Who benefits from efforts to undermine and demonize a government's assistance to its people?
— Ciceronianus — James Riley

Reagan scapegoated our poor for our economic troubles and he lied to us about not needing to conserve, so he could slash the domestic budgets and pour everything into military spending.
Who benefits?

My mom and dad both grew up in the heart of the Great Depression. I'm pretty sure no human being in the history of the Earth ever defied the laws of physics by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. That's just another myth that keeps us striving for the 1%. — James Riley

Okay, same cohort.

We must do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
— Athena

Yes, and many would argue that taking care of the weak lame and lazy is the right thing to do, and what strong people do. Those who argue "teach a man to fish" often don't know how to fish. They are still eating fish caught by others. And let's not forget the fish itself. If we are to turn our backs on, and ostracize the lazy, we should start with the 1% who spout shit like "bootstrapping" and "fish."

I have to question the right of feeding lazy people. However, it could be argued getting rich by what one owns rather than by working. is just as much a problem as feeding a lazy person who owns nothing. Democracy is about relationships. It is about being inclusive and working together. We can throw in the statement that "man does not live by bread alone" and ask what else does he need? How about acceptance and fellowship and self-value?

Before the 1970 recession, I did my "good thing" for "those people". In the recession, I became one of "those people". From this point of view, Roosevelt was very wise to create jobs for "those people". It might be better to make "them" one of "us" rather than to throw money at "them and feed them"?

Bingo! And I tip my hat to you. That is what democratic socialism is all about.

Okay, we may have an agreement but I am not sure what socialism is? Where is the locus of control? I want us to replace the autocratic model of the industry with the democratic model, and put the locus of on individuals working together rather than authority above them.

I can also see, when people turn their back on family, the family is more apt to need government assistance. That is where family taking care of family is also about democracy, liberty, and our country. We are good citizens because that is how to have a strong nation and a good citizen takes care of family.
— Athena

Family disfunction is not caused by a government that is there to provide a safety net. That disfuction is the result of an economic system that devalues the family and defunds community, democracy, liberty and government. The need for government assistence is created, and then not funded, so those who need it hate government instead of the system that drove them to it. That system is afraid of a strong nation, good citizens and family.

That is not how things look from my point of view. Family dysfunction is caused by many things. Alcoholism and drugs are big causes of dysfunctional families. Cultures can make families strong or weak and right now our culture in the US is doing many things that make families weak and this why I started this thread. Many of these bad things are done with good intentions, by people who do not participate in this forum and do not have the information and feedback they need.

I would also point to autocratic industry as a very strong factor in making families and our democracy weak.

Remember Joseph Campbell? He said the purpose of mythology is to transition youth into adults who function well in their society. Our education in the US had a mythology and made good citizenship a priority of education until 1958. Until then, parents controlled their local schools.

There are good and bad things about parents controlling their child's education, but right now we are in a fight for our children and this is a fight against the government's control of education. I am thrilled to see this fight become so strong, but I am also stressed about how this fight is happening and that we have lost the understanding of the importance of culture and how to transmit it. Personally, I believe the 1958 National Defense Act, ripped our children away from us, and that this is behind the national youth crisis that was announced in the 70's, and the popularity of Trump and the attack on the Capital Building and even more serious social problems.

But I think our Plutocracy problem is government supporting industry.
— Athena

Government supports industry because industry owns government.

Absolutely no argument there! And, they took control of education in 1958 and this is destroying families and our democracy.

I hope someone can correct me or explain what I am saying better than I have. Whatever, this is not the old plutocracy, this is a stronger trinity of military might, industry, and government. And the taxpayers are paying for it.
— Athena

You said it just fine. But it's not new. See "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. This MIC stuff has been going on for well over a hundred years

If people do not realize the changes made by Roosevelt and Hover working together to create big government, and how this became the Military-Industrial Complex we have today, then there is no hope of correcting the problem. Yes, in the past industrialist enlisted the help of government, but that was nothing like the Military-Industrial Complex we have today. Today is not equal to the past. We did not have the institutional organization for the Military-Industrial Complex until adopting theGerman model of bureaucracy and the education that goes with it. Also, the US was a self-sufficient nation, meaning we did not have to import anything. We could mine and produce everything we needed. That is no longer true. Next, our money was backed by gold and silver and that is no longer true. Today is not like the past. Our high-tech, taxpayer-supported military might is new to the US. We oppose taxing people to support a large military and we had no interest in the rest of the world and WWII changed all this, not only because of enjoying being a military might, but our economy and technology depend on imports, and that makes military might essential. This is not the innocent and naive past. Only the average man on the street is clueless, not those above us.

Actually, he asked the question in connection with his defense of someone accused of a crime. The sense of it is, that in determining who did something it's appropriate to ask who benefited from the act. And, it should be Cui bono fuisset. — Ciceronianus

My memory is poor, but seems to me, Cicero was clueless about the reality of those who went to war for Rome and lost their land while they were gone to war! Not only did they loose their land, but they could not get jobs because of slavery. The wealthy were wealthy because they owned land and had slaves. They also held the seats of power and that means the system was to benefit the wealthy, not all citizens.
To a degree, giving the landless bread and circus prevented a violent revolution, but if I recall correctly some generals lead their troops to fight for what they believed they deserved, and in time these generals came to the seats of power. Should I look for more information?

The Plutocracy is necessarily and increasingly paternalistic. So it is no wonder that its most obsequious subjects are invariably callow. In the US, the Plutocracy uses the phrase self-relient “bootstrapping” to describe their scheme of keeping people in their cubicles. Now that’s a telling phrase: We all know it defies the laws of physics to bootstrap.

It seems likely to me that anyone living in that sort of system—raised in it, educated by it, paying for it—is nearly doomed to become dependant on it. And to be honest, I can hardly blame the man, his money stolen and used to build the wealth of others, when he seeks some sort recompense in the form of what it can offer. It’s not beyond the point of repair though. We can raise and educate our children to be what the family used to be, before it was nuclearized to benefit the Plutocracy with lies of independence.

