Campaign Reform (30 posts)

17. Well, Gayle
Sun, Feb 7, 1999 - 6:30 PM/EST
JimP

with your brain, you were never benign. There's still a chance though for Empress.

18. Oh, but but but...
Sun, Feb 7, 1999 - 6:46 PM/EST
Gayle

I'm very kindly, mild and gentle...until I'm roused.

19. I noticed.
Sun, Feb 7, 1999 - 6:52 PM/EST
JimP

Yes. I have noticed.

20. Forms
Mon, Feb 8, 1999 - 10:31 PM/EST
JimP

I was taught in high school that the best form of government is a "Benevelent Dictatorship." We have our Empress, though we have assigned her a benign role, rather than benevelent.

The next statement by that high school civics teacher was. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think we have pretty well established that our Constitutional form of representative government, with three branches providing adequate checks on the power of the others, balancing the long range power.

We seem to have some feeling that today the money in the economy is concentrated in too few hands, and that thise monied interests are exerting pressure on the three branches of government, and therefore have much of the power in our society today.

FelixG has said that there has never been a true democratic or communist government. I agree. There has never been an economic system that has the capability to produce so much wealth as the capitalist system, especially in an open market.

But, even us hardened conservatives can see that ther economic disparities are growing. So, my question to us all, is what can be done to use the best of the government, the best of the economic system, and the apply them to bring all persons on board?

Regards,

Jim

21. More
Mon, Feb 8, 1999 - 10:57 PM/EST
JimP

I am thinking of the disparity between what makes a company profitable and its responsibility to society. A company must be competitive in its markets, and must control costs to do so. So, today 1,500 textile workers are "down-sized". (Not today, literally, but recently, and actually the number is much higher. This is an example.) Those 1,500 workers are the core of a small NC town. There isn't much else there.

Now, we, that is society, can tell those 1,500 people and their families to go somewhere else where there are jobs. We might even try to provide some training so that they are better qualified for those jobs. That is good.

But, where, or what, is the responsibility of the mill to the town? Let us have another what it. What if that big textile mill were to voluntarily reduce its profits some amount so that some, or all of the 1,500 would continue to have a job?

You say the other textile companies would eat their linch, and pretty soon the company would not be in business, and the 1,500 would still not have a job.

OK. Now, what if the government said that if they stayed open the taxes on the textile company would be reduced to a level that would help them remain competitive?

Now, us conservatives would rise up. That's government interference! It isn't a legitimate function of government to keep that textile plant going!

Yeah, you're right. At least you are right, today. Does it have to be that way? Is it possible to have governments, business, and cultures working together for the best for all of us? What if it were different?

Regards,

Jim

22. Two answers?
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 11:12 AM/EST
McRostie

As to Jim's question of whether a Constitutional Amendment would be required to allow passage of a law requiring candidates to forfeit some of their rights, the answer is YES! The Constitution already establishes the qualifications. No one, no legislative body, can establish more restrictive qualifications, at least as to Federal office.

As to Jim's encompassing question as to the proper relationships between Capitalism and Government, the only answer is that it is an evolving relationship. There was a day when it would have been felt unconstitutuional to pass a law requiring "fair trade". That problem was resolved in favor of constitutionality long ago. Today, the question is more properly phrased as "what"s fair"?

In this country, I believe we've done a pretty fair job of melding the demands of Capitalism and Democratic Government. Can we do better? I believe we can and that normal evolution of the solutions as we recognize the problems will have that result.

Regards, McRostie

23.
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 11:18 AM/EST
JimP

I'm again thinking, along the lines of Robert Kennedy - "things that never were, and wonder why not."

Does the relationships between government and business, or between individuals and their employers, have to be the way they are? What would be the steps necessary to change them?

24. Simple answers? Maybe.
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 10:52 AM/EST
McRostie

Jim, your question as to "What would be the steps necessary to change them?" relataive to the relationships between government and business and indivuduals and employers doesn't require a lot of thought. It seems, however to assume the existence of problems where none may be found. I'll give my usual oversuplified answer.

The first thing one must do is recognize a problem if one in fact exists. Then, having done that, one must try to make sure that s/he is not part of the problem to use your words. Only after having done that do we have a license to instruct others as to how they should avoid being part of the problem.

I was surprised that in listing the areas where there might be problems you didn't cite the one to which you refer most frequently, the relationships between individuals and government. That one, it seems to me and I believe to you, is the sesminal problem of them all if we exclude the problems of theology. And, I expect my answer to changing those relationships would be the same. Identify what is truly a problem. Make sure one is not a part of the problem. And then, "instruct" which is what I believe we both attempt to do, perhaps to excess.

