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.

:100:

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

The interestng thing is, the haters are all about socialism when it comes to the military. But it's the MIC that benefits when government's assistance to it's own people is diverted to it. Their denial is overwhelming at times.

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.

As much as I like Cicero, I fault him for having a very poor understanding of economics. — Athena

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.

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.

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?

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. — Athena

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%.

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 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. — Athena

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

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.

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

Government supports industry because industry owns government.

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.

And the taxpayers are paying for it. — Athena

It's actually worse than taxpayers paying for military might, industry, and government. "Labor produces all wealth." Period. Working people -- wherever the factory is located--Guangdong or Indiana--produce the goods and services that are the basis of wealth accumulation everywhere. The wealth workers produce is harvested by capitalists and concentrated in their hands. The workers are left with no more than it takes to keep them functioning as a class.

As a consequence, workers range from absolutely poor to only relatively poor. Remember, the working class constitutes the vast majority of the population.).

Capitalists, the plutocracy, the ruling class, the kleptocracy--whatever you want to call them--possess an overwhelming share of national wealth -- not just here, but in the G20 in general, though the extreme of wealth is worse here than in most countries.

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. — Athena

I was born at the end of WWII. My parents, born in 1905 and 1906, had a rough time from 1929 to 1959, roughly. Too many children, not enough money, too much work -- but a good, reasonably happy family none-the-less. So... I too am pretty close to the Great Depression.

As for the bootstrap lift, as @James Riley pointed out, "We all know it defies the laws of physics to bootstrap." You can pull your boots on with the strap, and that's about it.

Look, most working people owe more than they own. Student loans, credit cards, and mortgages count against any assets they have access to, like their house--for which like as not a bank holds the title. Not only can they not lift themselves up, they are in a deep financial hole to start with. Sure, retired workers may be in better shape than younger workers, but they aren't "wealthy" by any stretch of the imagination.

Uncle Karl summed up the relationship between government and the plutocracy: "Government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." Maintaining the capitalist machine which concentrates wealth is the priority of government (which includes the military).

You read history quite differently than I do. True enough, bureaucratization occurred in both Germany and the US (as well as numerous other countries). I don't think a large industrialized economy can exist without bureaucratization.

:100: :100: :100:

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? — Athena

I'm not sure about your information, or what it's based on.

Cicero died in 43 B.C.E. I don't recall reading any writing of his addressing land ownership or loss of land by men of the legions.

Owning land stopped being a requirement for military service as part of the reforms made by Gaius Marius in about 100 B.C.E. I don't know how many men of the legions owned land from that time forward, let alone lost land. Marius began the development of the legions as a professional force. They were provided with equipment, armor and weapons. They could receive land or additional pay on retirement.

Towards the end of the Roman Republic, generals like Sulla, Caesar and Pompey began to reward their legions with loot obtained during successful campaigns, and they became loyal to and dependent on their generals. The civil wars began which ended with the establishment of the Principate by Augustus, who standardized soldiers pay and guaranteed them land and money on retirement. Augustus and successor emperors sought to make the soldiers loyal to the emperor.

We get the reference to "bread and circuses" from Juvenal, who wrote in the late first and early second centuries C.E.

There certainly were wealthy people, some of them former slaves (freedmen), and slaves, and there were also people who were not wealthy, and neither slaves nor freedmen, but lived and made or didn't make money. The system certainly favored the wealthy. That's been the case throughout history, however.

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.

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. — Athena

We don't feed the lazy for them, we feed the lazy for us. We don't honor our agreements for the benefit of others. We honor our agreements because it is good for us to honor our word. I've oft used the example of Indians: We should not honor our treaties with them because we want what is best for them. Forget them. We should honor our treaties because our own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. We do it because it is who we want to be. We feed the lazy because we are good, right, strong, and not lazy. This is how we set standards that people want to aspire to. There will always be lazy, but there will be fewer of them when everyone looks around and says "Hey, would I rather be lazy and get something for nothing? Or would I rather be that guy who carries the lazy with broad shoulders and a smile on his face, embracing the suck, leaning into the load and enjoying the burn as he works his body?

but I am not sure what socialism is? — Athena

It is the family writ large. It is community.

Where is the locus of control? — Athena

The people, not the Plutocracy. The Plutocracy forfeited their right to the status of people when they created the corporation. It was only then that they created laws making corporations people. But they are not. Only the people are people.

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. — Athena

Yes!

