A question for farfromglorified...and anyone!

angelica

I'm personally coming to a crossroads, and I've been changing many views and considering new ideas. farfromglorified, I said earlier in another thread that I don't agree with some of the radical change that Kucinich represents, even though I fully agree with the ideas of the change. I don't think forcing radical change on people who are not ready for it is a good thing. Therefore, if I were voting and the only candidate I could back represented radical change I'm wondering if I could vote for that candidate. I'm thinking I'd have to back out of the entire system and wait for a new system to present itself.

So, farfromglorified, you are so against forcing people to do things against their will. How would you deal with Ron Paul coming to presidential power, knowing that some of his "radical" ideas would be so averse to a large segment of the American population, and would be forced on them? How would you manage your role of voting for the man and supporting a willingness to enforce your way, via Ron Paul, on the masses, when it seems to contradict so much of your basic tenets?

Two strong influences have led me to this point, farfromglorified. 1) being the dramatic influence the complementary nature of your own view has had on mine. I have listened to and heard the validity of what you've said all along. and 2) I am at a stage that I realize the only time we have is now. I don't believe in forcing large amounts of people to do something for some imagined reward in an imagined future. Such erroneous thinking has caused millions of deaths in the past century, and I am not okay perpetuating such falseness.

I appreciate any honest, and conscientious contribution to these questions. Thanks for the help, everyone!

jlew24asu

who's farfromglorified?

rebornFixer

Just curious ... Which of Ron Paul's ideas are you referring to?

rebornFixer

Incidentally, angelica, I share your general view on radical change. However, I am only going to argue that such is GENERALLY detrimental. There could be times when it is quite beneficial, even if those times are relatively rare.

mammasan

With the exception of taxes I really don't think that any of Ron Paul's idea could be forced on you. Much of what he supports would leave the decisions up to the individual.

angelica

reborncareerist wrote:

Just curious ... Which of Ron Paul's ideas are you referring to?

I'm talking about any ideas that represent radical change for the American public.

I'm being vague because my question stems from my concern that were I American (or should this issue arise in my Canadian future) that I would want to support a candidate, such as Kucinich, whose ideas that are fair and realistic to me, are also repugnant to many base fellow-countrymen.

So for me, it's not about the specific political views, but about the aspects of candidates Paul/Kucinich that cause them to be such long-shots.

rebornFixer

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about any ideas that represent radical change for the American public.

I'm being vague because my question stems from my concern that were I American (or should this issue arise in my Canadian future) that I would want to support a candidate, such as Kucinich, whose ideas that are fair and realistic to me, are also repugnant to many base fellow-countrymen.

So for me, it's not about the specific political views, but about the aspects of candidates Paul/Kucinich that cause them to be such long-shots.

Fair enough. I'll be open about my own personal bias: Kucinich has many bad ideas, even if I do like some aspects of his Iraq plan and his attitudes about health care. Paul, I think, is the flip side ... More good ideas, and a few bad ones.
Anyhow, you're right ... The bigger issue at stake is whether it is acceptable to vote in favour of any sort of radical change. Its a good question. I don't have a good answer right now.
Maybe later ...

angelica

mammasan wrote:

With the exception of taxes I really don't think that any of Ron Paul's idea could be forced on you. Much of what he supports would leave the decisions up to the individual.

I'm talking about that he would usher in a way that diametrically opposes a more communal approach many on this board would like to see, for example. (edit: I reiterate, this is merely an example!)

You find it beneficial the more decisions you can make, however many people do not. Many people thrive on authority and "experts" leading them.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I'm personally coming to a crossroads, and I've been changing many views and considering new ideas. farfromglorified, I said earlier in another thread that I don't agree with some of the radical change that Kucinich represents, even though I fully agree with the ideas of the change. I don't think forcing radical change on people who are not ready for it is a good thing. Therefore, if I were voting and the only candidate I could back represented radical change I'm wondering if I could vote for that candidate. I'm thinking I'd have to back out of the entire system and wait for a new system to present itself.

