We were nomadic hunter and gatherers living in small family groups. After 9,500 BCE, we developed agriculture and began domesticating animals. The nature of farming eventually caused us to be less nomadic and settlements developed. Surplus food meant increased population and family groupings gave way to include extended families.
As the population increased, non-family members were included within settlements. This continued as the population grew, settlements expanded, and the division of labor created new roles. Craftsmen built the tools necessary for farming, trading goods for food and other items. Women looked after the children, the homes, worked the fields, and carried water. Men built shelters, tools, worked the fields, and provided security.
Stories that were told around lonely campfires to explain the unexplainable evolved into cherished myths binding a settlement and it’s non-family members together in shared kinship. The shaman/priest class evolved.
Competition for resources brought conflict with other settlements. Opposing sides believed themselves and their gods to be superior. Settlements fought, won, lost, and eventually amalgamated creating larger cities.
And so on and so forth, the Dark Ages, when religion ruled forcefully and there were plagues and great fires that decimated populations, finally gave way to the Enlightenment.
Magnificent works of art, literature, and science influenced the mercantile class made rich from exploiting colonies in Africa, the Far East, and the New World. Regional wars were fought for supremacy, state versus state, and monarchy versus monarchy. Then came the Industrial Age and world wars.
Space was conquered after a second world war unleashed the fury of the Atomic Age and now we are in the Digital Age, where there is more affluence, more literacy, and less violence than in the centuries before, according to Harvard professor and cognitive scientist, Steven Pinker. Yet, violence remains in sufficient quantity to cause misery for hundreds of millions.
The same basic questions plague us still. We stagger blindly about trying to develop a workable political system. Communism and socialism worked for a while but the collapse of the soviet system was the death knell for communism and capitalism won the day.
Except of course, it didn’t.
Most societies including the United States are a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. The individual and not the state has ownership, sets prices, and determines what is to be produced unlike socialism. But there is a social safety net that includes unemployment benefits, disability benefits, welfare benefits, public education, infrastructure, civilian police and fire departments, and of course the military.
Some countries are taking the middle ground with what is often called democratic socialism; the state has economic restrictions but allows for personal freedoms, and taxes provide citizens with economic security, social services, and programs.
In seeking common ground with conservatism, I agree that personal responsibility and accountability are necessary in a society. The government cannot be the answer to all of an individual’s problems.
Ownership by private business is necessary for a healthy economy. If you build a better mousetrap, you should own the company that makes your product and you should be entitled to the lion’s share of the profit. And businesses should be making profits.
Another issue I am hoping my conservative friends and I will agree upon is law and order. I think to have a workable society a set of rules and conditions of behavior should be enforced.
This includes the necessary regulations to ensure corporations are held accountable for polluting the air, the water, and exploiting workers.
Market manipulation such as the Enron scandal and the banking scandals of the Savings and Loan debacle and the 2008 market crash that occurred when banks gambled with taxpayer money and then benefitted when taxpayers bailed them out, these things are outrageous and should never happen without serious consequences attached for those culpable; I am talking lengthy prison time and restitution.
I am a strong proponent of personal freedoms including freedom of speech, right to assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression.
I do not condone violence in any form including rape and sexual assault, property damage, or theft of any kind.
I support education and hold that reason and critical thinking trump superstition in all forms.
There can be no problem with folk practicing religion, as long as no civil or criminal laws are broken. Any outward display denoting a religion falls under the freedom of expression. And like-minded people gathering to worship pose no threat to society, as long as the laws remain unbroken.
But in no way should myth be taught as fact, and science and religion, with all due respect to the late Stephen Jay Gould, are not overlapping magisteria, they are diametrically opposed, one is based on faith, the other on facts.
And any building or land used for the purposes of religious gatherings should be subject to taxation laws. America looses and estimated 71 billion dollars of taxes every year from religious organizations.
Getting back to economic issues, owners are entitled to the lion’s share of the profit but not to the detriment of the workers whose labor produces the products, sells the products, transports, and repairs the products.
