For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
And why would you think of that? Everyone has different beliefs, opinions, backgrounds - all in all, perceptions. This is especially true when it comes to an ideal society. I'd say that my form of "state" would be just a family, like a traditional family. Had we stuck to traditional ways, we would have had an actual peace on earth.The Voice of Time wrote:What greater beauty could a political state be, than the society of humans fighting for a common happiness and security? What stronger state is there, what more admirable and believable state is there?
But all those different beliefs, opinions and background are just variables that need to be figured out in the great puzzle of managing and developing a state. Happiness and security would act as the image you'd have to calculate how to achieve, and any measures that increases the chances of obtaining those qualities and excelling in them would be the actions of such a state, society and individuals.WanderingLands wrote:And why would you think of that? Everyone has different beliefs, opinions, backgrounds - all in all, perceptions. This is especially true when it comes to an ideal society.
Traditional families are unfortunately very incapable. And this leads to them more often being the victim of nature's carelessness for them. This is in turn leads to frustration which splits the traditional family and the result is either you develop into a new social arrangement or you suppress those elements of the family that are wounded and therefore rebels. This is turn becomes a patriarchal tyranny which is a cliché picture of why we moved from the past to the present solutions. Traditional families are not capable to meet their member's needs.WanderingLands wrote:I'd say that my form of "state" would be just a family, like a traditional family. Had we stuck to traditional ways, we would have had an actual peace on earth.
How are you going to do that? I mean, there is Comparative Religion and all, but what about the issues that divide the Traditionalists vs the Social "Progressives" (ie. abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, illicit drugs, media)?The Voice of Time wrote: But all those different beliefs, opinions and background are just variables that need to be figured out in the great puzzle of managing and developing a state. Happiness and security would act as the image you'd have to calculate how to achieve, and any measures that increases the chances of obtaining those qualities and excelling in them would be the actions of such a state, society and individuals.
And how are they incapable of being stable? To me, traditional families (or at least traditional governments built by traditional families and their foundational cultures) are very efficient and much easier to run than that of a bureaucracy (whether it be that of a Market or Command economy). If you had just a family, then you can surely run simple and basic economic needs with little conflict or disagreement, because it would be based solely on survival and just simply living.The Voice of Time wrote: Traditional families are unfortunately very incapable. And this leads to them more often being the victim of nature's carelessness for them. This is in turn leads to frustration which splits the traditional family and the result is either you develop into a new social arrangement or you suppress those elements of the family that are wounded and therefore rebels. This is turn becomes a patriarchal tyranny which is a cliché picture of why we moved from the past to the present solutions. Traditional families are not capable to meet their member's needs.
Because the world is not an absolute place it does not have absolute rules. All modern multi-cultural democracies function on a constant process of reaching as much agree-ability as possible, which means most conflicts of interests turn into some form of comprise, politicians which are good at this makes good states and statesmen, politicians bad at this makes worse states and bad statesmen. To satisfy as many parties as possible, you usually give the majority something that is important to them, and try to balance off by giving something less important to them to the other party which didn't get their way the first time. This varies in difficulty, and sometimes you don't have enough to put a plaster on the wound of two groups of people fiercely struggling for the right in the same matter. However, with such situation one might have to consider changing the rules of the game. Federacy and confederacy are solutions in such matters for instance. Which is why EU is a confederacy and not a federation, as an example, as people's differences are too great to put under a shared government in the style of the US for instance.WanderingLands wrote:How are you going to do that? I mean, there is Comparative Religion and all, but what about the issues that divide the Traditionalists vs the Social "Progressives" (ie. abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, illicit drugs, media)?
They base themselves on practising tradition, which means they'll not be able to adapt when dealing with untraditional problems, and their ability to develop themselves are strictly limited to the confines of the structure of the family.WanderingLands wrote:And how are they incapable of being stable?
Ease of running and efficiency are not always the problems you have to deal with. As for efficiency it's a very relative term for me to be able to accept that notion. Most if not all traditionalist governments today are underdeveloped, inflexible to problems they encounter and incapable of serving their people. Bureaucracy in any state is a sign of capability, without a bureaucracy states are usually lacking in capability in several areas in the matters of running a state, and out of a lack of expertise they often make bad decisions. So in terms of efficiency it would only work when the problem is simple enough or the solution is to be rough enough. Complex problems solutions and fine solutions are created by expert bureaus that specialize in those matters.WanderingLands wrote:To me, traditional families (or at least traditional governments built by traditional families and their foundational cultures) are very efficient and much easier to run than that of a bureaucracy (whether it be that of a Market or Command economy).