As stated earlier, socialism (democratic) can be seen as the family writ large. Any paternalism is just all of us acting as a father-figure to those obsequious, callow, petulent kids who come running home when the world gets tough, but run away, acting all tough, when they don't like when daddy says "our house, our rules." They want all the benefits of society but they don't want to contribute. Oh well, they can run away to their cubicle and get to work for their masters. — James Riley

:grin: Philosophy is fun because we can look at the same thing, but it does not look the same from different points of view and like the gods we can share our different points of view and work for agreement. That is democracy! What rules is not you or me, but what we agree upon. Rule by reason.

I am 100% behind pulling one's self up by their own boot straps and my different point of view on this, probably is my age. I could be closer to the generation that survived the Great Depression than you are. We must do the best we can do until we can do no more. We must do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. How people think today is completely different from what I grew up with.

About your mention of grown children returning home but only for their own reasons, not a more wholistic understanding of family. Now we worry about people's emotions and if a young person is not happy, this can be blamed on the family, and the hurt person is encouraged to turn away from the "toxic" family. I took in my grandmother with Alzheimer's and she had no idea who I was and thought I separated her from her son and daughter and was holding her as a prisoner. Her son and daughter wanted nothing to do with her and dumped her on me, and the following years were not pleasant, but I saw it as my family duty and did the best I could. I have gone through life not thinking what it is in for me, but rather is the right thing for me to do for my family, and community, and country.

But I hurt my grown granddaughter's feelings and she tells me I am "toxic" and that she wants nothing to do with me, or her mother, or her sister. This is a very different way of looking at life. What I want versus what is the right thing for me to do in this situation. :lol: I never would have dreamed of speaking to my grandmother as my granddaughter speaks to me, and when I turned to the internet for information, I found an explanation of generational differences. I can also see, when people turn their back on family, the family is more apt to need government assistance. That is where family taking care of family is also about democracy, liberty, and our country. We are good citizens because that is how to have a strong nation and a good citizen takes care of family.

But the Plutocracy is another subject. It is related because everything is related to money and meeting our needs. But I think our Plutocracy problem is government supporting industry. I think the idea is a strong arms industry means good-paying jobs and citizens need good-paying jobs, so the government will support the arms industry. Using our military to secure our control of oil is essential to our national wealth. We can see what happened when OPEC embargoed oil to the US and its economy collapsed. We can not let that happen again, so we must maintain a military strength to prevent that from happening again. But this military action is not like wars of the past, modern warfare relies on industry to supply the military needs so we now have industries like Cheney's company Halliburton. It is more than this. Our government protects Mc Donnal's and Microsoft's interests around the world. These industries are part of our national wealth, but that wealth is paid for by our tax dollars supporting the industries and is not benefiting us as much as it benefits the multimillionaires. I wish I could be more factual. I hope someone can correct me or explain what I am saying better than I have. Whatever, this is not the old plutocracy, this is a stronger trinity of military might, industry, and government. And the taxpayers are paying for it.

I wonder sometimes what those who decry socialism so frequently here in our Glorious Union think it to be. I suspect they don't think it's an economic system, one by which the means of production, etc., are owned by the government. They seem more inclined to deem it anything which they think benefits others (particularly certain others) more than it benefits them, or which limits their ability to do what they want to do, or which serves to persuade others not to think as they do. So Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, public education, welfare systems, have all been described as "socialist" or "socialism" by some in our Great Republic at one time or another, and have been claimed to sap us of our virtue and responsibility.

One must ask, with my daemon Cicero--Qui bono fuisset? Who benefits from efforts to undermine and demonize a government's assistance to its people? — Ciceronianus

As much as I like Cicero, I fault him for having a very poor understanding of economics. An economic system that exploits some to benefit others, may not be any better than institutionalized slavery and excluding some from property rights because of their race or religion, or ethnic background. Free public education is awesome as it can empower people to achieve their full potential and to me, that is the best thing humanity can do for humanity and it is a goal of democracy.

I like Roosevelt's attempt to lift everyone better than what we are doing now! Just giving people money because they breathe, is a terrible idea! What we get needs to be tied to what we give. Social Security is based on age and is based on past wages, that is, based on what was given. The idea is to protect people's dignity. Getting food, money, etc. based on need instead of on effort is damaging.

I must mention Socrates who argues justice and said, if we exploit people, sooner or later they will become a social problem. That is something we want to avoid. How we avoid that is a challenging problem. But turning back to Roosevelt and thinking of our environmental needs such as reducing the destructiveness of fires, means we can tie what people get to what they give. And the giving is about good citizenship.

The state is necessarily and increasingly paternalistic. So it is no wonder that its most obsequious subjects are invariably callow. In the UK, the welfare state architect used the phrase “cradle-to-grave” to describe his social security scheme. Now that’s a telling phrase.

It seems likely to me that anyone living in that sort of system—raised in it, educated by it, paying for it—is nearly doomed to become dependant on it. And to be honest, I can hardly blame the man, his money stolen and used to build the system, when he seeks some sort recompense in the form of what it can offer. It’s beyond the point of repair now. The best we can do is raise and educate our children otherwise and hope for the best. — NOS4A2

I am glad you have a better understanding of what I am talking about than some do. However, I do favor public assistance, but as Locke said of kings, It would be fine if kings be like fathers, if like fathers, they prepared their children to be independent. In part I am talking about education the helps the young grow up and not only be independent but also capable of being civil and industrial leaders, Without that education, and the past understanding of family duty and responsibility, we get a socialist welfare state.

My thinking includes respecting and trusting all professionals and giving them the authority they deserve. Stop trying to control them making them conform to policy.

This is an absurd re-writing of history, as if there were a time in the past when rigid bright lines divided the family and society, where only through aggressive invasion could the powerful state impose its will on the family and provide for it food, shelter, clothing, education, and other means of social assistance. There never has been this dichotomy, with society properly "out there" while the family worked its magic independently and efficiently, leaving us now to lament a wonderful lost past. — Hanover

Okay I have the book on Family Law and it is authentic. What is your source of information?

And I would not claim it was a wonderful past. Actually, some of the pioneer women in the west were very, very resentful of the big stink made over slavery while their own slavery was ignored because it was called "marriage". Some of them were married off to older men when they were 14. This was about survival, not love and marriage. I have spoken with women from a generation that is no longer with us and these women who were very glad when their husbands died, leaving a few years to enjoy their own lives. How do you know of their reality? What do you know of it?