A living wage needs to be paid to workers but it does need to be paid meritoriously. I would do away with unemployment benefits and welfare and disability benefits in favor of a Universal Basic Income to be paid to all citizens. I would consider some cap to this payment for instance those making two hundred thousand dollars and above would not be paid the UBI.
This is, I believe the way of the future and it is being tried in several countries such as Nambia, India, Brazil, Utrecht in the Netherlands, and is a permanent program in the state of Alaska called The Permanent Fund of Alaska. It is seen as a solution to poverty especially with the rise of automation. Ireland’s study of the concept believes it to be affordable with a forty-five per cent tax rate. Other studies indicate variables such as reduction of high medical costs, the offset of other programs, reduction in crime, and the associated costs of enforcement are factors reducing the financial cost. It is feasible with strong political will.
The very fact that an estimated 37 trillion dollars has been skimmed and put in off shore accounts owned by the rich and the powerful from many companies and dating to the late seventies, according to the revelations from the Panama Papers, implies there is most certainly enough money available in the world for the poor not to have to suffer in abject misery and that the rich can remain rich.
Though I am convinced by Noam Chomsky, regarding trade deals, it would be useful, I think for deals to be entered into by various countries that instead of adding to the coffers of the rich, benefitted the middle class and helped raise the world’s poor from privation.
This idea is not new.
When democracy was formed in Athens and hailed as the best form of governance, at least for men, as women, slaves, and the disenfranchised were not included, a thorny issue revealed itself. If the unempowered, being the majority, become unhappy, they could rise up and take wealth away from the rich.
Aristotle thought about this and rather than argue against democracy, proposed that if the rich reduced the gap between the have’s and the have nots, this issue would be resolved, the populace would be placated and democracy would thrive.
In 1776, Adam Smith, credited as being the father of capitalism, saw the same problem but decided that the reduction of democracy to the populace was a better route to take as it protected the rich. And that was for all intents and purpose, the system America adopted.
In general form, and I realize this is not much more than bullet points with no depth of analysis on any of the issues raised, is my political philosophy. It could be considered a form of democratic socialism I’m not sure. Labels are not terribly important.
The problem as I see it is in finding a viable political party that will represent these views and garner political power to enact them for the greater good.
The search continues.
As the population increased, non-family members were included within settlements. This continued as the population grew, settlements expanded, and the division of labor created new roles. Craftsmen built the tools necessary for farming, trading goods for food and other items. Women looked after the children, the homes, worked the fields, and carried water. Men built shelters, tools, worked the fields, and provided security.
Stories that were told around lonely campfires to explain the unexplainable evolved into cherished myths binding a settlement and it’s non-family members together in shared kinship. The shaman/priest class evolved.
Competition for resources brought conflict with other settlements. Opposing sides believed themselves and their gods to be superior. Settlements fought, won, lost, and eventually amalgamated creating larger cities.
And so on and so forth, the Dark Ages, when religion ruled forcefully and there were plagues and great fires that decimated populations, finally gave way to the Enlightenment.
Magnificent works of art, literature, and science influenced the mercantile class made rich from exploiting colonies in Africa, the Far East, and the New World. Regional wars were fought for supremacy, state versus state, and monarchy versus monarchy. Then came the Industrial Age and world wars.
Space was conquered after a second world war unleashed the fury of the Atomic Age and now we are in the Digital Age, where there is more affluence, more literacy, and less violence than in the centuries before, according to Harvard professor and cognitive scientist, Steven Pinker. Yet, violence remains in sufficient quantity to cause misery for hundreds of millions.
The same basic questions plague us still. We stagger blindly about trying to develop a workable political system. Communism and socialism worked for a while but the collapse of the soviet system was the death knell for communism and capitalism won the day.
Except of course, it didn’t.
Most societies including the United States are a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. The individual and not the state has ownership, sets prices, and determines what is to be produced unlike socialism. But there is a social safety net that includes unemployment benefits, disability benefits, welfare benefits, public education, infrastructure, civilian police and fire departments, and of course the military.
Some countries are taking the middle ground with what is often called democratic socialism; the state has economic restrictions but allows for personal freedoms, and taxes provide citizens with economic security, social services, and programs.