The fact of having a family and running it traditionally does not mean that your problems become family-related or traditional. Trying to solve a problem within a family usually means utilizing the family members which lack knowledge and capacity, and utilizing children's leads to slave labour and/or insufficient development of the children. Utilizing the adults can take them off important work they are doing, either in the home or out in the world, which can lead to loss of important or desirable family resources. In other words, the traditional family is constantly vulnerable to any non-traditional problems, and all its traditional solutions can vary a lot in efficiency by the problems they are meant to solve, and they are above all very static and don't develop sufficiently in knowledge about the problems or the means by which to solve it, as traditional confines would variably prohibit this, in order to enforce status quo.WanderingLands wrote:If you had just a family, then you can surely run simple and basic economic needs with little conflict or disagreement, because it would be based solely on survival and just simply living.
The European Union is certainly not a confederacy, as the dominant EU currency is the Euro, which would be like that of the Articles of Confederation, which extends state sovereignty to having their own currency. Furthermore, the idea of a European Union (which the Modern EU is based upon) propounded by many European politicians of the 20th century called for a federal union.The Voice of Time wrote: Because the world is not an absolute place it does not have absolute rules. All modern multi-cultural democracies function on a constant process of reaching as much agree-ability as possible, which means most conflicts of interests turn into some form of comprise, politicians which are good at this makes good states and statesmen, politicians bad at this makes worse states and bad statesmen. To satisfy as many parties as possible, you usually give the majority something that is important to them, and try to balance off by giving something less important to them to the other party which didn't get their way the first time. This varies in difficulty, and sometimes you don't have enough to put a plaster on the wound of two groups of people fiercely struggling for the right in the same matter. However, with such situation one might have to consider changing the rules of the game. Federacy and confederacy are solutions in such matters for instance. Which is why EU is a confederacy and not a federation, as an example, as people's differences are too great to put under a shared government in the style of the US for instance.
Develop? Why not just keep it stable? If you said that the world does not have "absolute rules", then why does it need to develop?The Voice of Time wrote:
They base themselves on practising tradition, which means they'll not be able to adapt when dealing with untraditional problems, and their ability to develop themselves are strictly limited to the confines of the structure of the family.
I'm sorry but bureaucracy is not solving any problems. Look at Rome, for example. They were a bureaucracy, mainly because they were conquering lands which lead them to expand their government, and look what happened - they went into a slow and painful downfall which lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire. The reason being is because they were expanding to much; they were creating their own problems. There would be no problems that were too big if it weren't for government expansion (domestic or foreign).The Voice of Time wrote: Ease of running and efficiency are not always the problems you have to deal with. As for efficiency it's a very relative term for me to be able to accept that notion. Most if not all traditionalist governments today are underdeveloped, inflexible to problems they encounter and incapable of serving their people. Bureaucracy in any state is a sign of capability, without a bureaucracy states are usually lacking in capability in several areas in the matters of running a state, and out of a lack of expertise they often make bad decisions. So in terms of efficiency it would only work when the problem is simple enough or the solution is to be rough enough. Complex problems solutions and fine solutions are created by expert bureaus that specialize in those matters.
My friend, solving problems through family matters (or in other words, decentralizing the entire world) does not mean "utilizing the family members which lack knowledge and capacity". A family, or a group willing to work as a community without bureaucracies, can actually solve problems, that bureaucracies of course cause. As far as "child labor" goes, I believe that children ought to learn skills and trade in order to be more independent. If anything, real "child labor", or "slave labor", is conducted by a centralized bureaucratic government, and/or a large monopolist corporation that requires mass production as part of organizing the masses to do work for the master. Look at the sweat shops, for example. That, as I have explained already, is a product of the Globalization Corporate Machine, which is in a nutshell, a bureaucracy.The Voice of Time wrote: The fact of having a family and running it traditionally does not mean that your problems become family-related or traditional. Trying to solve a problem within a family usually means utilizing the family members which lack knowledge and capacity, and utilizing children's leads to slave labour and/or insufficient development of the children. Utilizing the adults can take them off important work they are doing, either in the home or out in the world, which can lead to loss of important or desirable family resources. In other words, the traditional family is constantly vulnerable to any non-traditional problems, and all its traditional solutions can vary a lot in efficiency by the problems they are meant to solve, and they are above all very static and don't develop sufficiently in knowledge about the problems or the means by which to solve it, as traditional confines would variably prohibit this, in order to enforce status quo.