Family dysfunction is caused by many things. Alcoholism and drugs are big causes of dysfunctional families. — Athena

It is not the alchol or the drugs that cause the dysfunction. Ask what kind of culture causes people to turn to drugs and alcohol?

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. — Athena

I think you and I are saying much of the same thing and the agreement is there.

this is a fight against the government's control of education. — Athena

That is only true because government is controlled by the Plutocracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with goverment control of education. The problem lies in who controls government. Our foundind fathers believed in public education and they were right, in my opinion. But what happened to civics, etc.?

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. — Athena

Again, big government is not the problem and never has been (in the U.S.). The problem is, who owns the government? Money, or people? FDR was on the right track. But it was NOT government that created the MIC out of thin air or a vaccume. It was the private sector monied interests that did it. To kill government is to cut off your nose to spite your face. Kill instead the monied ownership of government. You see the giant turn in 1958 but money has sought to own government since the founding.

P.S. The thread title should not be "Socialism or families?" It should be "Socialism is families." Or "Socialism and families."

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?

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? — Athena

:100: As Dennis Miller once said "If trickle down isn't fair warning that you are about to get pissed on, I don't know what is."

Reagan was a nice, likable guy, but he should have been providing sing-alongs around a campfire with a guitar at a camp for kids with cancer.

We don't feed the lazy for them, we feed the lazy for us. We don't honor our agreements for the benefit of others. We honor our agreements because it is good for us to honor our word. I've oft used the example of Indians: We should not honor our treaties with them because we want what is best for them. Forget them. We should honor our treaties because our own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. We do it because it is who we want to be. We feed the lazy because we are good, right, strong, and not lazy. This is how we set standards that people want to aspire to. There will always be lazy, but there will be fewer of them when everyone looks around and says "Hey, would I rather be lazy and get something for nothing? Or would I rather be that guy who carries the lazy with broad shoulders and a smile on his face, embracing the suck, leaning into the load and enjoying the burn as he works his body? — James Riley

:heart: I love your reasoning and it is my understanding too, except we have a little difference of opinion about helping the lazy. I hold that enabling people to make bad choices is harmful. My city has made a gallant effort to help the homeless and I believe it was my activist work when Reagan was in office that woke people up to the need to help the homeless. The problem is our homeless population is growing and this is not sustainable. It has filled our city with undesirable people and this means more crime and is harming businesses and some neighborhoods. Just like when I brought people into my home and they stole from me, and/or became very angry with me because the more they took the worse they felt and it was my fault.

A simple example of misguided city intentions was announcing a work project open to everyone and a free meal. The idea was to give them meaningful work cleaning up the city and thus including them in our community as people with value. Make it possible for them to feel like one of us. Problem was, they fed everyone first and they all walked away without doing a lick of work. I am sure you would agree this did not have the intended effect of everyone feeling like a valuable citizen. That is the first step to getting out of the trap of feeling worthless and having no motivation to change one's unfortunate circumstances. How would you feel if you took and walked away?

Where is the locus of control?
— Athena

The people, not the Plutocracy. The Plutocracy forfeited their right to the status of people when they created the corporation. It was only then that they created laws making corporations people. But they are not. Only the people are people.

That is a good answer but I don't think it works. I think under socialism the locus of control is the government.

It is not the alcohol or the drugs that cause the dysfunction. Ask what kind of culture causes people to turn to drugs and alcohol?

For sure I question what culture has to do with addictions and the destruction of the family. I rather have someone who cares about me and is fun to be with, than rely on alcohol or a drug to feel good. But having that special someone depends on having social skills and also material things. Social skills must be learned and we might consider that an important part of education as it was in our past. And addictions are very much a chemical thing, it could be sugar, alcohol, or drugs or even watching the news, or exercising- these behaviors are about chemicals and hormones. And like wearing a mask to avoid covid, education could help improve decision making, but teenagers aren't likely to value the lesson.

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.
— Athena

I think you and I are saying much of the same thing and the agreement is there.

I think we agree on almost everything, and I think our nation has a problem with religion. Some of our forefathers objected to religion that advanced false notions, but there was agreement that religion is good for teaching moral values. Unfortunately, superstition goes with those moral lessons, and Christianity is about a kingdom, not a democracy. Especially an Evangelical Christian believes we must be saved by a supernatural being and all this boils down to in 1958 we replaced our education for good moral judgment with education for technology and left moral training to the church. This was the worst thing we could do.

this is a fight against the government's control of education.
— Athena

That is only true because government is controlled by the Plutocracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with goverment control of education. The problem lies in who controls government. Our foundind fathers believed in public education and they were right, in my opinion. But what happened to civics, etc.?