Regards, McRostie

25. Lord, grant me patience, and I want it NOW!
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 6:04 PM/EST
JimP

I'm reminded of that when I try to go faster than my environment will allow.

McRostie, you write "In this country, I believe we've done a pretty fair job of melding the demands of Capitalism and Democratic Government. Can we do better? I believe we can and that normal evolution of the solutions as we recognize the problems will have that result."

I know deep within myself that you are right. Or, if being "right" offends you, let's use correct. :) Life is incremental. We evolve as we revolve, and time will be our guide.

But, here is where mmac and I find some measure of agreement. It is the extremes on either end that propel the machinery of change. It is the rabble rouser that gets the mainstream's attention. It was the protestors that made us examine our purpose in Vietnam.

We should, if not encourage, at least recognize the important functions the extremes play in our way of effecting change.

I am not an extremist. Perhaps better said, I am not an activist extremist. There are times that I would like to be. It is at such toimes that I find myself least able to act my beliefs.

That's enough for now.

Regards,

Jim

26. Evolution?
Sat, Feb 13, 1999 - 11:56 AM/EST
McRostie

It never happens in society, as opposed to living beings, from within. It is alway, as you say Jim, the extremes which bring about the change by forcing the middle to modify its ways.

Socially, it might easilly be said that anyone who questions anything upheld by the majority is an extremist. In many ways that is quite correct. My only problem with extremists is with the ones who are unable to recognize the possibility of the other view being even partially correct. On that we agree.

I am not offended by being called "right". It happens too rarely to take offense.

Regards, McRostie

27. But, McRostie
Sun, Feb 14, 1999 - 6:59 PM/EST
JimP

doesn't that mean, in essence, that you do not believe in extremism? If a person is willing to recognize that another view may be right, is that person an extremist? I don't think so.

If I had said to the anti-war radicals in the late sixties that they should listen to those of us who had been around this earth longer, that there were other, more moderate points of view, they would have shouted me down. Yet, over time, their points of view became the norm, and eventually we, the mainstream, listened. I'm not sure that they ever did listen, probably to their credit in hindsight.

Yes, I feel a great frustration that the extremists don't listen, or worse, shout at me. Yet, I also realize that they play an important role, and I'm glad that they are there.

Regards,

Jim

28. Belief in extremism?
Mon, Feb 15, 1999 - 12:03 PM/EST
McRostie

You asked , "doesn't that mean, in essence, that you do not believe in extremism? My answer is that I do not. The extremism in which I do not believe is that of the "shouters" who can recognize no value in any other position.

I did, however, in my last post make the statement that change comes about because of the extremes force the "middle" to change its views or ways. But the force that brings about the change is not the "shout" or other acts of violence.

The force that brings about change is the force of logical thought, of ideas. The shout is always resisted by more shouting, violence by more violence. Ideas are resisted by ideas, and when the resistance is no longer valid, then ideas change. That happened in the Vietnam era and in the Civil Rights arguments of the mid-century.

Regards, McRostie

29. Both shouters, and idea proponents.
Mon, Feb 15, 1999 - 6:21 PM/EST
JimP

I can agree with you on most of what you say, but I think I'd like to explore another perspective.

The shouter and the extreme idea proponents have their place. The shouters do not allow those of us in the middle to ignore their side of the argument. In the long run, it isn't really the shouter that we talk to, because s/he is not listening anyway. But, it is the shouter that raises the level of discussion.

Then, since something has to be done about the shouter, the idea proponents, the slightly less radical, become the points of contact, and a dialogue begins.

And, over time, ideas change one another. There was a post some time ago about an idea virus. There was a term coined for it, but I've had so many things on my mind recently that I cannot pull the word out of my skull.

I don't like the shouter, especially when I am the target of the noise. But, they are the true extremists, who cause us all to move. At least, that's how I see it.

Regards,

Jim

30. Shouters have social value?
Tue, Feb 16, 1999 - 10:55 AM/EST
McRostie

I guess maybe you're more charitable than I am Jim. I fail to see where they do much to improve social conditions. You say they have to be dealt with. I agree. The way society does that is either to shout back or shut them up, or down as the case may be. In neither case does society benefit except from the silence.

I rather expect that any "ideas" which the shouter may have were nor coined by him or her. Their shouts are more likely corruptions of valid ideas about things society might dc to improve itself.

I suppose for the mentally "hard of hearing", the shouter may get attention for the corrupted idea, but I expect all that will be accomplished by the increased attention will be another shouter.

Needless to say Jim, I don't much appreciate shouters, even when they are aimed at you.

Regards, McRostie

PS Shut them up or shut them down reminds me of one of my favorite conundrums. How is it that Slow Up and Slow Down mean the same thing?