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.
You said it a lot better than I did, but this is the point I was trying to get across as well.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
It looks like my question about a willingness to enforce change on others via a vote is going unanswered.
In a practical context, this is not even a valid question. To suggest that voting to enforce change on someone is wrong would presuppose a lot of things the existing system already contradicts. If it is wrong for me to vote for a new system that, say, eliminates the welfare system, why was it right to vote for establishing that system in the first place upon the unwilling?
This is like suggesting that voting to end slavery, as many nations did, would be wrong because it would impose "radical change" on slave owners. What right does a slave owner have to suggest that he should not be radically changed by a vote, considering his own actions radically changed the lives of others against their will?
Now, in a more philosophical sense, I'm totally on board with what you're saying here. I don't think it's a good idea to impose radical change on people who aren't ready for it or don't want it. But that's why I like Paul. He's not telling people that they can't have communal or large-scale social systems wherein people can own things and work together. If, for example, we were talking about some kind of Randite that would violently impose a singular moral system on people, I'd totally agree with you that, despite some likely agreement on my part with that person's underlying beliefs, that they had no right to literally enslave people into a single belief system. Ron Paul is not proposing to do this.
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.
It seems that you and I tend to believe that if something is in the greater good in the long run, then it's the best choice. That is where I fall on the surface. And then my conflicts kick in. And I question that.
For example, if I were voting for Kucinich (and if I were American!) I naturally believe that although there would be costs--that his message is by far for the greatest good. And with this view, I can also see the "other side" and how many people would be adamantly opposed to many of the changes made. Obviously, I have to go with what I believe is best.
I realize those who opposed me would just have to roll with the punches and adapt if my voted-for representative became President.
The crux of it for me, though, underneath everything, is that I'm coming to find it repugnant to justify horrible stuff in the present which is very real, for a "greater good" somewhere in the future that exists only in theory. Only after much conflict for the people--conflict they are unprepared to adjust to--would this eventual growth and resolution take place. It seems like justifying the unjustifiable. The end does not justify the means.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It seems that you and I tend to believe that if something is in the greater good in the long run, then it's the best choice. That is where I fall on the surface. And then my conflicts kick in. And I question that.
For example, if I were voting for Kucinich (and if I were American!) I naturally believe that although there would be costs--that his message is by far for the greatest good. And with this view, I can also see the "other side" and how many people would be adamantly opposed to many of the changes made. Obviously, I have to go with what I believe is best.
I realize those who opposed me would just have to roll with the punches and adapt if my voted-for representative became President.
The crux of it for me, though, underneath everything, is that I'm coming to find it repugnant to justify horrible stuff in the present which is very real, for a "greater good" somewhere in the future that exists only in theory. Only after much conflict for the people--conflict they are unprepared to adjust to--would this eventual growth and resolution take place. It seems like justifying the unjustifiable. The end does not justify the means.
In a practical context, this is not even a valid question. To suggest that voting to enforce change on someone is wrong would presuppose a lot of things the existing system already contradicts. If it is wrong for me to vote for a new system that, say, eliminates the welfare system, why was it right to vote for establishing that system in the first place upon the unwilling?
My problem is not with change. It's with radical change. It's based on that I have been through ungodly amounts of change, and I realize how challenging change is for people, even if they choose it, and much, much worse if they do not, and particularly for those with less inner balance and coping skills. I realize in practicality, much of what I'm asking is a moot point, given the democratic system, however, I'm questioning whether I want to support such systems as they stand to begin with. Or at least the idea of such large and vast countries governing us, rather than smaller areas being self-governing.
This is like suggesting that voting to end slavery, as many nations did, would be wrong because it would impose "radical change" on slave owners. What right does a slave owner have to suggest that he should not be radically changed by a vote, considering his own actions radically changed the lives of others against their will?
You and your slave analogies....
Realistically speaking, though, I don't naturally get your gun, or slave analogies. I hear what you are saying, but such analogies are meaningless to me. Probably in the way communist type concepts are meaningless to you. I would love it if something you said could help me understand better, and still I recognize that there are just big gaps in how you or I process information.