It is not just the Plutocracy that is causing a problem. It is also religion! Christianity has been the worst enemy of education and the best buddy of Plutocracy that doesn't want to waste time and money on preparing the young to be good citizens. Especially Christianity with zero literacy of Greek and Roman classics is problematic! Only when there is literacy in Greek and Roman classics is democracy defended. We are now living with a Christian mythology of our democracy and this is terrible! It is very much behind the culture wars we are having and amoral atheist are throwing fuel into the fire. [/quote]

Again, big government is not the problem and never has been (in the U.S.). The problem is, who owns the government? Money, or people? FDR was on the right track. But it was NOT government that created the MIC out of thin air or a vaccume. It was the private sector monied interests that did it. To kill government is to cut off your nose to spite your face. Kill instead the monied ownership of government. You see the giant turn in 1958 but money has sought to own government since the founding.

Well, there we disagree. The Military-Industrial Complex is what Germany had, The Bush family and Hitler referred to it as the New World Order. It did not come out of nothing. It came out of war and awareness of how technology can change war.

Reagan was a nice, likable guy, but he should have been providing sing-alongs around a campfire with a guitar at a camp for kids with cancer. — James Riley

:lol: That is a good idea. In a way, he was a wonderful President because he gave us wonderful feelings of patriotism. Unfortunately, that was good acting, and not based on reality. He lied to us about oil and the need to conserve. The only way to improve our economy and meet our need for oil was to use our military to overpower OPEC.

But back to your faith in big government, your mention of Reagan allows me to make a point. I said the Eisenhower created new relationships with research and the media. Okay, that enabled the Reagan administration to completely replace research on poverty with research on welfare fraud. The findings of research on welfare fraud were fed to the media to scapegoat the poor for the economic crisis caused by OPEC embargoing oil. Exactly how Bush was able to feed the media and take the US into an illegal war with Iraq. That was an action taken by neocons, and Bush and Cheney were neocons.

Why do you think big government that can be controlled by a handful of people is a good thing? The Civil War was very much about sovereign states having more power than the federal government. The Native American Federation and the Greeks and Celts basically all had city-states. We know Rome was the most powerful country in its time until it exhausted its supply of gold and could no longer pay for its military, leaving the church to bribe barbarians and prevent an invasion. I wonder if our fear of immigrants is related to the fall of Rome? They keep coming and coming and we are losing control.

What can be done to increase the power of the people? Almost lost in this thread is the notion that strong families have something to do with the people having power over their government. The media is an essential defender of our democracy, or it once was, before education of a technological society replaced education for citizenship.

I love your reasoning and it is my understanding too, except we have a little difference of opinion about helping the lazy. — Athena

It's a different way of thinking altogether. The genious of the indigenous, tribal view toward helping cannot always be understood by one who has been raised in, steeped in, the very culture of greed they abhor. Working with horses, or dogs, will make clear how feeding the lazy does not enable them. It is other, outside forces that are undermining your (and your city's) efforts. But those forces are powerful and have people believing the lie about enabling. After all, fingers must be pointed anywhere but at those forces and they are masters at deflection.

I think under socialism the locus of control is the government. — Athena

It is! But under democratic socialism, government is the people. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

For sure I question what culture has to do with addictions and the destruction of the family. — Athena

Pretty much everything. Change the culture, change the empty search for fullfilment denied by the old culture. Again, I think of the horse. Virtually every rider will chose the soft-broke horse from the remuda over the one with the broken spirit. Comparing people to horses, and the use of the word "soft-broke" may be off-putting until one understand the terms and the culture involved. Then the light goes on over the brain pan.

It is not just the Plutocracy that is causing a problem. It is also religion! — Athena

Religion is just another tool used by the Plutocracy to deflect from them, provide solace to the masses, like opium, booze, etc. Follow the money.

Well, there we disagree. — Athena

I don't think we do. You just keep looking at the symptom instead of the cause. The MIC is not government. It is private sector control of government. Maybe an example is in order: The family might be a good thing, but if it's controlled by an asshole, not so much. We can ask why an abusive spouse/father is the way he is, or we can just say the family sucks. I prefer the former.

Why do you think big government that can be controlled by a handful of people is a good thing? — Athena

I don't, and never said as much. Democratic socialism is the ass opposite of that.

