A New Law

[topaz]

The fact that a government does not grant its citizens a certain right does not remove a legitimate right from existence. It is still their right, but it has been denied them.

By the same token if a government grants its citizens an unprecedented privelage, it does not automatically become an undeniable right.

[bjornredtail]

On the 'consume society' destroying our education system, I'll agree with regards to science and engineering. Folks can, and usually buy items without understanding how they work, and they never bother attempting to repair such items.

With regards to the arts, I'm not so certain. The amount of wealth created allows people the time to read and study in such areas. In a number of other respects, the amount of wealth generated has made people's lives that much better. Certainly this counts for something?

[Gen. Volkov]

For all intents and purposes though, in the modern US, a right is a privilege arduously granted by a quorum of the people and corporations, and easily taken by the whim of a few leaders.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. The Bill of Rights is still intact for example, and that was hardly "arduously granted".

[The Beatles]

The fact that a government does not grant its citizens a certain right does not remove a legitimate right from existence. It is still their right, but it has been denied them.

By the same token if a government grants its citizens an unprecedented privelage, it does not automatically become an undeniable right.

That's all very Locke, but in the real world, might makes right. If you are on the receiving end of justice incorrectly administered, you will see that your theory of rights does not mean you have any protection against any unjust might.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. The Bill of Rights is still intact for example, and that was hardly "arduously granted".

Quite right, but hardly democratic either. It was granted by a handful of people, with input from not more than a few thousand, and inspired by foreign philosophers to boot. By the way, as Constitutional Amendments, they did indeed require a quorum of the people to grant. But I was referring to things beyond the first few decades of the country's history. Look at the list of the amendments following those ten. Either arduously granted, or given/taken on a whim.

On the 'consume society' destroying our education system, I'll agree with regards to science and engineering. Folks can, and usually buy items without understanding how they work, and they never bother attempting to repair such items.

I think it applies to the arts too. Nowadays you can get a degree in any art just being bleeding ethnically sensitive and not putting any actual creative effort into your work, just being bleeding modern or ethnic. People aren't allowed to judge things on 'beauty' any more, it's all avant bleeding garde. This is, I admit, a problem of political correctness and something that's been going on for a century. But the universal plummeting of educational standards has to do with people viewing an education like a business: you put money in, you get a degree out, and you'd better have had your money's worth and a good bleeding experience into the bargain, and that pretty much rules out academic rigour. I see it all around me, mind.

[topaz]

Wow this has taken an interesting turn!

My opinion on modern art is much like that of Beatles. I believe "artists" are spending their time producing the art that will sell...not necessairly what they think is good or artistic. It is much the same in the fields of literature, science, architecture, etc.... In a different way it is the same with modern journalism and the rest of the news media. If it will sell a paper or make people watch their sponser's commercial, they will publish it...who cares if it's true or not.

On the other hand, it also has to do with the character of the people producing the "goods" we are speaking of. Historically, many artists have been hard pressed to make a living from their work. The ones we consider the "Masters" are the ones who had enough fortitude to produce what they liked regardless of what the consumers wanted. Hence the fact that some of them didn't become "Masters" until after their deaths...when the public opinion caught up to their vision.

In other words I believe the "market" conditions are the same as they have always been. If you want to know who the real artists, scientists, architects, &c. of the modern times are...wait 100 or so years and you will see.

I have more to say but I don't like to change subjects in one post...it gets too confusing.

[The Beatles]

I don't know about that. Most masters were either self-funded, or had to do exactly as the patron bid them. I see the problem more as one of dishonesty. Nobody likes stupid displays of soda cans and unmade beds and plastic boxes as art. But nobody seems to want to admit that it's the most ridiculous rubbish. People are intimidated by 'art' because it's no longer a natural part of education, so they are afraid to speak up when the fraud comes a-peddling his or her junk as art. The middle classes are the same timid tourists who'll do anything when they go to a foreign country because it's supposed to be ethnic, and get ripped off by all the thieving tuppenny tour guides, and they're afraid to speak their mind and inquire. The same attitude of excessive politeness and the forgotten virtue of frankness (products, perhaps, of a compensation for past overbearing attitudes) also underlies a lot of political tolerance for stupidity, as well as the ridiculous attitude in some modern countries to allow things like Sharia law to take precedence, or allow head-scarves in schools, and that sort of misguided political correctness.

