist your meaning by a few people who obviously miss the point of your post, a few of us did hear and feel what you were trying to get across. Great post and appreciated.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. - TJ

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. - TJ

undertheice · Aug 25, 2009

medicineman said:
I took nothing out of context. Your "opinion" that the private sector is the be all save all of the medical or anything else for that matter belies the truth way more abstractly then my contention that a public health care plan would be good for america. If you look at just one corporation, General motors, you would see that the main reasons for bankruptcy were medical costs for their employees, and retirees. Multiply that by the thousands of corporations that are being raped by the insurance companies and you could surely see why our corporations can't compete on a world market with countries that have a public health care system. The single payer medical option would instantly free corporations from the atrocious costs of health care and share that burden across the board with the citizenry. For a capitalist, what's not to like?

the problem lies in that those insurance companies represent a sizeable chunk of what's left of our free market. i've never held that some reform is not needed, but that placing the entire power of the insurance industry in the hands of government is another step away from the individual liberty we all strive for and that is exactly what will happen if the state gets its claws into it. government has never shown a profit, as private enterprise must to survive, and has no need to do so. it merely digs deeper into the pockets of those it controls by force and bides its time until all others have passed by the wayside except some few who might find and exclusive niche. i know you see nothing wrong with usurious tax rates on the wealthy, but that is hardly an equitable solution to a problem that could be more sensibly solved by reform in other areas. a legal system sent out of control by activist judges and vindictive juries, regulations set in place to favor the supporter and punish the detractor, and the good of the people sold out to replenish political war chests are all issues that should be addressed before denying the market a chance to regain some balance. a nation medicating itself into oblivion, unions leveraging their power to force insane contracts whose costs are passed down to consumers, and millions of illegal aliens recieving treatment at emergency centers on the taxpayers dime all should be remedied before allowing government the power to place another nail in the coffin of individual initiative and responsibility.

the essence of capitalism is that the state should keep its damn mitts off of the business community as much as possible. instead we find regulation where incentive would suffice and outright takeover where only regulation is required, bailouts and useless refunds to assuage the pains of our own excesses. all this to hide the fact that government has already delved too far into the private sector and has no intention allowing us to retain the freedoms promised us as the birthright of american citizens, native or naturalized. we have frittered away that legacy and continue to do so by allowing the progression of the nanny state.

i'm sure you read my purple prose and see only ideological nonsense and impractical dogma, but the tenets are sound. it is not an easy road to travel, but the rewards are great and so is the risk of failure. the rhetoric of socialistic dogma that is being forwarded as our true hope is nothing more than a road-map to mediocrity and many of us crave more. the duty of government is the protection of the individual, not his punishment for the improvement of the situation of the masses.

CrackerJax · Aug 25, 2009

jeffchr said:
The founders never envisioned a legistlature that was so totally influenced by business and evolving into a pure capitalist society. capitalists don't care about individuals.

The founding fathers were capitalists..... :lol:

Why the heck do you think they set us up this way? For success...... and we have succeeded...greater than any nation on Earth...ever.

There's nothing broken beyond repair...only tune ups are needed. But not by the govt. who has an ABYSMAL track record for fiscal responsibility....

jrh72582 · Aug 25, 2009

CrackerJax said:
The founding fathers were capitalists..... Why the heck do you think they set us up this way? For success...... and we have succeeded...greater than any nation on Earth...ever.

There's nothing broken beyond repair...only tune ups are needed. But not by the govt. who has an ABYSMAL track record for fiscal responsibility....

By what barometer? Seems impossible to corroborate! And we're YOUNG. Don't jump the gun there junior.

CrackerJax · Aug 25, 2009

By the barometer of living free. No society has ever protected and nurtured the individual human spirit more than the USA.... It's an important distinction.

But don't worry.....everything ends.

Ommmmmmmm.....

jrh72582 · Aug 25, 2009

CrackerJax said:
By the barometer of living free. No society has ever protected and nurtured the individual human spirit more than the USA.... It's an important distinction.

But don't worry.....everything ends.

Ommmmmmmm.....

Wow - quite a claim! Evidence? Compared to every society ever? Seriously? Some aboriginals might disagree. Perhaps some native americans. Samurai? Atlantis? I mean, come on...

CrackerJax · Aug 25, 2009

Where are they now? No, I'm talking about successful societies.....all of those societies failed. They didn't keep themselves free. Ours is not guaranteed either, but if failure is desired as a certainty...then deviate from the Constitution, and it is assured.

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2009

MuyLocoNC said:
Despite a couple of very poor attempts to twist your meaning by a few people who obviously miss the point of your post, a few of us did hear and feel what you were trying to get across. Great post and appreciated.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. - TJ

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. - TJ

Agreed. Government isn't supposed to take care of everybody or be a clearing house for redistributing wealth.

jrh72582 · Aug 25, 2009

CrackerJax said:
Where are they now? No, I'm talking about successful societies.....all of those societies failed. They didn't keep themselves free. Ours is not guaranteed either, but if failure is desired as a certainty...then deviate from the Constitution, and it is assured.

Well, by this logic, our guarantee of failure was assured when women were given the right to vote, and when minorities were given access to rights, and so on and so forth.

You're saying these changes, even if they did doom us, weren't necessary?

CrackerJax · Aug 25, 2009

No, the constitution is meant to be expanded, but not altered in principle. Big govt. getting into business and pushing equities with favoritism is changing the principles...and it's wrong...and it won't work.

jrh72582 · Aug 25, 2009

CrackerJax said:
No, the constitution is meant to be expanded, but not altered in principle. Big govt. getting into business and pushing equities with favoritism is changing the principles...and it's wrong...and it won't work.

Causality?

The Tao Of The Individual?

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member