Now, in a more philosophical sense, I'm totally on board with what you're saying here. I don't think it's a good idea to impose radical change on people who aren't ready for it or don't want it. But that's why I like Paul. He's not telling people that they can't have communal or large-scale social systems wherein people can own things and work together. If, for example, we were talking about some kind of Randite that would violently impose a singular moral system on people, I'd totally agree with you that, despite some likely agreement on my part with that person's underlying beliefs, that they had no right to literally enslave people into a single belief system. Ron Paul is not proposing to do this.
He is proposing change that is diametrically opposed to my belief system, though, as to what is in the best interests of...your...country. So while again, especially given that I'm Canadian, it is a moot point, it's about the larger philosophical ramifications for me and I love the input on this board, and the balanced responsible way people are approaching this, and I was hoping I could find a big more clarity in my own perspective.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Thanks. I'm guessing you say this because I have reached a point where I fully understand your catch-phrase...the end/means stuff. I understand that to the point that it's now a given for me, and I'm integrating the rest of myself with this idea. Because at the same time you were "harping" on about ends/means, I was developing my idea about the only time being now and all the potential existing in the present. So it's a year later and here I am.
And I am surrendering to the greater good in the moment being the only time there is, which means surrendering all of my earlier pre-conceptions into a consolidated, grounded package present in the now. So while I'm doing this, I'm looking for any kinds of ideas that may emerge from this consolidation, and I tend to learn in the sounding board manner, amidst others sharing their ideas. Man, birthing a Self isn't always easy!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My problem is not with change. It's with radical change. It's based on that I have been through ungodly amounts of change, and I realize how challenging change is for people, even if they choose it, and much, much worse if they do not, and particularly for those with less inner balance and coping skills. I realize in practicality, much of what I'm asking is a moot point, given the democratic system, however, I'm questioning whether I want to support such systems as they stand to begin with. Or at least the idea of such large and vast countries governing us, rather than smaller areas being self-governing.
You and your slave analogies....
Realistically speaking, though, I don't naturally get your gun, or slave analogies. I hear what you are saying, but such analogies are meaningless to me. Probably in the way communist type concepts are meaningless to you. I would love it if something you said could help me understand better, and still I recognize that there are just big gaps in how you or I process information.
Nothing you're asking is a "moot point" -- it's built upon a very valid philosophical position. Change is a very dangerous force in people's lives. Anyone proposing radical change needs to recognize this. I'm just not sure how "radical" these changes are to begin with. Paul isn't trying to preclude people from doing the things that reflect their values, whereas some of the other candidates' positions are since they would further preclude people from living their values.
If the slave analogies don't work for you, let's look at the same concept without an analogy. The existing political environment in this country is founded upon the forced changes you're rejecting here. So, if they're bad to do now, were they not bad to do then? So, one is left with the question: do we leave the existing system as-is? Based on the principles you're laying out here, it would be acceptable to do that. But it certainly wouldn't be acceptable to further expand them and enforce new radical changes on people.
The "radical change can be negative" position, however, is not an irreducible axiom. To suggest that radical change is negative on individuals is to pay heed to the concepts of individual rights and responsibilities. That's the Ron Paul position. Individuals have certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, property) and inescapable responsibilities to themselves and others in their society. Therefore, it extends from those positions that past changes that violate those rights or responsibilities should be eliminated since they are negative forces in the lives of many individuals.
He is proposing change that is diametrically opposed to my belief system, though, as to what is in the best interests of...your...country.
Are you sure? What part of your belief system is Ron Paul saying you cannot hold or cannot directly act upon free of oppressive consequences? The only answer I can think of to this is -- "Ron Paul won't let me use the unwilling to achieve my goals" which would in turn beg the question: if it's ok to use the unwilling to achieve your goals, why is it wrong for others to change your life when you're unwilling???