I cannot but agree but how as I said would you solve our current paradoxical predicament?My friend, solving problems through family matters (or in other words, decentralizing the entire world) does not mean "utilizing the family members which lack knowledge and capacity". A family, or a group willing to work as a community without bureaucracies, can actually solve problems, that bureaucracies of course cause. As far as "child labor" goes, I believe that children ought to learn skills and trade in order to be more independent. If anything, real "child labor", or "slave labor", is conducted by a centralized bureaucratic government, and/or a large monopolist corporation that requires mass production as part of organizing the masses to do work for the master. Look at the sweat shops, for example. That, as I have explained already, is a product of the Globalization Corporate Machine, which is in a nutshell, a bureaucracy.
Compared to any existing federation it is not a federation. So for all practical purposes it is not a federation. It's like saying the two CFA franc common currency areas each make out a federation, which is completely absurd. Hong Kong is more of a federative part of China, with its own currency, than any EU country is a federative part of any other. But it's totally uninteresting whether it technically is one or not, because any present federation you could compare it to is gonna look wildly different in a range of areas.WanderingLands wrote:The European Union is certainly not a confederacy, as the dominant EU currency is the Euro, which would be like that of the Articles of Confederation, which extends state sovereignty to having their own currency. Furthermore, the idea of a European Union (which the Modern EU is based upon) propounded by many European politicians of the 20th century called for a federal union.
Source:
The European Union-A Federation or a Confederation? by Gabriel Hazak: http://www.ies.ee/iesp/No11/articles/03 ... _Hazak.pdf
Development and stability are not opposites. Stability is a metric, development is a pattern.WanderingLands wrote:Develop? Why not just keep it stable?
This does not make sense, if the world has absolute rules it would never need to change, if it doesn't have absolute rules, it varies, and you'd have to adapt constantly towards those changes... you'll have to rewrite some sense into that sentenceWanderingLands wrote:If you said that the world does not have "absolute rules", then why does it need to develop?
You are defeating yourself, everyone knows that Rome is one of the longest lasting empires the world has ever seen, and along with the Chinese empires it was one of the most bureaucratized. There's a reason why it stands to envy. The reason it fell has nothing to do with bureaucracy, but a lot to do with a lot of other factors. In comparison from the Roman and Chinese Empires, the two other great empires, the Mongol and Alexander's Empires, fell because of a direct lack of bureaucracy and infighting between the traditional leadership. The Mongol empire fell because the leadership couldn't control the Empire like a proper state, they didn't adapt towards their new problems. Alexander's Empire fell because Alexander fell and there was no proper system for maintaining his large empire in his absence, so the Generals fought each other and created the many empires of the east that the Roman empire would either defeat or conquer.WanderingLands wrote:I'm sorry but bureaucracy is not solving any problems. Look at Rome, for example. They were a bureaucracy, mainly because they were conquering lands which lead them to expand their government, and look what happened - they went into a slow and painful downfall which lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Natural catastrophes, bad health, attack by neighbours, devotion to science and technology, education... solving all of these problems would be impeded and/or restricted by traditional families. Problems created by expansion are nowhere comparable to the benefits of it. And Rome did not fall because of expansion, it fell because people became too comfortable and neglected to maintain the army necessary to defeat the threat that Attila the Hun, the Franks, the Goths and so forth would pose later on. It was a failure in leadership, by bad leaders.WanderingLands wrote:The reason being is because they were expanding to much; they were creating their own problems. There would be no problems that were too big if it weren't for government expansion (domestic or foreign).
With traditional families there wouldn't had been the technology to extract oil to begin with, neither to utilize it, because it requires a flexibility in society that traditional families does not allow. Globalization does not lead to over-consumption, the development of societies leads to greater consumption, globalization if anything mitigates it (if you actually understand what globalization means). Real Globalization is Maersk for instance transporting goods at a fraction of less globalized means, using less oil, costing less money. Globalization is transfer of labour from those societies ready to use advanced technology to those who are still trying to advance the expertise of human resources and stage of their infrastructure. Globalization is the ability to see the world. The opposite of Globalization is ignorance, inefficiency, shortage of goods. The first Globalization brought sugar to Europe for instance, today without sugar would be unthinkable (and sugar is healthy, what's unhealthy is over-consumption of it, which is created by mal-incentives in societies, which often have social reasons... like families that are run poorly or endure hardships they are not capable of handling).WanderingLands wrote:Then you have the modern era with Globalization. Globalization, in modern years, has lead to the over consumption of scarce resources, which has lead to increasing prices on some of them (ie. Oil).