So, farfromglorified, you are so against forcing people to do things against their will. How would you deal with Ron Paul coming to presidential power, knowing that some of his "radical" ideas would be so averse to a large segment of the American population, and would be forced on them? How would you manage your role of voting for the man and supporting a willingness to enforce your way, via Ron Paul, on the masses, when it seems to contradict so much of your basic tenets?

Two strong influences have led me to this point, farfromglorified. 1) being the dramatic influence the complementary nature of your own view has had on mine. I have listened to and heard the validity of what you've said all along. and 2) I am at a stage that I realize the only time we have is now. I don't believe in forcing large amounts of people to do something for some imagined reward in an imagined future. Such erroneous thinking has caused millions of deaths in the past century, and I am not okay perpetuating such falseness.

I appreciate any honest, and conscientious contribution to these questions. Thanks for the help, everyone!

Angelica,

This is very interesting and thought-provoking question. I'm a bit confused, however. What do you see Ron Paul proposing to "force" upon America?

angelica

What???? I start a thread in his honour and no farfromglorified?? .............:(

edit: Oops! spoke too soon!

mammasan

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about that he would usher in a way that diametrically opposes a more communal approach many on this board would like to see, for example. (edit: I reiterate, this is merely an example!)

You find it beneficial the more decisions you can make, however many people do not. Many people thrive on authority and "experts" leading them.

Well they can still have authority lead them just that the authority will no longer be the government.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica,

This is very interesting and thought-provoking question. I'm a bit confused, however. What do you see Ron Paul proposing to "force" upon America?

Forcing people to make their own decisions when they are not ready for it, or used to it, for a general example.

Forcing people to manage more of their own lives rather than electing "management" to do it for them.

I mentioned a long while back that I saw a news special once that presented a base difference between Canada and the US being that Canadians prefer to give the government the power to make "managerial" decisions on our behalf, whereas relative to Canada, Americans do not.

So for you, for example, individual freedom is prime, but what about for others who feel freedom entails getting the government to manage many aspects of life.

Still, ultimately, the question is about enforcing radical change on people, rather than nonchalant reforms.

angelica

mammasan wrote:

Well they can still have authority lead them just that the authority will no longer be the government.

That would work for you, but I'm talking about enforcing this view on those who don't agree.

rebornFixer

angelica wrote:

I mentioned a long while back that I saw a news special once that presented a base difference between Canada and the US being that Canadians prefer to give the government the power to make "managerial" decisions on our behalf, whereas relative to Canada, Americans do not.

Generally this is true, although increasingly Canadians are tiring of too many government controls as well. Personally, I think the balance up here between rule of law and individual freedom is relatively good. Maybe better than anywhere else in the world. On a few issues I think we could use a bit of a nudge more into the realm of individual freedom, but hey.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

Forcing people to make their own decisions when they are not ready for it, or used to it, for a general example.

Forcing people to manage more of their own lives rather than electing "management" to do it for them.

I mentioned a long while back that I saw a news special once that presented a base difference between Canada and the US being that Canadians prefer to give the government the power to make "managerial" decisions on our behalf, whereas relative to Canada, Americans do not.

So for you, for example, individual freedom is prime, but what about for others who feel freedom entails getting the government to manage many aspects of life.

Still, ultimately, the question is about enforcing radical change on people, rather than nonchalant reforms.

Well you can still look to your religious institutions, family, friends, or even hire someone to be the authority figure in your life. No one would be taking that away from you.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Forcing people to make their own decisions when they are not ready for it, or used to it, for a general example.

How does one "force" someone to make their own decisions? What mechanics would be involved in doing this?

Forcing people to manage more of their own lives rather than electing "management" to do it for them.

Ron Paul would never suggest that you couldn't designate someone to manage your life. He would simply suggest that you can't designate someone to manage someone else's life.

I mentioned a long while back that I saw a news special once that presented a base difference between Canada and the US being that Canadians prefer to give the government the power to make "managerial" decisions on our behalf, whereas relative to Canada, Americans do not.

So for you, for example, individual freedom is prime, but what about for others who feel freedom entails getting the government to manage many aspects of life.

Still, ultimately, the question is about enforcing radical change on people, rather than nonchalant reforms.