Thanks. I'm guessing you say this because I have reached a point where I fully understand your catch-phrase...the end/means stuff. I understand that to the point that it's now a given for me, and I'm integrating the rest of myself with this idea. Because at the same time you were "harping" on about ends/means, I was developing my idea about the only time being now and all the potential existing in the present. So it's a year later and here I am.
I'm saying this because you have eloquently rejected, at least in part, the concept of "necessary evil", angelica. And you have wonderfully stated that an individual's well-being, regardless of who that individual is, isn't by default somehow subservient to something someone just happens to refer to as "greater good".
And I am surrendering to the greater good in the moment being the only time there is, which means surrendering all of my earlier pre-conceptions into a consolidated, grounded package present in the now. So while I'm doing this, I'm looking for any kinds of ideas that may emerge from this consolidation, and I tend to learn in the sounding board manner, amidst others sharing their ideas. Man, birthing a Self isn't always easy!
It is very difficult. That's why few people actually try it, let alone do it. And if the result of that process is still "surrendering to the greater good", that's totally cool because you've arrived at that position on your own, through your own values, via your own reason. It's awesome.
Nothing you're asking is a "moot point" -- it's built upon a very valid philosophical position. Change is a very dangerous force in people's lives. Anyone proposing radical change needs to recognize this. I'm just not sure how "radical" these changes are to begin with. Paul isn't trying to preclude people from doing the things that reflect their values, whereas some of the other candidates' positions are since they would further preclude people from living their values.
I feel uncomfortable with the idea that what Paul intends to do is "right" and therefore any changes and adaptations are just a "given" and won't go against people's values. I see it very differently than that.
If the slave analogies don't work for you, let's look at the same concept without an analogy. The existing political environment in this country is founded upon the forced changes you're rejecting here. So, if they're bad to do now, were they not bad to do then? So, one is left with the question: do we leave the existing system as-is? Based on the principles you're laying out here, it would be acceptable to do that. But it certainly wouldn't be acceptable to further expand them and enforce new radical changes on people.
Yeah, I don't respond to analogies at all--they confuse and complicate things for me all the more. This makes much more sense to me. I do agree our underlying systems are flawed as you see it. And I do appreciate your logic here. I think, also, that our current political systems are flawed, too. Meaning that as long as we vote back and forth, with huge majorities within huge countries, it will be a balancing act, back and forth through election after election, while people make a slow evolution. We won't actually really evolve in any one radical direction. And I think you and I both know that whether to impose Kucinich's way, or Paul's way, is not going to change the essential problems of evolution that occur within individuals. If we could vote for Ron Paul and change that and correct the underlying problems, I would probably be on board with that. I do understand how a simplified, more natural and environmentally attuned way would benefit everyone, but I feel it will only come about with the evolution of the people, and with them recognizing the need for this, and the same goes for co-operative systems. I agree that forcing such systems undermines the whole concept to begin with.
The "radical change can be negative" position, however, is not an irreducible axiom. To suggest that radical change is negative on individuals is to pay heed to the concepts of individual rights and responsibilities. That's the Ron Paul position. Individuals have certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, property) and inescapable responsibilities to themselves and others in their society. Therefore, it extends from those positions that past changes that violate those rights or responsibilities should be eliminated since they are negative forces in the lives of many individuals.
In an ideal this makes sense. But if he gets voted in, he'll eventually get voted out and a new contrary view will come in to balance things back, while people slowly evolve in the meantime. Do you see it differently?
Are you sure? What part of your belief system is Ron Paul saying you cannot hold or cannot directly act upon free of oppressive consequences? The only answer I can think of to this is -- "Ron Paul won't let me use the unwilling to achieve my goals" which would in turn beg the question: if it's ok to use the unwilling to achieve your goals, why is it wrong for others to change your life when you're unwilling???
If I felt there was potential that the Ron Paul way would make lasting change that would be one thing. I believe the lasting change must come from humans up, in our evolution. And I think our evolution will be a blend of becoming more like what both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich seem to be about. Which is why I love to support evolutionary front runners and am at least glad when the public gets wind of such "radical" but highly sound perspectives.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm saying this because you have eloquently rejected, at least in part, the concept of "necessary evil", angelica. And you have wonderfully stated that an individual's well-being, regardless of who that individual is, isn't by default somehow subservient to something someone just happens to refer to as "greater good".