Which is a good thing. Societies that depend on inefficient labour solutions suffers for it. Norway's lack of manual labouring has given the economy a great boost, and everything is now automated and information technology. The things that aren't we can buy cheaply from abroad to get more money to spend in getting to that stage where we have it automated or programmed in information solutions.WanderingLands wrote:It also has caused the outsourcing of jobs
Blatant lie. The historical unemployment rates in America are as follows: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.htmlWanderingLands wrote:as in America, as the unemployment rate in the past 14 years has ranged from 40-45%.
You are using vague and undefined terms. You make statement after statement but no supportive argument. If you know what an argument is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument), then start using them.WanderingLands wrote:On top of that, you also have the current Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreements (TPPA) that will:
1. Give corporations power over other countries (which means that Corporations also have control over food, drugs, clothing, Internet, etc)
2. Cause more unemployment in America, and beyond
Sources:
Oil Price - 12 Negative Aspects of Globalization: http://oilprice.com/Finance/the-Economy ... ation.html
Google Search - trans pacific partnership global research: https://www.google.com/#q=trans+pacific ... l+research
Tech Dirt - Trade Agreements Are Designed To Give Companies Corporate Sovereignty: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201310 ... mple.shtml
Another reason why the world is going down the toilet (especially undeveloped countries), is because of Western exploitation of those lands in 3rd and 4th world countries. You have colonialism beginning in the 15th century, with the killings of tribes in the Americas and Africa as the centuries progressed on; then you have the Unites States having an increasing stronghold on global power through almost the same tactics that has been used in European Colonialism and Imperialism.
Irrelevant, has nothing to do with the definition of a bureaucracy. A badly run bureaucracy is like a badly run traditional family. Both can enable and disable any amount of personal freedoms. You are thinking about regulative bureaucracies, which are the traditional family equivalent of house rules.WanderingLands wrote:Source:
The National Security Archive: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
Let's also not forget that bureaucracies can come with: limited freedom inside bureaucratic societies.
Many of those things you mention are to me not problems (I hate guns and wish them to be banned entirely for personal house keeping and only available in government controlled storages for use during practice and hunting), and are also irrelevant to the definition of bureaucracies. Traditional families have no less power or opportunity to do the same, and those countries today that look the most like them do exactly the same things, which usually means repressive absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia, which is by all means some of the closest thing you come to a traditional family run country.WanderingLands wrote:In America, for example, freedom for those in the United States (including other Western Nations), have been under fire with Gun Control, increasing surveillance, increasing restriction of movement (ie. toll roads to move to another state, increasing "security" forces at airports and trains), increasing covert censorship on the Internet, corporate and government dominance over Media, compulsory school systems, and so on. Bureaucratic societies create their own problems, and the more they expand outward (and inward), there creates more problems and no solutions.
WanderingLands wrote:My friend, solving problems through family matters (or in other words, decentralizing the entire world) does not mean "utilizing the family members which lack knowledge and capacity". A family, or a group willing to work as a community without bureaucracies, can actually solve problems
WanderingLands wrote:that bureaucracies of course cause.
Well then you're an asshole. Children go to school to learn a general competence that allows them to take different paths in life and change path later on if they disagree with their current path, as well as an ability to interact with the different things that society offers and which empowers people... geography for instance is enables you localize what happens and where in the world and the conditions for travelling and for the movement of things... science enables you to interact with the products of science and understand how they work and can be utilized... and so on it goesWanderingLands wrote:As far as "child labor" goes, I believe that children ought to learn skills and trade in order to be more independent.
As far as I know, it doesn't happen in the US except under abnormal events, and same goes for Norway. It's a crime in both countries.WanderingLands wrote:If anything, real "child labor", or "slave labor", is conducted by a centralized bureaucratic government, and/or a large monopolist corporation that requires mass production as part of organizing the masses to do work for the master.