I don't really get this. Nothing in Ron Paul's positions state that you can't let someone else make "managerial" decisions on your behalf.

angelica

mammasan wrote:

Well you can still look to your religious institutions, family, friends, or even hire someone to be the authority figure in your life. No one would be taking that away from you.

You would be taking away my time. And my freedom to focus on what I'm theoretically already focusing on when the government controls the issues in question. So your decision would force "work" on me, in terms of energy expended.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

How does one "force" someone to make their own decisions? What mechanics would be involved in doing this?



Ron Paul would never suggest that you couldn't designate someone to manage your life. He would simply suggest that you can't designate someone to manage someone else's life.



I don't really get this. Nothing in Ron Paul's positions state that you can't let someone else make "managerial" decisions on your behalf.

See my next post to mammasan re: "work" and energy expended.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

You would be taking away my time. And my freedom to focus on what I'm theoretically already focusing on when the government controls the issues in question. So your decision would force "work" on me, in terms of energy expended.

Let me ask you what managerial decisions does gaovernment make for you know that would be such a burden for you or anyone else to make on their own?

farfromglorified

Angelica,

I think I'm now understanding the crux of your question from this statement:

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about that he would usher in a way that diametrically opposes a more communal approach many on this board would like to see, for example. (edit: I reiterate, this is merely an example!)

You find it beneficial the more decisions you can make, however many people do not. Many people thrive on authority and "experts" leading them.

Ron Paul certainly would not disallow "communal approaches". Those who believe in "communal approaches" would not be barred from acting out those principles. Furthermore, no one would be barred from looking to authorities or experts to the lead them. Why do you believe these things would be disallowed or imposed upon people?

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

You would be taking away my time. And my freedom to focus on what I'm theoretically already focusing on when the government controls the issues in question. So your decision would force "work" on me, in terms of energy expended.

Hehe...what claim do you have on your time? Seriously -- your time, in this hypothetical, has already been delivered to you at the cost of others. Are you suggesting that you have a right to your time, but others have no right to theirs?

angelica

mammasan wrote:

Let me ask you what managerial decisions does gaovernment make for you know that would be such a burden for you or anyone else to make on their own?

My question is about enforcing your way on another and calling it freedom. And it stems legitimately from the fact that I just realized that I would have an authenticity issue if I were to face a vote, myself, at this point in time.

And I'm starting to look towards other systems that may only exist in potential at this time.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

My question is about enforcing your way on another and calling it freedom.

What "way" is Ron Paul "enforcing"? How is he proposing to "enforce" it?

mammasan

angelica wrote:

My question is about enforcing your way on another and calling it freedom. And it stems legitimately from the fact that I just realized that I would have an authenticity issue if I were to face a vote, myself, at this point in time.

And I'm starting to look towards other systems that may only exist in potential at this time.

But nothing is being forced on you. You can still lead your life the same way you did prior to this new system.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...what claim do you have on your time? Seriously -- your time, in this hypothetical, has already been delivered to you at the cost of others. Are you suggesting that you have a right to your time, but others have no right to theirs?

See here's the thing. I'm starting to understand how you perceive a lack of conflict in this view. It would be helpful if you talked from your own perspective, rather than from my examples, that don't exist in reality. I don't hold your views but I've been influenced by them regarding stuff I don't exactly understand.


I'm asking how YOU are free and easy inside about your decisions. I'm looking for a model in order to understand. I realize I see conflicts in your view, and I am owning that conflict. Normally I don't care that I see conflict with others--until I realize I also see it for myself, were I to adopt some base principles--such as a willingness to vote for radical change that will disrupt the apple cart, for some "future" good that doesn't exist. How are people harmonizing this?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

What "way" is Ron Paul "enforcing"? How is he proposing to "enforce" it?

By making changes, irrespective of disputes that run contrary to the change.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

By making changes, irrespective of disputes that run contrary to the change.

What changes? What options would Ron Paul remove from the table for those who would dispute his presidency?

angelica

mammasan wrote:

But nothing is being forced on you. You can still lead your life the same way you did prior to this new system.

I'm getting confused trying to use examples with Ron Paul. I have to talk from my perspective. I'm concerned that were I facing a vote tomorrow, I would cause radical change on people who are not prepared to change. Even though I believe my view is correct. And I assume if you support Ron Paul, you believe it is the correct view to support.