I think I've rejected it fully, and only yet have to spend the rest of my life resolving aspects of me that do not jibe with harmony in the moment. It's easy to spot discordance, and the necessity to resolve that discordance. Force is not resolution. I've known for a long while that agreement models work and force does not, except in an illusory way. It's application that has not been my best suit. However, since I'm getting all "present" and personally applied, my focus is changing.
It is very difficult. That's why few people actually try it, let alone do it. And if the result of that process is still "surrendering to the greater good", that's totally cool because you've arrived at that position on your own, through your own values, via your own reason. It's awesome.
Thanks for your support. The greater good of all is necessary, imo, to be one with the Self and not just the self. However, I'm talking about it in the moment, which means resolving all conflict, and respecting the greater good of ALL and without force at all times. There is no illusory future greater good that can justify infringement in the now. Oh, and imposing a sense of "greater good" on another is an illusion as well...i.e., it's not "greater good" but something else indeed. And in terms of practicality, I still don't know what this means....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well they can still have authority lead them just that the authority will no longer be the government.
With this I see that many people will fall through the cracks, and then we will hear a mantra of "well, it's their own fault that they didn't pull themselves up by the bootstraps". Since I see such a view to be ridiculous and proves itself as unaware, it's a repelling thought to me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
You said it a lot better than I did, but this is the point I was trying to get across as well.
In a practical context, this is not even a valid question. To suggest that voting to enforce change on someone is wrong would presuppose a lot of things the existing system already contradicts. If it is wrong for me to vote for a new system that, say, eliminates the welfare system, why was it right to vote for establishing that system in the first place upon the unwilling?
This is like suggesting that voting to end slavery, as many nations did, would be wrong because it would impose "radical change" on slave owners. What right does a slave owner have to suggest that he should not be radically changed by a vote, considering his own actions radically changed the lives of others against their will?
Now, in a more philosophical sense, I'm totally on board with what you're saying here. I don't think it's a good idea to impose radical change on people who aren't ready for it or don't want it. But that's why I like Paul. He's not telling people that they can't have communal or large-scale social systems wherein people can own things and work together. If, for example, we were talking about some kind of Randite that would violently impose a singular moral system on people, I'd totally agree with you that, despite some likely agreement on my part with that person's underlying beliefs, that they had no right to literally enslave people into a single belief system. Ron Paul is not proposing to do this.
It seems that you and I tend to believe that if something is in the greater good in the long run, then it's the best choice. That is where I fall on the surface. And then my conflicts kick in. And I question that.
For example, if I were voting for Kucinich (and if I were American!) I naturally believe that although there would be costs--that his message is by far for the greatest good. And with this view, I can also see the "other side" and how many people would be adamantly opposed to many of the changes made. Obviously, I have to go with what I believe is best.
I realize those who opposed me would just have to roll with the punches and adapt if my voted-for representative became President.
The crux of it for me, though, underneath everything, is that I'm coming to find it repugnant to justify horrible stuff in the present which is very real, for a "greater good" somewhere in the future that exists only in theory. Only after much conflict for the people--conflict they are unprepared to adjust to--would this eventual growth and resolution take place. It seems like justifying the unjustifiable. The end does not justify the means.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This post is badass....awesome angelica.
Realistically speaking, though, I don't naturally get your gun, or slave analogies. I hear what you are saying, but such analogies are meaningless to me. Probably in the way communist type concepts are meaningless to you. I would love it if something you said could help me understand better, and still I recognize that there are just big gaps in how you or I process information.