They exist in underdeveloped countries who are all hugely more traditionalist than Norway or the US, argument not relevant for my own country.WanderingLands wrote:Look at the sweat shops, for example.
Child labour existed long before Globalization, and was ended during the course of Globalization, so although they are unrelated events in comparison it's more true to say globalization ended it than started it, because every country has started with child labour throughout their society and then ended with no child labour except in abnormal circumstances, like crimes.WanderingLands wrote:That, as I have explained already, is a product of the Globalization Corporate Machine, which is in a nutshell, a bureaucracy.
Just because a federation operates differently from another federation doesn't mean that it's not a federation.The Voice of Time wrote: Compared to any existing federation it is not a federation. So for all practical purposes it is not a federation. It's like saying the two CFA franc common currency areas each make out a federation, which is completely absurd. Hong Kong is more of a federative part of China, with its own currency, than any EU country is a federative part of any other. But it's totally uninteresting whether it technically is one or not, because any present federation you could compare it to is gonna look wildly different in a range of areas.
Alright, then.The Voice of Time wrote: Development and stability are not opposites. Stability is a metric, development is a pattern.
If existence didn't have absolute rules, then it sure probably would be unstable. Look at Science, for example, with the Laws of Motion and Forces. Maybe look at the ideas of the Collective Unconscious, which is in relation to Karma. Then again, judging from the last argument we had (on "The Metaphysical Papers" thread), you seem to not be interested in Spiritual things.The Voice of Time wrote: This does not make sense, if the world has absolute rules it would never need to change, if it doesn't have absolute rules, it varies, and you'd have to adapt constantly towards those changes... you'll have to rewrite some sense into that sentence
Why would bureaucratization be not a factor in the fall of empires? Do you not realize that a massive bureaucracy, like that of an empire, cannot hold all of its captives in stability for too long? Have you ever considered that the too much bureaucratization (which would eventually lead to turmoil) would lead to outside tribes warring and destroy an empire, much like that of Rome? Have you not looked at the negative consequences of Roman Imperialism, or looked at how the mass bureaucracy of Rome had lead to mass oppositions from plural sides, and that it lead to shortage of food?The Voice of Time wrote: You are defeating yourself, everyone knows that Rome is one of the longest lasting empires the world has ever seen, and along with the Chinese empires it was one of the most bureaucratized. There's a reason why it stands to envy. The reason it fell has nothing to do with bureaucracy, but a lot to do with a lot of other factors. In comparison from the Roman and Chinese Empires, the two other great empires, the Mongol and Alexander's Empires, fell because of a direct lack of bureaucracy and infighting between the traditional leadership. The Mongol empire fell because the leadership couldn't control the Empire like a proper state, they didn't adapt towards their new problems. Alexander's Empire fell because Alexander fell and there was no proper system for maintaining his large empire in his absence, so the Generals fought each other and created the many empires of the east that the Roman empire would either defeat or conquer.
WanderingLands wrote:The reason being is because they were expanding to much; they were creating their own problems. There would be no problems that were too big if it weren't for government expansion (domestic or foreign).
Natural catastrophes - Happens to any society.The Voice of Time wrote: Natural catastrophes, bad health, attack by neighbours, devotion to science and technology, education... solving all of these problems would be impeded and/or restricted by traditional families. Problems created by expansion are nowhere comparable to the benefits of it. And Rome did not fall because of expansion, it fell because people became too comfortable and neglected to maintain the army necessary to defeat the threat that Attila the Hun, the Franks, the Goths and so forth would pose later on. It was a failure in leadership, by bad leaders.
You have obviously not looked at the information provided for you, because that would've obviously proved you wrong. It's very comical to see people who claim to be intellectuals, that say things without ever doing research, and then ignores the different points of view from another person who has the research to back it up. Globalization, if you looked at my sources (one of them having actual graph charts to back it up), has lead to over consumption, outsourcing jobs, exploitation, war, etc.The Voice of Time wrote: With traditional families there wouldn't had been the technology to extract oil to begin with, neither to utilize it, because it requires a flexibility in society that traditional families does not allow. Globalization does not lead to over-consumption, the development of societies leads to greater consumption, globalization if anything mitigates it (if you actually understand what globalization means). Real Globalization is Maersk for instance transporting goods at a fraction of less globalized means, using less oil, costing less money. Globalization is transfer of labour from those societies ready to use advanced technology to those who are still trying to advance the expertise of human resources and stage of their infrastructure. Globalization is the ability to see the world. The opposite of Globalization is ignorance, inefficiency, shortage of goods. The first Globalization brought sugar to Europe for instance, today without sugar would be unthinkable (and sugar is healthy, what's unhealthy is over-consumption of it, which is created by mal-incentives in societies, which often have social reasons... like families that are run poorly or endure hardships they are not capable of handling).