Governments shouldn't fund creationist museums, unmade beds in art galleries, alternative medicine, alternative education, and massive, unjustified intervention into private lives. (Incidentally, this is why education vouchers are a bad idea.) It's a bloody, shameful, damaging waste. What we should do again, as we seemed to have been doing more successfully 50 years ago, is fund science, reason, their education and dissemination and pursuit, fund beautiful art and writing and history, fund small businesses and innovation but get tough with corporations and monopolies, fund the military but gut wars, take a stand on principles the world can agree on (as determined by the UN) but not others, and get the hell out of private lives.

If you want a model for governments, imperfect but innovative and leading the way, look at the spate of governments that emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War, in the decade or so that followed it. I don't want to return to them, our modern governments are better, but they were at least headed in the right direction, whereas we have turned away from it.

[bjornredtail]

  I don't know about that. Most masters were either self-funded, or had to do exactly as the patron bid them. I see the problem more as one of dishonesty. Nobody likes stupid displays of soda cans and unmade beds and plastic boxes as art. But nobody seems to want to admit that it's the most ridiculous rubbish. People are intimidated by 'art' because it's no longer a natural part of education, so they are afraid to speak up when the fraud comes a-peddling his or her junk as art. The middle classes are the same timid tourists who'll do anything when they go to a foreign country because it's supposed to be ethnic, and get ripped off by all the thieving tuppenny tour guides, and they're afraid to speak their mind and inquire. The same attitude of excessive politeness and the forgotten virtue of frankness (products, perhaps, of a compensation for past overbearing attitudes) also underlies a lot of political tolerance for stupidity, as well as the ridiculous attitude in some modern countries to allow things like Sharia law to take precedence, or allow head-scarves in schools, and that sort of misguided political correctness.

On the other hand we have rap 'music', trash movies and television. Pop culture sucks quite a bit too...

I find the most interesting article on Julian Lloyd Webber a while ago (Cello soloist, younger brother of composer Andrew Lloyd Webber) that I think describes part of this effect. It's at http://www.julianlloydwebber.com/world_ ... speech.htm . He put's the start of this in the 50's and 60's.. What I wonder is, what connects this to the 'Consumer Socity'?

"...allow head-scarves in schools..."
This bothers me a bit. Are you sure you want to exclude religious expression to this extent?

Governments shouldn't fund creationist museums, unmade beds in art galleries, alternative medicine, alternative education, and massive, unjustified intervention into private lives. (Incidentally, this is why education vouchers are a bad idea.)

This is an odd line of arguing. You suggest that vouchers are an invasion of private lives, but that a government run school system isn't?

It's a bloody, shameful, damaging waste. What we should do again, as we seemed to have been doing more successfully 50 years ago, is fund science, reason, their education and dissemination and pursuit, fund beautiful art and writing and history, fund small businesses and innovation but get tough with corporations and monopolies, fund the military but gut wars, take a stand on principles the world can agree on (as determined by the UN) but not others, and get the hell out of private lives.

1. I'd wouldn't trust the UN, known in recent times for corruption (oil for food program, anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish bias) and its assaults on national sovereignty and the rights of US citizens (Right to bear arms, http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst062606.htm) to deliver so much as a bag of peanuts, let alone a set of principles the world can agree on.
2. Do you really think there's a set of principles that the world can agree on, that we haven't already set in a number of treaties? Things like treatment of uniformed solders and non-combatant civilians in war are already codified.
3. Once again, you want the government to fund education, science, and get tough on corporations but stay out of people's lives? Isn't this a contradiction?

[Meestir amayzing]

no it's not, they are not gay/lesbian/straight/bi right when they are born it has to do with influence and what happens to them, if a guy has a gay dad and 5 sisters that dressed him up as a girl when he was 4 then he will probably be gay, if he has 2 brothers and a dad in the Army and a mom in drug re-hab. he will probably be straight, the same with girls

I have a gay friend and he spent most of his time with his dad and barely any with his mom...

[Shadow I]

Tom suffers from an acute case of religious indoctrination on the subject, or he simply has his facts wrong and refuses to correct himself. No point arguing it. He'll figure it out sooner or later, hopefully.

[The Beatles]

On the other hand we have rap 'music', trash movies and television. Pop culture sucks quite a bit too...

But it's always sucked. By definiton we needn't worry about it. Once culture is created at all, the trash is soon forgotten. Our job is to ensure that the good culture is actually created, then its own merits will ensure it is not forgotten.

What I wonder is, what connects this to the 'Consumer Socity'?