I thought the Trump time had passed, and it is a new era for the USA with the new president and new government. Are you still under the influence of the old government? Perhaps it is a historical issue and difference in beliefs which had been dormant for many years in the past within the society and nation? But then which society or nation is 100% unified with one idea and opinion in modern times? — Corvus

It is a matter of liberty and power. When Roosevelt was the president he and Hoover created a government with much more control of everything. We did not give up our education for citizenship that made our culture a strong democracy until 1958. In 1958 we began preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values, and no one educated to determine what our values should be. This means we have an amoral society and we are at each other's throats. The whole world can see this and it is not only embarrassing, but a dangerous sign of weakness. Jefferson understood what education has to do with being a strong republic supported by democratic culture. We no longer understand this.

Amazingly Trump has maintain as much power over half people, as Hitler had power over the people. The US is being ripped apart. This is the result of replacing the education we had with education for technology and before this began the right thing to do, we replaced the inefficient and weak government bureaucracy we had, with the Prussian model that is efficient and strong. That is until the people are at each other's throats. :rofl:

I find it hard to pin down exactly what fascism means today. One scholar said that fascism is better defined by it's methods than its ideology. — Bitter Crank

For fascism to exist the bureaucratic order must be developed to control everything and the young need to be taught to follow orders.

You are obsessed with the National Defense Education Act and Eisenhower's speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. The changes that you lament (it sounds like an lament, anyway) started much earlier than 1958.

Land Grant schools began with the Morrill act of 1862. The act set aside land in states to be used to help fund higher education. The Big Ten state universities are examples of beneficiaries of the Morrill act--universities like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and others.

Up until the time the Land Grant colleges and universities got up and running, higher education was largely an elite affair. The private colleges were focused on the Liberal Arts and limited their enrollment. The big Land Grant universities had the liberal arts as well, but also institutes of technology, medical schools, business administration departments, agricultural colleges, home economics, and so on. They were far more democratic in their mission and admission policies.

The end of WWII brought a huge wave of enrollment by men returning from the war, at least partly funded by the VA program. The Baby Boom followed their father into college (starting in 1964). This brought about still more democratization of higher education, and yes, a dilution of old academic traditions and practices. The Berkeley Free Speech Moment (think Mario Savio: “The revolt began in the fall semester of 1964 as an extension of either vicarious or actual involvement in the struggle for civil rights.”) was a prominent flash point in the changing higher education culture.

I would agree that democracy in the United States is not in great shape, but I blame the founding fathers. A lot of them wanted democracy for the few, not the many, and to a large extent the is the way things have worked out.

The elite (based on wealth) ran things in the 17th and 18th centuries, continued through the 19th and 20th centuries, and appears to be immovable for the rest of the 21st century. So yes, democracy is unbalanced and has been in this country from the get go. — Bitter Crank

What difference did the Morrill act of 1862 make? It had nothing like the social, economic and political ramifications of the 1958 National Defense Education. In fact, education for technology and merit hiring levels out society. What you think is important and what I am talking about are completely different things.

How many elite people ran everything? Most people were farmers or farm hands. Plenty of people owned their own business and in most the country there was no industry that people could depend on for jobs. You either owned land for an income or you had to create your own business and in rural America that is still true. Without a service economy people in small towns would have no jobs! I don't think those working people are the elite you are talking about.

The US is best known for a person with nothing making it to the top. I do not believe the Founding Fathers are to blame for anything. For sure Jefferson took a strong stand against the Federalist and insisted the power rest with the people.

Maybe if you understood why I focus on the change in bureaucratic order and education, we would share an agreement on why the US is now like Germany was when Hitler came to power. For sure there were serious problems with family order, such as excluding people because they are a different color, or a different religion, and hiring people not because of their merit but they are family or a friend of the family. The old family order was both good and bad. A technological society weakens family order.

There is a lot to talk about, such as US industry is autocratic and not democratic and I have a big problem with that. James understands the value of liberal education and if we returned to that and replaced autocratic industry with democratic industry we could have a new golden age.

I don't know about the dates, but I agree there was a shift. The plutocracy wants schools to produce good little producers and consumers; thus, they emphasize STEM, and de-emphasize the Liberal Arts (philosophy, reason, logic, language, history, political science, social studies, civics, etc.). It's interesting that a good foundation in the Liberal Arts actually stimulates an intellectual curiosity for STEM. I would think a kid going for STEM because he/she was curious about it would be the critical distinction between us and other countries (China?) that drill down on STEM as the be-all and end-all of education. But a kid that can think analytically and critically and logically and philosophically presents a substantial, credible threat to the plutocracy and we can't have that! Hell, even mom and dad don't want little Billy and Sally to come home from school and 'larn them; so they don't champion schools either.

Biden and Trump may both be caught in the web, but Trump loves the web and wants to be the spider. He'd make the trains run on time all right, but not for everyone. — James Riley

I don't think I have come across someone who understands the problem as well as you do.

In 1958 President Eisenhower asked congress to passed the National Defense Education Act. It was to last 4 years but as we can see we never returned to what Eisenhower called our domestic education. That education was liberal from the first day of school and focused on being cooperative. My grandmother would say we teach math to teach children how to think. We used the conceptual method where children learned increasing complex concepts. A forward to an old text book explains to the teacher not to fuss too much over students knowing the details of history, names and dates, but rather focus on the child's understanding of concepts.

That domestic education was great for science and education for technology is not. Only specialized people are doing well with science. I have an old science for citizens book that was popular because everyone learned, school only prepared them to learn more, and it was their responsibility to keep learning on their own. Back in the day, people with only 8th grade educations would have thought people who do not understand the importance of wearing a masks during a pandemic were ignorant people. It was a patriotic duty to not be ignorant. Eisenhower warned us of the danger of relying too much on specialist and Pericles in his funeral speech explained Athens was generalist and that is better than the specializing of Sparta.

So let us be clear about this. The change in education goes with the change in bureaucratic order. In the past people defined their job themselves and everyone did their job differently than others because how a job was done depended on what worked best for the person doing the job. Of course you can see when the person died the whole operation would be thrown into chaos, because the person who filled the job would not do it the same and everyone would have to adjust.

Prussian military order controls everything with policy. Every job is narrowly defined and everyone who does that job is expected to follow policy, not his/her own inclinations of the best way to do the job. The organization meant, even if all the generals were killed, the war could go on because decisions were not made by individuals but a committee and from there everything is a matter of policy.

