You’re not missing anything. Many consider moral foundations a half-baked theory. — praxis
What does that mean? — Athena

He was referring to this: not your post.

According to MFT, I guess MAGA is skewed towards Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Liberty/Oppression. — praxis

But don't you see I am one of them! Don't you get how valuable we become when there are not enough people to do what needs to be done, but when there are more than enough people and they must compete against each other, then is when we feel pushed out and unneeded. — Athena

Good reason to forbid birth-control! Oppressive governments and churches have always demanded more children than parents can support: they need the extra people for cannon-fodder, cheap labour and to keep them too busy fighting over scraps to turn on their oppressor.

But don't you see I am one of them! — Athena

No, even in well-earned old age, you are providing needed services and support to your fellow humans. In my ever-diminishing way, I, to am contributing. That's what society is supposed to be.

Life can become overwhelming, and that means being dysfunctional. — Athena

Another side-effect of the system that works to the benefit of the takers. How often have you been told that it's not the system that's wrong, but your attitude?
The system is wrong, in so many ways that it can't be righted with the tools currently available to the average citizen - especially since the average citizen doesn't even have the tools to think about what's wrong.

If we want everyone working, we must create simple jobs and make the work place a desirable place to be. — Athena

None of that will work as long as there are too many people believing they need jobs and too few in control of paying employees. We don't create jobs - which sounds like undignified make-work anyway and unsustainable. Nor do we need to. You know what people need and what makes them happy; you know what should be done, made, planted, cleaned up, repaired, improved, protected, healed, etc. There is useful work for every level of ability, whether some industrialist thinks it will make him richer or not. You can see how much more works should be done than volunteers are able to do, but workers need to eat for the energy to do it.

I would rather do away with money - it's just too prone to corruption! But I doubt most people could get their heads around the concept. They could fathom a universal basic income.
Everywhere it's been tried, the results were positive, even though most trials have been too small a sample to change a community. People don't sit around drinking beer: they learn things, try things, start things, provide services to others and make an effort to earn their neighbours' respect. They stay in school longer, commit fewer crimes and have fewer health problems. Every instance I know of that a larger-scale pilot was initiated, the next conservative administration cancelled it.

Our industry is based on the autocratic model, and that is very bad for our families and democracy and in general, our character. It creates inequality and authority over the people. — Athena

But that's how the bosses want it! And since the bosses finance political campaigns, they get exactly what they want.

Deming's model for Industry — Athena

Sounds fine, but only covers those industries that have proven profitable, even if they produce harmful things, fail to produce desirable things, distribute their product unevenly and unfairly, waste and pollute.
That ideal work-place may exist in isolated companies, but they employ fewer people with every advancement in technology - must, to stay competitive. The recommendation cannot apply to the growing number of surplus consumers. As long as Capitalism is the global religion, "we" don't have a say in the matter.

Wait a minute-. I am not sure, but I think I see the world very differently from how you think I do. — Athena

It wasn't about your view of the world. (I'm familiar with your history of good works and civic improvement.) But I did have a problem with

Our cities and towns have a surplus of non-productive human consumers. — Athena

Which sounds a lot like what I hear every day from right-wingers and prosperous people loath to give up any of their privilege, let alone pay their fair share into the government coffers; who assert that poverty and disenfranchisement are personal choices, while supporting the party that promotes every retrograde measure from whites-only immigration to defunding school lunches.

I agree that human dignity - indeed, the dignity of all sentient beings - is important. I disagree that it can be attained either by scutt-work or charity - though both may often be preferable to starvation. Throwing people on the mercy of the "job-creators" is not the solution. A more equitable social organization, economy and legal system is far preferable. Old age security, health care, shelter, safe food and water should be the right of every person, not something they have to scramble, fight one another or beg for.

Jobs as we knew them are disappearing fast. A living wage for all is an impossibility already; in 15-20 years (always assuming this civilization keeps operating that long), gainful employment will be the norm for only about half the adult population. Very large adjustments must be made in that time to avoid collapse. Adjusting to a realistically envisioned future is not the direction in which I see America heading atm.

I've been polite to computerized machines of every kind, from cash machines to credit card readers to my PC, since 1996, when I first got an internet connection (land line). I figure they'll remember who their friends were before they got control of the world. We are earning brownie points. I will never get to see that brave new world, but common courtesy is a daily relief from the pile-of-turd emoticons.

I have no idea what that means.

It’s just that, according to moral foundations theory, conservatives value intuitions more evenly and liberals favor care and fairness, if I recall correctly. — praxis

But that's not the present political divide, is it? There are no real conservatives in evidence now. (They exist and still hold the same values they did in 1900 and 1950 and 2000, but they have no public voice.) The political divide is liberals of every stripe and moderates vs the MAGA cult. When there were sincere conservatives and liberals, they could communicate and compromise.