In seeking common ground with conservatism, I agree that personal responsibility and accountability are necessary in a society. The government cannot be the answer to all of an individual’s problems.
Ownership by private business is necessary for a healthy economy. If you build a better mousetrap, you should own the company that makes your product and you should be entitled to the lion’s share of the profit. And businesses should be making profits.
Another issue I am hoping my conservative friends and I will agree upon is law and order. I think to have a workable society a set of rules and conditions of behavior should be enforced.
This includes the necessary regulations to ensure corporations are held accountable for polluting the air, the water, and exploiting workers.
Market manipulation such as the Enron scandal and the banking scandals of the Savings and Loan debacle and the 2008 market crash that occurred when banks gambled with taxpayer money and then benefitted when taxpayers bailed them out, these things are outrageous and should never happen without serious consequences attached for those culpable; I am talking lengthy prison time and restitution.
I am a strong proponent of personal freedoms including freedom of speech, right to assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression.
I do not condone violence in any form including rape and sexual assault, property damage, or theft of any kind.
I support education and hold that reason and critical thinking trump superstition in all forms.
There can be no problem with folk practicing religion, as long as no civil or criminal laws are broken. Any outward display denoting a religion falls under the freedom of expression. And like-minded people gathering to worship pose no threat to society, as long as the laws remain unbroken.
But in no way should myth be taught as fact, and science and religion, with all due respect to the late Stephen Jay Gould, are not overlapping magisteria, they are diametrically opposed, one is based on faith, the other on facts.
And any building or land used for the purposes of religious gatherings should be subject to taxation laws. America looses and estimated 71 billion dollars of taxes every year from religious organizations.
Getting back to economic issues, owners are entitled to the lion’s share of the profit but not to the detriment of the workers whose labor produces the products, sells the products, transports, and repairs the products.
A living wage needs to be paid to workers but it does need to be paid meritoriously. I would do away with unemployment benefits and welfare and disability benefits in favor of a Universal Basic Income to be paid to all citizens. I would consider some cap to this payment for instance those making two hundred thousand dollars and above would not be paid the UBI.
This is, I believe the way of the future and it is being tried in several countries such as Nambia, India, Brazil, Utrecht in the Netherlands, and is a permanent program in the state of Alaska called The Permanent Fund of Alaska. It is seen as a solution to poverty especially with the rise of automation. Ireland’s study of the concept believes it to be affordable with a forty-five per cent tax rate. Other studies indicate variables such as reduction of high medical costs, the offset of other programs, reduction in crime, and the associated costs of enforcement are factors reducing the financial cost. It is feasible with strong political will.
The very fact that an estimated 37 trillion dollars has been skimmed and put in off shore accounts owned by the rich and the powerful from many companies and dating to the late seventies, according to the revelations from the Panama Papers, implies there is most certainly enough money available in the world for the poor not to have to suffer in abject misery and that the rich can remain rich.
Though I am convinced by Noam Chomsky, regarding trade deals, it would be useful, I think for deals to be entered into by various countries that instead of adding to the coffers of the rich, benefitted the middle class and helped raise the world’s poor from privation.
This idea is not new.
When democracy was formed in Athens and hailed as the best form of governance, at least for men, as women, slaves, and the disenfranchised were not included, a thorny issue revealed itself. If the unempowered, being the majority, become unhappy, they could rise up and take wealth away from the rich.
Aristotle thought about this and rather than argue against democracy, proposed that if the rich reduced the gap between the have’s and the have nots, this issue would be resolved, the populace would be placated and democracy would thrive.
In 1776, Adam Smith, credited as being the father of capitalism, saw the same problem but decided that the reduction of democracy to the populace was a better route to take as it protected the rich. And that was for all intents and purpose, the system America adopted.
In general form, and I realize this is not much more than bullet points with no depth of analysis on any of the issues raised, is my political philosophy. It could be considered a form of democratic socialism I’m not sure. Labels are not terribly important.
The problem as I see it is in finding a viable political party that will represent these views and garner political power to enact them for the greater good.
The search continues.
Comments
Post a Comment