Do you see how that change in bureaucratic organization leads to education preparing the young to be followers not leaders? Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy, because the bureaucratic order and education for technology is a great leveler. Independent thinkers are undesirable and this gets tangled up with Christianity! Teachers had to take Texas to the supreme court because Texas was forcing text book companies and teachers to teach creationism as equal to science. In 2012 the Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education in higher order thinking skills. Their reasoning was HOTS lead to children questioning their parents and that was a bad thing. Do not question anyone but do what you are told.

I sincerely hope people can see what this has to do with racism, why Trump was elected, and why the Capital Building was under siege. Our politics are now as reactionary as Germany's politics were when Hitler came to power and thugs roamed boldly in the streets.

Last thought, we replaced Greek and Roman philosophers with Hegel and Nietzsche.

So where did you study public policy and administration and what books do you recommend?
— Athena

Colorado State University and University of Idaho, a life-time ago. I don't recommend any books.

There can not be socialism without this change in bureaucratic order and the change in bureaucratic order crushes our individual liberty and power.
— Athena

When I hear "bureaucratic order" I think of "deep state." If the "deep state" is what kept fascism from a successful coup in January, then I'll tip my hat to it. Having a bunch of Masons acting as back up couldn't be all bad. I used to hate the two-party system (and still do), but I have also come to understand how a party might be useful, especially if a newbie gets in office and needs some institutional memory to keep the ball rolling. I'm all for throwing out the bathwater, but not the baby. Especially if a fascist is doing the tossing.

Anyway, my point is, I'm not as quick to disparage institutions as I once was. What we need to do is take our government back from the Plutocracy. Good luck with that. — James Riley

Awe, that is why you are so smart and thought of Mussolini. We now have a great discussion going because you do know more than the average person. I am impressed by how you thought the good of political parties.

I used to vote for both parties to keep things balanced, but we shifted from democracy being rule by reason, to power games. Our democracy is now unbalanced and I think this follows the 1958 change in education. Education for a technological society with unknown values has made our democracy an unknown value and we just assume everyone is fighting everyone else because we have conflicting interests. But having good government is not a conflicting interest.

Democratically good government is not the Christian notion of God and a kingdom and its power and glory and Trump. :groan: We should have never dropped education for democracy because only when it is defended in the classroom can it be defended. Leaving moral training to the church along with adopting the German model of bureaucracy has us on the same path Germany followed. Now our most threatening enemy is not a foreign enemy.

I don't know anything about the German bureaucratic model, but I will stipulate that you are correct, except on one point: You said "we" adopted. I don't think Americans sat down and said "Hey, let's adopt the German bureaucratic model!" To the extent that is what "we" have, it was just part of that tool I was talking about. The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals. But you know what? The Plutocracy absolutely LOVES you blaming government. That is one reason they keep government around: a punching bag for you, so you don't blame them for what they are doing to you (and "family").

I'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? Hmmm. — James Riley

Perfect! :cheer: You win the prize! WE did not! there would be no reason for me to say anything if people understood what happened.

"The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals" Now you are on the right track! :grin: and neither Trump or Biden have the awareness to change this reality. You can bet your last dollar that this system favors the plutocracy because it favors power, not individual liberty and power and because the government is now a power game, both Trump and Biden will make terrible decisions. I keep saying democracy is rule by reason but unfortunately, I seem to be the only person who has that understanding of democracy so there is no support for this notion. Without understanding democracy is rule by reason, that leaves us power conflicts that will destroy our country.

I disagree with your understanding of the plutocrat's understanding of government. Government is their tool, they own it and they control it. The Military-Industrial Complex is a trinity of power- military might, Industrial economy, and government all working together.

Everyone loves to blame government. The plutocrats understand how it works and play it a fiddle and as long we can keep us believing the government is our enemy, we will remain powerless.

"I'm also reminded of Mussolini." :heart: :cheer: Wow I am impressed! Yes, absolutely! During the Great Depression many people thought fascism was the solution to economic crashes and that is when we gave our government NEW POWERS. WE did not pay attention. Who studies bureaucratic order and power? We vote for the person we believe will best serve our interest and how they go about it does not matter. Like if we need a tumor removed from our brain, we don't want the medical details. That is how we vote, pick the best man to do the job and trust he will do the job well. SOCIAL SECURITY is not possible without adopting the German model of bureaucracy.

Follow the money, Athena. It will not lead to the government you rail against. Government is merely the tool, bought and paid for by that same money.

"Socialism" is just the family writ large. It was actually the norm for the majority of the last 200k years and it is what got us to where we are today. Once we left off of hunter-gather lifestyles, we started working toward what you rail against. — James Riley

So where did you study public policy and administration and what books do you recommend?

Liberty and responsibility go hand and hand. We fought a war against being ruled by a king, and without understanding what was happening, we replaced our individual liberty and responsibility, the democracy we had, with a bureaucratic order that is more powerful than any king and unlike a king, a bureaucracy does not die. There can not be socialism without this change in bureaucratic order and the change in bureaucratic order crushes our individual liberty and power.

And the state is not the machine. The state is now a fully owned and operated subsidiary of the machine. Politicians are bought and paid for. — James Riley

This would not be possible without the adoption of the German bureaucratic model that destroys individual liberty and power. Before we adopted the German bureaucratic model, our government was too small and too weak to do what it is doing today.

The family was never autonomous or powerful. They just pretend to feel that way, at home, at night, in their "castle", where they might be allowed to sleep in peace at night before returning to the machine. Even then, the man ruled the woman. — James Riley

How old you are really matters to your perception of change. I have largely withdrawn from society because phone trees and trying to get things done by pushing buttons instead of talking to a human being is just rude! Dealing with a human being controlled by "policy" and expecting everyone to be equally controlled by "policy" completely destroys our liberty and power. My grandmother refused to teach in schools that did not give her complete authority over her class and so would anyone of her generation. Our understanding of what we defended in two world wars is so screwed by the false belief that our changed reality is progress.

I was horrified the first time I was told not even if I pay cash can I see a doctor because only if I have the right insurance can I see that doctor. Every aspect of our lives is now controlled by an authority other than our own authority. This is so insidious, words to describe it, fail me. Getting dental care with my insurance is like being processed on a conveyor belt. We have lost so much liberty and power it is intolerable and Trump followers are justified. They are just wrong to attack liberals for the problem, and liberals are just as wrong because they have no more understanding of the problem than Trump followers have.