How is it a good thing, for example, in America, when all of our economic needs (automobiles, for example) have been outsourced, which caused unemployment? I don't know about Norway, but I sure don't think that it would be a good thing really.The Voice of Time wrote: Which is a good thing. Societies that depend on inefficient labour solutions suffers for it. Norway's lack of manual labouring has given the economy a great boost, and everything is now automated and information technology. The things that aren't we can buy cheaply from abroad to get more money to spend in getting to that stage where we have it automated or programmed in information solutions.
My bad. That graph was about the employment rate; not the unemployment rate.The Voice of Time wrote: Blatant lie. The historical unemployment rates in America are as follows: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
Last time it was double-diggit was 1940, or 74 years ago, in other words: a lifetime.
It actually does have everything to do with a bureaucracy, because a bureaucracy involves a large government, which is contrary to a traditional family, which is more efficient because of its size.The Voice of Time wrote: Irrelevant, has nothing to do with the definition of a bureaucracy. A badly run bureaucracy is like a badly run traditional family. Both can enable and disable any amount of personal freedoms. You are thinking about regulative bureaucracies, which are the traditional family equivalent of house rules.
WanderingLands wrote:In America, for example, freedom for those in the United States (including other Western Nations), have been under fire with Gun Control, increasing surveillance, increasing restriction of movement (ie. toll roads to move to another state, increasing "security" forces at airports and trains), increasing covert censorship on the Internet, corporate and government dominance over Media, compulsory school systems, and so on. Bureaucratic societies create their own problems, and the more they expand outward (and inward), there creates more problems and no solutions.
Bureaucracies for one involve hierarchy, and hierarchy is not limited to a traditional family. And no, it is not irrelevant, because bureaucracies are known to be tyrannical.The Voice of Time wrote: Many of those things you mention are to me not problems (I hate guns and wish them to be banned entirely for personal house keeping and only available in government controlled storages for use during practice and hunting), and are also irrelevant to the definition of bureaucracies. Traditional families have no less power or opportunity to do the same, and those countries today that look the most like them do exactly the same things, which usually means repressive absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia, which is by all means some of the closest thing you come to a traditional family run country.
1. Traditional families have used medicine back then.The Voice of Time wrote: It does mean that because your family is all that you have at your disposal, so your resources are greatly diminished, compared to a state apparatus which in countries like Norway includes a great access to means of dealing with health, monetary problems, social issues, wrong-doing and getting personal desires satisfied. You can't use your family to be your doctor, you can't use your family always to help with your monetary problems, you can't always have your family help you with social issues which they lack the competence for (imagine you are finding yourself unable to make friends, sometimes this is because you have special needs that require somebody who knows how to deal with your special needs, a family member with their lack of competence would only be able to apply what means they have leading the child at a disadvantage), who is gonna help you with people who do you wrong? (depending on your sense of justice, whether you are of the brutal retaliatory persuasion or of the diplomatic persuasion, either way you'll either 1) often find yourself up against somebody more powerful than you, or 2) you'll not have the experience to know how to deal with it), and how are you gonna get your desires satisfied when the resources the family is capable of producing are so limited in quantity and variety?
I see that you're simply just replying selectively to my posts, instead of reading the whole thing.The Voice of Time wrote: This is unfounded so I'll ignore it until you give it a foundation.
Wow, that opening line was definitely not called for, especially in debate. Maybe you should look at some works by John Taylor Gatto, because the education system is not at all what you think it is. I uploading some if his works on Scribd, which you can view here.The Voice of Time wrote: Well then you're an asshole. Children go to school to learn a general competence that allows them to take different paths in life and change path later on if they disagree with their current path, as well as an ability to interact with the different things that society offers and which empowers people... geography for instance is enables you localize what happens and where in the world and the conditions for travelling and for the movement of things... science enables you to interact with the products of science and understand how they work and can be utilized... and so on it goes
What about Walmart, for example, an American company that uses Chinese labor?The Voice of Time wrote:As far as I know, it doesn't happen in the US except under abnormal events, and same goes for Norway. It's a crime in both countries.