What can be done to increase the power of the people? Almost lost in this thread is the notion that strong families have something to do with the people having power over their government. — Athena

Democratic socialsm will return the family to it's seat of power and make government beholden to it.

That is a good idea. In a way, he was a wonderful President because he gave us wonderful feelings of patriotism. — Athena

Conservative feel-good politics is BS.

Your post was beautifully written and we have plenty of agreements. But I do not know why we should object to...

"Government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." Maintaining the capitalist machine which concentrates wealth is the priority of government (which includes the military). — Bitter Crank

However, that is a little simplistic. We protect entrepreneurship with pattens and anti-monopoly laws. In the past, 8th-grade dropouts began their own businesses and the US is known for its rags to riches stories. We are known as the land of opportunity. Overpopulation is a huge problem, but this is not a government-caused problem, nor are the rich to blame for it. We have exploited our national mineral wealth and spent the money but this is not a government-caused problem. We have very serious resource and population problems and I think we could do better. But on the good side is our education system that enabled millions of people to leave the farm and get good-paying city jobs. Following WWII and the GI Bill, a college education almost guaranteed upward economic mobility.

Look, most working people owe more than they own. Student loans, credit cards, and mortgages count against any assets they have access to, like their house--for which like as not a bank holds the title. Not only can they not lift themselves up, they are in a deep financial hole to start with. Sure, retired workers may be in better shape than younger workers, but they aren't "wealthy" by any stretch of the imagination. — Bitter Crank

I think we have very serious economic problems but who is to blame? The GI bill included low-interest home loans. I knew a retarded couple who bought a home through a special government program that made it possible for low-income people to own their homes. Homeownership is a huge good and the government has supported it, but lately, our government is failing us and bankers sure have become our enemy! This proves the problem with amoral education for technology that has lead to immorality at the top, not just the lowly criminal element, and a loss of personal liberty and power.

We can do better, but that will not be achieved by blaming others and understanding no more than some people are richer than others. Greenspan was wrong to believe deregulating banks was a good idea, and maybe our fiat money is a very bad idea. Both of those bad ideas seem to go together. Economies that depend on growth instead of on sustainability may be a very bad idea?

Botton line, we need a better understanding of the problems than blaming the rich and we need to take responsibility.

Ironic that Tucker Carlson had a recent segment on Fox criticizing the concept of paternity leave that many conservatives jumped on board to agree with. Seems like the question should be Capitalism or Family Values, eh?

:100: He was also making a deal out of Pete Buttigieg and breast feeding. The whistles are no longer dog. It all quite out in the open now. Pretty soon it should be legal to . . . . never mind.

I actually was just googling Tucker to see if he was married. It seemed so unlikely. But the answer gave truth the old saw that there is someone for everyone. :roll:

I'm not sure about your information, or what it's based on.

Cicero died in 43 B.C.E. I don't recall reading any writing of his addressing land ownership or loss of land by men of the legions. — Ciceronianus

As far as I know, he did not. And that is why I fault him for not understanding the economic problem.

[/quote] Owning land stopped being a requirement for military service as part of the reforms made by Gaius Marius in about 100 B.C.E. I don't know how many men of the legions owned land from that time forward, let alone lost land. Marius began the development of the legions as a professional force. They were provided with equipment, armor and weapons. They could receive land or additional pay on retirement.

Towards the end of the Roman Republic, generals like Sulla, Caesar and Pompey began to reward their legions with loot obtained during successful campaigns, and they became loyal to and dependent on their generals. The civil wars began which ended with the establishment of the Principate by Augustus, who standardized soldiers pay and guaranteed them land and money on retirement. Augustus and successor emperors sought to make the soldiers loyal to the emperor.

Yes, a mercenary army. Nothing like men joining together to defend their homes and family. That moved Rome from a nation of civilians to the Beast that had to be fed. The power and glory of Rome. Why do we admire it?

We get the reference to "bread and circuses" from Juvenal, who wrote in the late first and early second centuries C.E.

There certainly were wealthy people, some of them former slaves (freedmen), and slaves, and there were also people who were not wealthy, and neither slaves nor freedmen, but lived and made or didn't make money. The system certainly favored the wealthy. That's been the case throughout history, however.
21 hours ago

Rome, totally blew it with their white togas. Imagine how much better their economy could have been with a wide variety of clothes and seasonal changes in what we wear. Sorry, that is most certainly a female point of view and not to be taken seriously. I don't think the history of Rome could have gone any differently because of the need to constantly find new supplies of gold. And I see the same thing in the US. Jeese, I thought fracking was going to make us independent of foreign oil, and the news has made it clear the cost of gas is going up because the Arabs are not interested in producing more oil, and Britain is struggling, and Russia is arguing the decline in gas exports is not political.