The movie "The Brave New World" reveals the problem far better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn5yUgci5Zg

Something went wrong preventing me from completing that thought.

Being a full-time homemaker can be a personal sacrifice that we do not want to make, but do we want to be a socialist despot? Do we want to give up our liberty and power to be well taken care of?

Yes, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were putting Sparta's way forward as an example of loyalty to traditional ways of life and duty to country. — T Clark

:grimace:

I speak because I am not at peace with my thoughts. Spartan women had much more freedom and equality with men than Athenian women. I like that. However, the downside is no one had individual liberty and power. Athens adopted Spartas communistic, everyone serves the state and the state takes care of everyone when we mobilized for war against Prussia. However, Athens stopped short of being a welfare state. Pericles' funeral speech makes it very clear, in the war against Sparta, Athens was fighting for individual liberty and power. There are huge social, economic, and political ramifications to being too much like Sparta and the US has crossed that line.


B

I love your post.

Everything you said is true and spot on. For sure the Military-Industrial Complex was put in place at the beginning of WWII. One of my old books expressed a lot of concern about those government contracts and the direction the US was going. The author questioned if things would return to a domestic economy or not? :grimace: Largely because of economic reasons it did not. There was a brief period between the end of the war and the beginning of the Korean war when government contracts were being dropped. You can bet your pibby that industry was thrilled to get back those government contracts, and those making the decisions noticed our economic boom was much better with those government contracts. Even without the USSR threat of Sputnik, there was a lot of pressure to maintain government contracts.

My grandmother wrote romance stories for women's magazines and at least one of them centered on the conflict between husbands and wives when the war ended and now women were expected to give their jobs to the men, and they were to return to being domestic women. I know this conflict was one of the things that lead to my parents divorcing, and in general, divorces were increasing. Please can we stay with this fact of life for a moment?

I lived through the "history" of which you speak. My cohort is perhaps the last one that was supposed to stay home and care for family. This was economically enforced by strict limits on the kind of education a woman could get and the kind of jobs she could have. My well-meaning father, the one who was strongly opposed to my mother following her dreams, told me the only thing I could study in college was homemaking and I should spend my life being a good domestic woman because men naturally earn more money, therefore, I should remain dependent on one. :grimace: I did my best to be a good daughter, a good wife, and a good mother, and this value system is in every cell of my body. I am compelled to put family first because this is what a good woman does. Please, understand this is a very physical thing, not just a thought.

Okay, admitting that old social order did not work well for me and that I am aware that my notions of right and wrong could be more physical than rational, my notions are very much about social order and being independent of government or dependent on government. What is the alternative social order? How about military order applied to citizens? That is what we have now. Our technological society is no longer family order and there are good and bad things about this. Our lack of awareness of the change is absolutely terrible and very threatening. Since 1958 we have prepared the young for the Military-Industrial Complex and family order bearly exist. None of our relationships are as they once were. Now everything is controlled by policy, not individuals. This is a huge shift in personal liberty and power and I write to raise awareness of this.

Well, you've expanded on the usual notion of "family" that tends to come to mind automatically. It is legitimate to do so, because in a certain sense, we are brothers and sisters. But family's have problems, as everyone knows.

It's as Robert Fisk once pointed out, the biggest, nastiest fights we have in life are with family, not with friends or strangers. If applied to the whole of society, then some of our family members believe things that kill other family members and are odious. So it's still a problem, though this way of thinking can be useful.

The religious depictions can be argued for a long time. But you could also take the idea that aspects of society can be used for familial improvement. That's the impulse for things like social security, health care and the like. The word "state" is subject to fierce controversy these days. — Manuel

You did an excellent job of seeing an important difference with the family model. The Greek gods fought a war with their parents and the parents' generation. I don't think they had a sense of brotherly love as Christianity would have us be loving. And oddly the goddesses were as liberated modern women, but the women of Athens were not. However, we are speaking legitimacy of power. Each has his/her realm of power and decisions were made with different points of view. And by the way, Zeus was a real jerk from a female perspective. It is bad enough that he slept around, but dragging his feet in helping Demeter get her daughter back from Hades crosses a line of my tolerance. :lol:

Because the gods did argue with each other, we have the question of how did they resolve their differences? This separated the Greeks, especially those of Athens, from the rest of the world. Here is where we get the notion of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods were limited by logos. To clarify, the supreme power was not a god, but universal law.

Sparta did not pay much attention to the gods and sure did not live by family order!!! Here is the socialist difference. Germany was the Sparta of modern times because of being organized by Prussian military order and the US was the Athens of modern times until it began imitating Germany and adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education.

Tocqueville warned that Christianity would bring modern democracies to despots. We do seem to be going that direction, with government ruling over us like the Christian God and taking care of us so much our ability to act like adults is in question.

So we have a definition of "democracy", which is good, it works for me.

I also agree that large portions of the population are confused by ideological propaganda. Of course, I am not free myself of my own ideology, but I try to look at the evidence and arrive at conclusions on this merit alone. But I could be wrong.

People who, for example, believe in the Q conspiracy theory or think vaccines are modes in which we will be controlled by microchips have a distorted apprehension of the evidence. Likewise with people who think Trump is amazing. This is a big problem in political discourse.

We can quibble about the causes of bureaucratic problems, no problem. But I've yet to understand what is meant by family values. I won't be a nuisance and ask again, I'm curious by what you mean here. — Manuel

Oh please do make yourself a nuisance and ask again. So many thoughts are coming up and my head is in a swirl of competing thoughts. I find myself responding to one thought and forgetting to respond to another.

The gods are not almighty kings. They are a family. Our single-unit family is the result of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and the Hebrew/Roman male head of the family. This has blocked our understanding of being brothers and sisters and a democracy. The family of democracy is brothers and sisters, not a father/king/ Trump, head of the household/nation.

We stopped educating for democracy and left moral training to the church, you know, the story of Cain and Able, pitting brother against brother, and a kingdom. Now we live with a Christian mythology of democracy and I hope everyone sees the problem with that. Instead of the old grade textbooks focusing on family values and cooperation, we embrace authoritarianism and a dog-eat-dog social order. We are pitted against the notion of democracy being rule by reason with fear of Satan and knowing we were thrown out of the Eden by desiring knowledge. We are now a warring nation with the Power and Glory of God, and we are no longer a nation of charity and peace, but a nation of power struggles, winners, and loosers. Thank you for asking about family and helping me get back to one way family is important to democracy, brothers and sisters, and rule by reason.