Not necessarily just that. But there was a great democratisation, a rise of middle-class values following the war, in a fair acknowledgement that middle-class leaders and fighters had done the decisive job in winning it, unlike any previous war. This was accompanied by many things: the glorification of ordinariness, the counterculture movements, the rise of consumer society, which I freely admit were in a complicated network of cause and effects, but none could have happened without the basic impetus of the rise of the lower and middle classes, with the decimation and ridicule of the upper classes.

By the way, here's a quote from your speech expressing a similar phenomenon (emphasis his!):

After the war, everything had to be new. For example, instead of following through the plan to rebuild the beautiful, acoustically superb Queen’s Hall in London, the decision was taken to move out of the city centre and create an entirely new concrete structure south of the river. British music is still paying for that mistake as by common agreement England’s capital city has no acoustically great concert hall for orchestral music.

"...allow head-scarves in schools..."
This bothers me a bit. Are you sure you want to exclude religious expression to this extent?

In both Turkey and Britain it bothered me; not because it is merely a religious display, but because it is a political display. And religious (Turkey's case) or foreign (Britain's case) politics have no business in any country.

This is an odd line of arguing. You suggest that vouchers are an invasion of private lives, but that a government run school system isn't?

No, I'm arguing that government vouchers are the equivalent of funding and sanctioning a lot of rubbish. I dislike it for that reason, not because it has anything to do with a reduction of privacy.

It is true that not offering vouchers restricts poor people (who can't afford to even homeschool) to public education. And I admit that is not good. I think this is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. If the government in any way controls the funding of education (by specifying which schools vouchers are admitted to, or by not issuing vouchers and hence forcing public education), it is not good, but I think still better than publicly funding a completely unregulated choice of education. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

1. I'd wouldn't trust the UN, known in recent times for corruption (oil for food program, anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish bias) and its assaults on national sovereignty and the rights of US citizens (Right to bear arms, http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst062606.htm) to deliver so much as a bag of peanuts, let alone a set of principles the world can agree on.

I agree with you completely. But there are things we have agreed on unanimously, such as the International Declaration of Human Rights, though I did not name it by name. And I think it is perfectly reasonable for all governments to safeguard these shared, common values.

2. Do you really think there's a set of principles that the world can agree on, that we haven't already set in a number of treaties? Things like treatment of uniformed solders and non-combatant civilians in war are already codified.

Though we've set them in treaties, treaties are rarely worth the paper they're printed on. I'm just saying it would be nice if we actually DID do as we promised and uphold these shared values. Human rights are abused everywhere from the Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, not forgetting the US and UK in between.

Once again, you want the government to fund education, science, and get tough on corporations but stay out of people's lives? Isn't this a contradiction?

Not as far as I can see. Why would it? I should add that many Western governments already do this, imperfectly enough of course.

[Gen. Volkov]

Quite right, but hardly democratic either. It was granted by a handful of people, with input from not more than a few thousand, and inspired by foreign philosophers to boot. By the way, as Constitutional Amendments, they did indeed require a quorum of the people to grant. But I was referring to things beyond the first few decades of the country's history. Look at the list of the amendments following those ten. Either arduously granted, or given/taken on a whim.

Eh? They were totally democratic. The Bill of Rights was a demand before the constitution would even be accepted by the other states. And they had to be ratified by all the other states. And OK, yes, the rest of the amendments were rather difficult to obtain, but only one was taken away after it was put in place. By the way, the Bill of Rights was hardly inspired by foreign philosophers, most were inspired by British ones, and all the Americans old enough to have an opinion were not to far off from being British subjects when the constitution was adopted.

[The Beatles]

The franchise extended to wealthy white male landowners. Democratic? Pish tush. I grant you that within that framework it was, and it was certainly liberal.

Fair enough, British and American stock and thinking are never far from each other, and were nearly indistinguishable at the time. That said, there was a definite new body of American thinking.

[bjornredtail]

I agree with you completely. But there are things we have agreed on unanimously, such as the International Declaration of Human Rights, though I did not name it by name. And I think it is perfectly reasonable for all governments to safeguard these shared, common values.

Even these are not universal. Although almost everyone agrees on the abolition of the slave trade, a lot of the other stuff in that document does have some controversy.

Let's see here... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
For example, you might disagree with Article 26, section 3: "(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." Richard Stallman (man, I love using him for examples might disagree with part of Article 27 stating "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." The Islamic world does disagree with some of the sections on family law, and thus a number of Islamic countries went out and made their own declaration of human rights. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... _criticism)

In any case, we, along with most of the Western world, have already signed on... Most governments have protections for most of these rights built into their systems, simply because that's what their people demand. What's the role of the UN in this?