So when the radical change would cause all kinds of fallout, because numerous people would be opposed to the change (whatever percentage the "opposition" is) and it takes a system much energy to regain it's balance. This happens whenever any radical change takes place.

Are you comfortable forcing people to adapt to radical change by using your vote to make it happen (if it theoretically did happen). It might have some good purposes in some "imagined" future, and if you believe that to be the case, are you willing to forfeit balance in the presence for this imagined future? I have personally come to question this type of thinking.

angelica

It looks like my question about a willingness to enforce change on others via a vote is going unanswered. I've got my own 9th anniversary dinner to attend. I don't think my boyfriend will buy the "I've been posting" story if I'm late or don't show up at all.

I would LOVE to hear anyone take a stab at answering the question. Thanks reborncareerist, for at least honestly addressing it and for thinking about it. Peace all.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

See here's the thing. I'm starting to understand how you perceive a lack of conflict in this view. It would be helpful if you talked from your own perspective, rather than from my examples, that don't exist in reality. I don't hold your views but I've been influenced by them regarding stuff I don't exactly understand.


I'm asking how YOU are free and easy inside about your decisions. I'm looking for a model in order to understand. I realize I see conflicts in your view, and I am owning that conflict. Normally I don't care that I see conflict with others--until I realize I also see it for myself, were I to adopt some base principles--such as a willingness to vote for radical change that will disrupt the apple cart, for some "future" good that doesn't exist. How are people harmonizing this?

Ok. From my perspective, Ron Paul is running on a platform of telling American people to do what they want to do, not what they must do.

John Edwards, for example, would make it illegal for me to go to my doctor's office, get a physical and pay my doctor $50 in cash. He would establish a single-payer system that everyone is forced to participate in.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, would not make it illegal for Americans who wish for a single-payer, not-for-profit system to establish a not-for-profit organization who pays for everyone's health care.

Dennis Kucinich would tax my corporation at a 100% rate if my revenues on a given year increased sharply. He would use that money to give free college tuition to people. He would make it illegal for me to keep it.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, would allow me to take that money and use it towards exactly the same ends Kucinich would propose, if that were my choice. If I wanted to give 100% of my business's revenues to provide free tuition to people, Ron Paul would not make that illegal.

Mitt Romney wants to make it illegal for me to work for a company doing stem-cell research. I would not be afforded such an option because the activities of that firm would be banned.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, would allow such organizations to exist and such options to be completely seperated from federal government influence. Those who object to such activities would likewise not be forced to participate in them.

Each political candidate on both sides of the partisan scale are proposing what values and behaviors they believe should be enforced on America. The mechanics of that force are law and violence.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Ron Paul wants people to be able to live out their values, not preclude them from doing so. He recognizes that the root of value in the first place is individual choice and will -- upholding those things upholds the diverse array of values and choices that exist in society.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

I'm getting confused trying to use examples with Ron Paul. I have to talk from my perspective. I'm concerned that were I facing a vote tomorrow, I would cause radical change on people who are not prepared to change. Even though I believe my view is correct. And I assume if you support Ron Paul, you believe it is the correct view to support.

So when the radical change would cause all kinds of fallout, because numerous people would be opposed to the change (whatever percentage the "opposition" is) and it takes a system much energy to regain it's balance. This happens whenever any radical change takes place.

Are you comfortable forcing people to adapt to radical change by using your vote to make it happen (if it theoretically did happen). It might have some good purposes in some "imagined" future, and if you believe that to be the case, are you willing to forfeit balance in the presence for this imagined future? I have personally come to question this type of thinking.

Yes I am prepared to do that because I believe the radical changes would make this a better country in the long run. Of course their would be opposition and a period of ajustment but, using Ron Paul as an example, what is being proposed is not anything that would greatly alter the way we live our daily lives. We would still have to make the same choices we make everyday, what to wear, what to eat, etc…. The only diference would be in the control we have over our own affairs and I don't know many people who would object to that. If people out there need some type of authority figure to tell them how to liv their lives they would still have that. They can turn to their religious leaders, friends, familiy members for that.