Family is also important to democracy because when we can depend on our family, we do not need to depend on the state. The one thing most homeless people shared in common, is believing they can not turn to family for help.

Thank you.:grin: But this mentality is not limited to Spartans.

The Christian god said his people are not to be slaves, but they could own slaves. Then later He changed his mind and advised Christians to be good slaves and He promised He would provide good leaders. We called these God-chosen leaders kings. Today, the Evangelicals swoon over Trump, who believes he is a good father to our nation. But democracy in the US begins in part by Locke's argument, that the king fathers keep us as children and do not help us grow up and become independent adults. While the misogyny males among us, direct their anger against women, instead of system that keeps them powerless.

Don't know if anyone can follow the leaps of thought. but I want to say women in the west were resentful of the big stink made over slavery when their own enslavement called marriage, was ignored. What makes a human being deserving?

Yep, in fascist societies one indeed has to tow the party line or you're in trouble.

What does loyalty to democracy mean? Belief that it should be the way that a nation is governed? If it means that, OK, I don't see a problem. But the word "loyalty" has connotations of subservience.

I still don't know what family values are supposed to mean. — Manuel

Thank you. And I must mention Trump. What is up with that? I am absolutely blown away by the power so many have given Trump, and as Hitler and Neitzche, the cry is to be superior and crush the weak. That is not the best thing for the international reputation of the US. That is not what made America great.

This change in the opinion of being great comes with the change in bureaucratic order that makes individuals weak unless they are party members.

The truth is hidden by paradox and confusion.

What does democracy mean? To be as the gods. However, the gods did not have absolute power as they had divided power. They argued with each other until there was a consensus on the best reason, making democracy rule by reason, not rule by a king, and making the Christian kingdom of God, unfit for democracy. Democracy is not authority over the people but the people empowered to rule themselves by reason. I do not think Trump is a ruler for democracy, any more than Hitler and the power of fascism.

Sparta had a subject population, the Helots, to take care of the needs of the Spartans. There were far more Helots than Spartans. Hardly socialism. But it does seem familiar, doesn't it? — Ciceronianus

Wait a minute you lost me. Enslaved humans are the machines a society uses, they are not part of that society. Only Spartan men and women were part of that society and it was totally socialist. The state had complete control over individuals and Athens stood against that.

Some define "family" in the conservative capitalist way of a "nuclear" family. In the old days, and especially among indigenous people, family was more communal. One had many brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Blood was not determinative.

Some would divide and conquer this traditional notion in order to better utilize the individual human resource. Nuclearize him and he becomes less dependent upon the group and more dependent upon his employer.

Socialism is just the family writ large. If we were to make a virtue of necessity, and exalt the giver instead of the taker, then positions of authority would be filled by the provider that no one would be required to follow, suffering only ostracization if they upset the family apple cart.

Listen to the givers. Pay attention to how they got what they give. Realize you and your spouse aren't much good at raising well-rounded humans all by yourself. It takes a village. Look around at how fucked up the world is right now. Not enough mothers, brothers, etc. Too many who think they are an island. — James Riley

Nicely said.

Before 1958 we had education that promoted families and being cooperative. In 1958 we began education for Military-Industrial Complex and completed the shift from dependence on family to dependency on the state. We replaced the classical Greek and Roman philosophers with Germany's philosophers, the very ones who lead to Nazism. We now worship the power of the state and instead of family acceptance and values, we want to be absorbed by the state and identify with a social unite bigger than the individual, bigger than the family, even though this means being like the Borg, with no individual power of authority. Groupthink, dependency, the end of family.

Someone mentioned robots and that is cheaper to make robots than prepare children for Industry. Sorry, I can not find that post but I want to acknowledge the importance of that thought. And to say, effectively we do have robots and a computer-controlled society. This is the result of adopting the German/Prussian model of bureaucracy and the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which prepares the young to be products for a society controlled by Industry.

Arguing about capitalism or socialism is being pretty clueless.

Living somewhere where there is not exactly a great deal of help handed out to people I can see your point. That said I don't think things are much different now than before. Reading articles by persons such as George Orwell from the late 40's I could easily have mistaken them for a modern piece. I think times change but some conflicts in society are necessarily eternal. I am curious to see how/if our current means of mis/communication impacts upon the common repeating trends of so-called left or right political stances.

As ever (no apologies for repeating myself) the issue seems more about mass global media and the advent of the internet age we've just started coming into. I put a lot of the current sociopolitical turmoil/upheaval down to greater awareness and exchanges between peoples/cultures than in any period in human history.

I think this account for a seemingly growing polarity between different political attributes, but the reality is more or less that we just have more contrast (and extremist views) thrown around in social media circles leading to the appearance of (and perhaps creation of due to belief in?) a greater problem than the reality of the situation has to offer.

I think there is too much emphasis on the extremes of both ends of the argument and that hyperbole doesn't help much. I would like to see free healthcare and education on a global scale. When I saw a woman on UK news interview complaining about funding to help with her children out of school I laughed! It is people like her that are the main problem and usually the most vocal too (note: She did her interview with fine bone china clearly on display in her cabinet behind her and she wasn't particularly concerned about how others were struggling and just wanted her piece of the payout).

I would prefer to see people at the LOWEST end of the spectrum receive a larger chunk and cut out people who simply feel that they 'deserve' something because they 'work so hard'.

Neither conservatism nor socialism are dirty words. They are both perfectly legitimate policies but either as a stand alone scheme to fix all problems are pretty terrible.

Have we made this social change with much thought?
— Athena

No. We never will because we cannot see what happens until it happens. Conservatism will hold us back from finding a 'better' way or making a terrible make, and Liberalism will open us up to more more mistakes yet allow us to search beyond the norm for a 'better' way.

Too much thought will lead to stagnation, and too little will just lead us back to where we begun with no step forwards. We have to learn (in group thought and/or individually) through our mistakes. Sometimes the cost will be brutal but there is always tomorrow - until there isn't! :D — I like sushi

There are so many excellent posts!