In both Turkey and Britain it bothered me; not because it is merely a religious display, but because it is a political display. And religious (Turkey's case) or foreign (Britain's case) politics have no business in any country.

About religious politics, I still believe that freedom of expression should take precedence. With regards to foreign politics, I'm a bit more torn. A display of a foreign allegiance is a threat to the national existence, thus trumps the individual's human rights.

Though we've set them in treaties, treaties are rarely worth the paper they're printed on. I'm just saying it would be nice if we actually DID do as we promised and uphold these shared values. Human rights are abused everywhere from the Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, not forgetting the US and UK in between.

In places where there is a rule of law, at least the wrongs are found and corrected. Or at the very least, the perpetrators caught and punished.

Not as far as I can see. Why would it? I should add that many Western governments already do this, imperfectly enough of course.

Taxes? Costs assorted with regulation?

Furthermore, large corporations exist for more reasons than limiting competition. For most industries there is a massive economy of scale. It's a lot cheaper for one corporation to make a million of something than for a million companies to make one of something. So, by 'getting tough' on corporations, you may very well be raising prices and reducing the amount of wealth that the economy creates. (that being said, runaway imperfect competition still limits the marketplace, thus also driving up costs.)

[topaz]

Wow this discussion is all encompassing...I thought we had finally lost the gay issue(!).

I will bring us back to the discussion of education anyway. My original argument (although misinturpreted by some) was not that the government should issue universal vouchers for education. That is like writing a check at a fast-food resturant before you place the order (poor analogy, but you get the picture).

My argument can be seen in our modern education quite easily. When you ask a question that starts with "Who is responsible..." you will see. "Who is responsible for the poor students that are being turned loose in society." If you ask the teachers, they will tell you that most (mind I said most) students can't perform well without a support network at home. In other words they blame the lack of responsibility of the parents. If you ask the parents the same question, they will tell you that the schools are not good enough...do not get enough money...are not thorough enough....In other words they shift the blame right back onto the shools. Who is right?

The same chain of reasoning can be used with the following questions as well:

"Why don't kids behave in shool?"
"Why don't kids listen to authroity?"
"Why are kids mistreating others at school?" (back to the main subject)

Did the government (by providing a service to the parents) also shoulder the responsibility for how the kids turn out??! I don't think so!!!

My suggestion is that the parents be held responsible for their child's education or lack thereof. For example, if the parents choose to send their children to the government's free service (aka Public School) They should be held to a strict standard of how the child is to behave and perform. In other words Let the concept of education return to a privelege (which can be taken away from people who don't conform) instead of a right (universal to all regardless of compliance to the rules).

If they don't comply to the rules, they will be forced to pay for the education of their children. I know the idea is already in place but it is not nearly strict enough (especially if some kid can disrupt study for the whole shool by bullying the others without (or relatively without) consequences. The parents (who are supposed to be responsible for the kid's actions anyway) should be held responsible. This is a way for them to take responsibility without any added government bureaucracy.

[Tetigustas shadowson]

GAY or not GAY

Some one once told me to get in touch with my feminine side, well I did and do you know what?
She liked it so much that we now meet twice a week in private!

As for the Gay issue....
I hate to tell you but there is 'NO GAY ISSUE', it’s like saying I have an attitude problem....
I think you are having the problem with my attitude, not unlike you are having an issue with people who aren’t hetero........

If every one was like you or where a like in general, this planet would be a very boring place.


As for the big brother issue:
I think the government is supposed to be involved with our lives and we are supposed to be involved with the government, you can’t just sit around and biotch about how the government is doing things, if you are not having a personal say-so in the decisions of government, @ the federal and state levels,
It says ‘we the people’ not ‘we the congressional and the legislatorial’ most states have an easy way into government.
Do community things donate your self/time to the community, make a point to be involved with state and federal issues, make your self known to the governing body.
I email my government people at least once a year, and ‘I’ll be a go to hell’ if they don’t send me tidings and the fine line details of issues put before the governing body, issues to hash about with my friends and coworkers for ‘my’ public input…..!

Have you complained to any of them about your life, love, food bills and gas prices?
I bet not
Have you inquired of them, for their take on issues put before them, after you elected them to office?
Did you get in touch with them and ask about the issues they campaigned on, now that they are in the office they sought.
Have they performed to your satisfaction or dissatisfaction?
Have you asked them why they changed their standings on the issues they proposed?

What have you done to be a good or conscientious citizen?

I get involved with my government do you?