I am not terribly worried about the poor if they can continue to have the essentials of life, such as family and community, Our focus has been pretty materialistic. Why would anyone want to be rich? Is there anything better than wealth? When there were two men in my life and I had to chose one over the other, I chose the man who had nothing but was the most caring. The man with all the wealth was a jerk. I am not materially rich, but through books and discussions like I can find here, I have a very rich life. I have known rich people who do not have rich lives.

I have found information about Cicero and economics that I think might interest all of us. Accoring to Neal Wood, Cicero was....

An "economic individualist" who recommended the enlightened pursuit of self-interest and defended property differentials, he was the first major political thinker to conceive of the protection of private property as the primary purpose of the state — Neal Wood

I think we can assume he was not a liberal when it comes to property rights.

I think letters written by Cicero concerning ownership of property would complement what

James Riley — James Riley

Bitter Crank — Bitter Crank

have been saying about government protecting the rich, but at the same time we might see how this benefits everyone. I don't know, there is so much to understand about economics and I know I do not know enough. My best economic understanding comes from a geologist who wrote "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations". Mineral resources have a lot to do with history and the future. However, if one is in the middle of game like Cicero was, the economic considerations are very different.

I think we can assume he was not a liberal when it comes to property rights. — Athena

Private property rights is one of the primary liberal tenets. They were further caveated by Smith and other capitalists with the notion of "enlightened" self-interest. Don't milk your cow to death.

Ironic that Tucker Carlson had a recent segment on Fox criticizing the concept of paternity leave that many conservatives jumped on board to agree with. Seems like the question should be Capitalism or Family Values, eh? — Maw

Yes. That is the main point of this thread but it could be lost in verbiage. Everything is so complex. I really do not understand the difference between socialism and capitalism. Fascism is private property but government control of industry. Which makes the capitalist very interested in government and next thing you know, they are running the government. Obviously, Fox News and Christianity play very important roles in our politics. Making Plato's objection to democracy obvious.

Private property rights is one of the primary liberal tenets. They were further caveated by Smith and other capitalists with the notion of "enlightened" self-interest. Don't milk your cow to death. — James Riley

Do you mean Adams Smith's book The Wealth of Nation's? Morality plays a strong role in economics and in family and I think I bit off more than I can chew but I look forward to returning tomorrow and chewing on all this.

difference between socialism and capitalism — Athena

First, we, as a society, need to distinguish between true capitalism and the faux shit spouted by today's self-identified capitalists who are quick to socialize their costs, hide behind big government's skirts, and refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions.

Once we understand that difference, then the only objection a socialist might have to capitalism is how the capitalist came into possession of "his" personal property in the first place.

Do you mean Adams Smith's book The Wealth of Nation's? — Athena

Same guy. But he was not alone. Most men of the Enlightenment were headed down a liberal, if not radical road.

have been saying about government protecting the rich, but at the same time we might see how this benefits everyone. — Athena

No need to add to the already celestial-sized choir singing the praises of protecting the assets and asses of the rich.

There are some very significant downsides to the preserved-wealth of the top 1%:

Their wealth is less productively invested now than say 50 and more years ago. The rich and the super-rich tend to put their money in paper instruments which churn 24 hours a day, and produce handsome rewards. (so says Piketty in Capital in the 21st Century). I have not read Das Kapital or Le Capital except in excerpts, so don't ask me about him. He's French, I can tell you that much.

Focusing on paper investments deprives material activity (like developing renewal energy) of much needed capital.

The concentration of wealth in 1% deprives 99% of the population (at least 90% are working class) both income for necessary current expenses and paying off debt; it prevents them from saving for their old age, and in general impoverishes their lives.

The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. World wide, same thing. "According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 43.4 percent of the world’s wealth. Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 53.6 percent of the world’s population but hold just 1.4 percent of global wealth." (wealth = assets minus debts)

My best economic understanding comes from a geologist who wrote "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations". Mineral resources have a lot to do with history and the future. — Athena

Indeed they do. As the mining industry says, "If it wasn't made from plants, it was mined from the earth."

Do you think 100 billion dollars in assets can be morally accumulated? I do not.