We can see what will happen by learning how different sets of values, played out in different nations. The US has adopted the bureaucracy and education of fascist Germany and the destruction of family values of the USSR.

George Orwell from the late 40's could observe fascism. While many in the US thought fascism was the solution to economic crashes, George Orwell saw the danger of centralizing power and authority. Democracy in the US was far from efficient and the federally controlled social programs we have today would not possible without adopting the German (Prussian) model for bureaucracy. Social Security would not be possible without the change in bureaucratic order.

The change in bureaucratic order was made for good reasons. The problem is we lack of awareness of that change. Because we have no understanding of it, we have no control of our government, and this loose of control is leading to concerns of civil war.

We strongly stood against the federal government controlling education until the 1958 National Defense Education Act replaced our democratic model built on Athens' model of education for well-rounded individual growth. The huge difference in these education models is preparing everyone to be generalist or specialist and preparing everyone to be independent thinkers or reliant on authority. We can see in Perciles' funeral speech that democracy requires generalists, not specialists, and we can see in Eisenhower's warning of the Industrial Military Complex there is a danger in depending too much on specialists. We have experienced a huge shift of power and authority and in general, have no understanding of what happened. All we know is we are pitted against each other. If we do not resolve this problem before my generation dies, the memory of the democracy the US once had will be as forgotten as the memory of Athens, and we return to a dark age.

I'd like to know what "family values" are. It's often thrown around as a warning, but its meaning is quite elusive.

Or, it could simply be a phrase used as an excuse for sensible policy. — Manuel

Okay, let us compare fascism with democracy. Where does one's loyalty lie? With the state or
with the family?

What are the values that are best for social order and why?

I am not sure if you are trying to make a point by being sarcastic or if you are being sincere? I suspect what you said is based on misogyny and that you were not being sincere. Am I right?

Personally, I believe family is more important than individuals. Love of state over love of family is reminiscent of Hitler's fascism.

His take on the civil war issue is not the same as mine. I don't think anyone promotes civil war more than Trump and this division of those who seem to worship Trump and those who can not stand him is so bad it is tearing families and friendships apart. This division is not exactly about money, but very different values and beliefs.

Economics, I think.

For a number of economically motivated reasons, women began to move into the work force in the 1960s (well before then, like during WWII, then back out). As women began working outside the home more, the need for childcare services increased. Eventually, women were far more IN the workforce than not, and the availability of childcare became a national issue.

Over time, families found they needed more than one income to support their desired lifestyle. (Essentially they needed 2 incomes to pay for what most working class people wanted.). They could have done without stuff they wanted, been poorer, and women could have remained home and in charge of child care. That's the sort of home I grew up in. Most people wanted the stuff.

Further... wages have lagged behind inflation for decades, reinforcing the need for two (or more) incomes to maintain a certain lifestyle. Then, there are women who have decided to have children without partners who have set themselves up for a much higher likelihood of poverty.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else. — Bitter Crank

I want to address both of you on this understanding of economics. When the USSR "liberated women" they said the full-time homemaker was a none productive member of society and the state intentionally created social pressure to get women to join the workforce. The effect was economic improvement because of doubling the workforce. Wages could stay low and productivity went up.

The rate of abortions and divorces went up, and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. It didn't take long to realize state-paid child care was essential to this economy. John Dewey an American education expert was dismissed as the USSR education advisor, in favor of education for communism and loyalty to the state.

In 1958 we radically changed public education and replaced our "domestic education for good citizenship (strong family values and independent thinking) with education for a technological society with unknown values. (end of family values and "group think). This resulted in radical social changes that were an improvement, but also an increasing abortion and divorce rate and growing poverty, and finally, we recognize the government must pay for child support. We can add to this, the number of women and children involved in violence and crime has increased both as victims and offenders.

NO ONE WANTS TO BE JUST A HOUSEWIFE! How well I remember the "New Woman" magazine and the destruction of the value of a full-time homemaker. Loyalty to the family has gone to hell and dependence on the state has increased.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N9K7eoVtm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GYLwgVxQs

Changing the image of a woman was very popular and this came before the cost of living required two paychecks Let us be aware of this, Our economy is based on supply and demand. As women entered the workforce, not only did wages drop with the increased supply of labor but more and more families could apply for housing loans, and as the banks got richer, the cost of housing went up, and we are trapped in an economic system that is in serious trouble, while our children are institutionalized because no one wants to be "just a housewife" and only the disgusting poor women stay home to raise their children.

Apparently it was a difficult life for children in Sparta. Among other harsh child care practices, it is reported that "unfit" children were killed soon after birth. I think your idea of good child raising is different from mine. — T Clark

Please, explain what you think I said, and how you think your idea of good child-rearing is different from mine.

My point was, Sparta had on family values. As soon as males came of age they lived in the barracks with other men and everything, including sexual intimacy, was focused on those male relationships. This was extreme loyalty to the state and a lack of family values.

We’re all to blame. State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power. We’ve given up on educating and rearing our children, passing that responsibility to the state, then wonder why people seek statist solutions. It’s all they’ve ever known. — NOS4A2

Thank you.

When the US entered the first world war, Industry attempted to close the schools claiming the war caused a labor shortage and they were not getting their money's worth from education because education was not preparing the young for jobs and they still had to train new employees. That is when we began VOCATIONAL TRAINING. it was not just industry that needed trained workers but our lack of vocational training was a national defense crisis! In times of war the government is the biggest employer and we were not ready for war! We needed typists, engineers, machanics, etc now!

Teachers argued an institution for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens, and everything they did to support the war effort was awesome! Education was the most important civil institution for mobilizing us for war until 1958, when military technology made it possible to mobilize for war in 4 hours, instead of a year. We no longer need patriotic citizens as we once did, and we dropped education for good citizenship and family values.

Today it is the parents who can argue they are not getting their money's worth from education because our young are being prepared to be products for Industry. That was something we stood against. I want to highlight what you said. "State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power." There is a huge difference between educating for family values and good citizenship, and educating the young to be products for Industry. Hail Hitler. To whom are you loyal, your family or the state? If you go in for counseling, the mental health professional will turn you away from family values in favor of being self-centered and will help you see your family as toxic and your need to become independent. In the past, this was a need to grow up, and education helped the young do that. If you can not depend on your family, who can you depend on? The state of course.