They exist in underdeveloped countries because they are used and exploited by American multinational corporations (like Nike, Walmart, K-Mart, etc.).The Voice of Time wrote: They exist in underdeveloped countries who are all hugely more traditionalist than Norway or the US, argument not relevant for my own country.
Alright, well here's some facts that disprove it.The Voice of Time wrote: Child labour existed long before Globalization, and was ended during the course of Globalization, so although they are unrelated events in comparison it's more true to say globalization ended it than started it, because every country has started with child labour throughout their society and then ended with no child labour except in abnormal circumstances, like crimes.
My question, in response to your question(s) is: what can you do to improve yourself? The only way that we might possibly solve these problems, or survive through them and then start over again, would be if we are to look at ourselves. We are all guilty (you, me, everybody), as we are letting this happen, as we are addicted to technology, process food, popular culture, etc.Blaggard wrote:"The Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy."
Joseph Heller, Catch-22.
Wanderinglands you are of course quite right but what would your solution be to the current predicament we are in? In a non Kafkaesque or Kafkaesque way it is of course your choice: what way what would you prescribe is the solution to our own self prescribed destruction?
What Trial if I can make a pun would solve modern peoples dilemma?
I cannot but agree but how as I said would you solve our current paradoxical predicament?My friend, solving problems through family matters (or in other words, decentralizing the entire world) does not mean "utilizing the family members which lack knowledge and capacity". A family, or a group willing to work as a community without bureaucracies, can actually solve problems, that bureaucracies of course cause. As far as "child labor" goes, I believe that children ought to learn skills and trade in order to be more independent. If anything, real "child labor", or "slave labor", is conducted by a centralized bureaucratic government, and/or a large monopolist corporation that requires mass production as part of organizing the masses to do work for the master. Look at the sweat shops, for example. That, as I have explained already, is a product of the Globalization Corporate Machine, which is in a nutshell, a bureaucracy.
Roman imperialism might very well have negative consequences, but it has nothing to do with bureaucracy. Tell me one general truth about bureaucracy that would in Rome's case lead to its demise? No? Of course you can't, because there is none. That's problem, you want to discuss by showing each other time and time again examples of when a bureaucracy is bad and when a bureaucracy may be good, and the same for traditional families.WanderingLands wrote:Why would bureaucratization be not a factor in the fall of empires? Do you not realize that a massive bureaucracy, like that of an empire, cannot hold all of its captives in stability for too long? Have you ever considered that the too much bureaucratization (which would eventually lead to turmoil) would lead to outside tribes warring and destroy an empire, much like that of Rome? Have you not looked at the negative consequences of Roman Imperialism, or looked at how the mass bureaucracy of Rome had lead to mass oppositions from plural sides, and that it lead to shortage of food?
You didn't read me, a traditional family is not capable of dealing with such events, it's hugely inefficient at solving them, because it lacks the ability for expertise solution making.WanderingLands wrote:Natural catastrophes - Happens to any society.
This is by large superstition and I can't take it seriously. People like you are the laughing stock of the world when you compare silly herbs with vaccines that prevent you from dying from extremely dangerous diseases. As for prescription drugs, drugs do different things, and in the case of pain relievers for instance, there are many good pain relievers in plants and herbs, but for disease curing and solving complex conditions they mostly don't stand a chance in providing solutions.WanderingLands wrote:Bad health - Traditional families used herbs and other forms of natural medicine that was way more healthy, as compared to the modern medicines that we have (such as prescription drugs, vaccines, etc).
GMO is by most practical means banned in Norway and heavily restricted in the rest of Europe. The US is a rotten apple in that regard, but it's not my country.WanderingLands wrote:Also, the traditional societies, along with societies before the 20th century, didn't have GMOs
Loosing your teeth before you turn 30 is not a good alternative. We use tooth paste for a reason.WanderingLands wrote:Fluoride
Yes, and it's a good thing. And its reason is not because people are less able to make children, but because they don't want to. People like having their own life, they don't see it as an end goal to have children. My aunt in Oslo is childless for instance, by choice. They also prefer to put more effort into raising each child, than just producing a bunch of them.WanderingLands wrote:or any other toxic or dangerous chemicals/pollutants into the food, water, or air shelter. Maybe you ought to research a lesser known fact called falling birth rates.