He is proposing change that is diametrically opposed to my belief system, though, as to what is in the best interests of...your...country. So while again, especially given that I'm Canadian, it is a moot point, it's about the larger philosophical ramifications for me and I love the input on this board, and the balanced responsible way people are approaching this, and I was hoping I could find a big more clarity in my own perspective.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And I am surrendering to the greater good in the moment being the only time there is, which means surrendering all of my earlier pre-conceptions into a consolidated, grounded package present in the now. So while I'm doing this, I'm looking for any kinds of ideas that may emerge from this consolidation, and I tend to learn in the sounding board manner, amidst others sharing their ideas. Man, birthing a Self isn't always easy!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nothing you're asking is a "moot point" -- it's built upon a very valid philosophical position. Change is a very dangerous force in people's lives. Anyone proposing radical change needs to recognize this. I'm just not sure how "radical" these changes are to begin with. Paul isn't trying to preclude people from doing the things that reflect their values, whereas some of the other candidates' positions are since they would further preclude people from living their values.
If the slave analogies don't work for you, let's look at the same concept without an analogy. The existing political environment in this country is founded upon the forced changes you're rejecting here. So, if they're bad to do now, were they not bad to do then? So, one is left with the question: do we leave the existing system as-is? Based on the principles you're laying out here, it would be acceptable to do that. But it certainly wouldn't be acceptable to further expand them and enforce new radical changes on people.
The "radical change can be negative" position, however, is not an irreducible axiom. To suggest that radical change is negative on individuals is to pay heed to the concepts of individual rights and responsibilities. That's the Ron Paul position. Individuals have certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, property) and inescapable responsibilities to themselves and others in their society. Therefore, it extends from those positions that past changes that violate those rights or responsibilities should be eliminated since they are negative forces in the lives of many individuals.
Are you sure? What part of your belief system is Ron Paul saying you cannot hold or cannot directly act upon free of oppressive consequences? The only answer I can think of to this is -- "Ron Paul won't let me use the unwilling to achieve my goals" which would in turn beg the question: if it's ok to use the unwilling to achieve your goals, why is it wrong for others to change your life when you're unwilling???
I'm saying this because you have eloquently rejected, at least in part, the concept of "necessary evil", angelica. And you have wonderfully stated that an individual's well-being, regardless of who that individual is, isn't by default somehow subservient to something someone just happens to refer to as "greater good".
It is very difficult. That's why few people actually try it, let alone do it. And if the result of that process is still "surrendering to the greater good", that's totally cool because you've arrived at that position on your own, through your own values, via your own reason. It's awesome.
Yeah, I don't respond to analogies at all--they confuse and complicate things for me all the more. This makes much more sense to me. I do agree our underlying systems are flawed as you see it. And I do appreciate your logic here. I think, also, that our current political systems are flawed, too. Meaning that as long as we vote back and forth, with huge majorities within huge countries, it will be a balancing act, back and forth through election after election, while people make a slow evolution. We won't actually really evolve in any one radical direction. And I think you and I both know that whether to impose Kucinich's way, or Paul's way, is not going to change the essential problems of evolution that occur within individuals. If we could vote for Ron Paul and change that and correct the underlying problems, I would probably be on board with that. I do understand how a simplified, more natural and environmentally attuned way would benefit everyone, but I feel it will only come about with the evolution of the people, and with them recognizing the need for this, and the same goes for co-operative systems. I agree that forcing such systems undermines the whole concept to begin with.
In an ideal this makes sense. But if he gets voted in, he'll eventually get voted out and a new contrary view will come in to balance things back, while people slowly evolve in the meantime. Do you see it differently?
If I felt there was potential that the Ron Paul way would make lasting change that would be one thing. I believe the lasting change must come from humans up, in our evolution. And I think our evolution will be a blend of becoming more like what both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich seem to be about. Which is why I love to support evolutionary front runners and am at least glad when the public gets wind of such "radical" but highly sound perspectives.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Thanks for your support. The greater good of all is necessary, imo, to be one with the Self and not just the self. However, I'm talking about it in the moment, which means resolving all conflict, and respecting the greater good of ALL and without force at all times. There is no illusory future greater good that can justify infringement in the now. Oh, and imposing a sense of "greater good" on another is an illusion as well...i.e., it's not "greater good" but something else indeed. And in terms of practicality, I still don't know what this means....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!