Food for thought. Balancing a welcome carpet for immigrants with social welfare movements. Law and order issues. And more. Sweden's wealth distribution figures are similar to those of the US. — jgill

That is an excellent explanation of Sweden's problem. The disparity between who feel like they are on the inside of Sweden's social order and those who don't is evidently a serious problem. A speaker at the 1917 National Education Association explained our schools were Americanizing immigrant children and it was expected their parents who did not understand the US democratic institutions would learn from their children. This was necessary to stop the bombings and other acts of violence. That is so easy to understand. People on the outside fighting for what they want because they do not know how to get it any other way. Every country should take this problem seriously and stop thinking in terms of criminals as naturally immoral people and enemies of the state, and address the reality of those who are on the inside and those who are not.

Family values are important to social order because they support morality emotionally and intellectually. This was the main focus for Confucius, but it is also important to democracies. Strong families mean strong nations. And gays are not destroying family values but are often better models of family values than straight families. Family values can be promoted by education and the media. At this point in time, the US education and media score very low when it comes to family values, and this concerns me.

The natural family support system of immigrants is broken by the fact of separation. Others in the forum have mentioned how war and poverty also break down the family support system. When the family support system is broken down, there is a greater need for the government to become a strong parent enforcing discipline and providing assistance. In the US, the family support system is very weak because family values are very weak. Ignoring this is like ignoring cancer. The problem will get worse.

5. most people have relatively petty interest, such as keeping their job, not being ostracize by friends, making an extra buck along the way, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger

If you are a parent what do you want and what are you willing to sacrifice?

So, what percent of people would attempt to help a stranger before helping themselves? — stoicHoneyBadger

Does the number of people matter? How about the firefighters who enter burning buildings and the divers who rescued the boys from a cave in Thailand? There are many people who put their lives on the line for others. The instinct to do that is what makes war possible.

That is why capitalism work - the system is set up in such a way as to get money you have to do something useful that others will pay you for. — stoicHoneyBadger

Fine but who takes care of the children and the ill and the elderly? For how much money?

So the default position for the modern person is to think that to be anti-work is to be anti-social. — schopenhauer1

Homemakers were very social people because taking care of relationships was a very important part of being a homemaker. Volunteering comes with intrinsic rewards of feeling important, getting an important job done, being appreciated. Of course, we do not normally think of the homemaker as a working person, but today we are realizing someone has to care for the children, so our solution is not to strengthen family values and marriage law to assure children's needs are met, we have agreed to push the homemaker out of the home and pay someone to do what she did simply because she believed she should do it. And we are scrambling to find people to care for the elderly, another thing homemakers did without pay because they believed they should do it.

Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizingly slow death by starvation — schopenhauer1

Have you ever tried to produce enough food for your family and preserve it, and make the clothes and other things a family needs? If a person is single, survival is less challenging, but it can still be life-threatening. My point is, mother nature does not care if you live or die, and thinking we survive without working, is an error. One way or another we are forced to work, or beg for the kindness of others. In the old days, a woman could produce everything the family needed and she was not paid to do so. It was done because that is what a good woman did.

When I hear or see something without concrete evidence for knowledge, beliefs are formed in the mind by intuitions.  Therefore the origin of beliefs is perception aided by autonomous intuition. I don't need anything else such as claims / acceptance in between the process in most cases.

For the country USA,  it is an impossible place to understand from outside of the country.  I wonder if I lived in the USA, maybe I could understand and form a more accurate belief about the country.

  One minute I hear something about the USA, and my belief is formed about it.  But then I also hear about something totally different or see something opposite to what I heard or seen in the media.  Maybe it is such a large area with many states having all sorts of different people, environments and situations?

For example, I hear / read about the negative and desperate situation in the USA with various issues with detailed explanations,  photos and even videos.  But then when I go to Twitter, and some of the photos and videos and their stories from the people in the USA, they are totally different and opposite stories. — Corvus

When the facts do not agree, they might not be facts but opinions. Or when something happens people may see it from different points of view. That is why we struggle to define what our words mean, but this is kind of like a dog chasing its own tail. It is another way of checking our beliefs. Is it based on facts or opinions?

We believe what we think is true but we can not be sure until we check the facts. Daniel Kahneman explains why we can feel confident about what we think, even when it is wrong. Especially the intuitive beliefs can be problematic. Our brains can play tricks on us. Some of our mistakes are common. Advertisers study those tricks and learn how to control what we think. One can pretty well control the outcome of a survey by asking questions that lead a person's thinking.

Last night I had a revelation of sorts - nations when they engage in so-called politics, their conduct mirrors how people, as individuals, interact with one another (the posturing, the dialogs, the lies, the pretensions, the back-stabbing, the compromise, the quarrels, the fights, and so on).

I have a particularly low opinion of politics and, as advised by an old friend, tried my best to stay away from any discussion on politics, failing, as it were, to realize I was always up to my ears immersed in it.

It was a Darwinian moment for me - I came to know I was, despite what I've been telling myself (I'm not an animal), a (political) animal after all.

The insanity, as far as I was concerned, was not the politics but how convinced I was that I was not involved in any politics. Delusional! — TheMadFool

Until I start arguing against what you said, I was not aware of how political I have been. I wanted to say I was a domestic woman and taking care of my family was all I could do. But then memories of what I have done began flooding in. I did a lot of volunteer work and really enjoyed sitting on policy-making committees. I have gotten signatures on initiatives, and stuffed envelopes. I organized homeless men to call attention to the homeless problem and joined Grandparents for Family Justice and we got the state's Children's Services policy radically changed. I have testified in public hearings at the city, county, and state levels, communicated with representatives, and wrote many, many letters to the editor. Now I am on the internet trying to raise awareness of democracy being rule by reason.

My poor daughter just wanted a "normal mother". :lol: But in her later years she has become sympathetic of how tortured I feel when I think something is wrong and needs to be changed. She is a bureaucrat now and helped me get the information I needed in this latest upsetting bout with government and I learned I was wrong and nothing needs to be changed this time. I am so proud of her. She stays cool and that usually means better thinking than what happens to me when I think something needs to be changed. Instant Chicken Little running around crying the sky is falling.

I personally believe that the modern nervous system is so attuned to Internet technologies/services, that any prolonged disruption would result in withdrawal and (ultimately) utter, utter chaos. IMO at least. — Bret Bernhoft

I think you are right.