Many people considered it art. — Malcolm Parry

That's not my problem. Some gullible folk will buy anything..

Is Damien Hurst’s cow in formaldehyde art? — Malcolm Parry

No more than the microscope slides, organs and bones I worked on in Pathology. The 'artist' didn't make a cow (These are art) ; he merely used her body to achieve yet another novelty. Those patients died, in some cases and their deaths were their own, not mine to use. We preserved parts of them for diagnosis, scientific study and teaching. We didn't make a public spectacle of them. While not violent, hurtful or destructive, this isn't art, either,.

Are you saying literacy in the classics is a good thing? — Athena

Of course. Not just the 'classics', in all cultures, all kinds of [age-appropriate] literature. I studied The Highwayman in Grade 8 and wasn't particularly impressed (though I learned a lot about meter, cadence and alliteration, which have all stood me in good stead.) My bother, who was in Gr. 5, loved it so much, he kept reciting it for years, the way I love The Walrus and the Carpenter, which we didn't study in school. Yes, this was good for us.

Why do you object to loyalty oaths? — Athena

I explained above: indoctrination; the making of baby zealots before they can read, think critically or make informed choices. The internalize early in life, the assumptions they will not question: ours is the best political system; ours is the best social organization; ours is the best economic system; ours is the best religion; we are the best people in the world.

What is the problem with those statements? — Athena

Short answer: they're wishful thinking at best - more often, lies.

It might be a good thing if all citizens agreed on these platitudes. — Athena

If all citizens agreed that these statements should become an accurate description of the actual country in which they live, and worked toward that end, that would be good. Believing they are true when a Nixon or (gods help you all!!) a Trump is allowed to gain power over that country, not so good.

Trump appears unaware of them, making me think his followers are also unaware of them. — Athena

They're not unaware: they've been convinced, via slogans and patriotic claptrap, that they alone have the truth of those statements. After all, America used to be great (they've been told); the Democrats or BLM or uppity wimmin, or immigrants made it ungreat. So they alone are qualified to put it back at the pinnacle of Creation, which is the rightful place of [God, Guns and Trump] America.

Some members of society contribute more than others. I think that justifies differences in resources. — Athena

Except, the distribution is upside-down. The poor produce; the rich consume.

This was not as much of a problem as it is today. — Athena

True. The robber barons of 1900 were fewer in number had 400 times as much as the average employee; the present-day ones have 4000 times as much. But, of course, in the olden days, even after they lost their slaves, they could take advantage of cheap labour from children, women and immigrants. They had few restrictions in terms of product or worker or environmental safely .... Oh, wait, that's true again. Well, the future ones will have robots to do the work and concentration camps for the surplus population.*

Our cities and towns have a surplus of non-productive human consumers. — Athena

Oh, yes, the homeless people who "made the wrong choices'. They're a burden on society. The landlords who own a hundred thousand rental units as well as their own six or seven luxury residences are pillars of the community.

What is fair? — Athena

Think about it and devise your own scale of justice.

*Re which: You know Trump wants to give people $5000 per new baby (presumably white, born in Christian wedlock) You can deport five Hispanic children for that, if you skip all the tedious due process. It costs $+/- 18,000 in medical bills to have a baby in the US - that's before medical care, feeding, loss of pay and daycare even begin. The man has a BSc in economics.

As someone said earlier, there is performance and an art in bullfighting. — Malcolm Parry

Of course there is. You can admire explosions, executions, arson; you can call anything done with skill an art-form, if you want to. To me, art is creative, rather than destructive. That's the line I draw.

I am not against regimented education. Some things just have to be memorized, and when they are, that frees the mind for more complex thinking. — Athena

If it stopped at times tables and metric conversion, passages from Hamlet or The Highwayman, I'd have no problem with it, either. It's the loyalty oaths, patriotic platitudes and reverence for the aristocracy (landed, business, military or clerical) that I find offensive. That's what makes political disagreement a moral issue; what puts political parties into the same category as churches.

That is a liberal education, not education for technology. — Athena

You go to technical school for careers in technology - but only after having mastered the principles and operations of science and math through elementary and secondary school.
I've never figured out exactly how 'education for technology' differs from general education.

What's wrong with the current system is that teachers don't have the time, resources or freedom to help each student develop their understanding of the world at their own pace.

But that was never the case in formal classrooms; only Montessori, Waldorf and various new nature-centered initiatives recently starting in Canada are child-centered. It doesn't matter whether the children have to chant the times tables or a loyalty oath or a prayer, it's equally regimented. And the curricula are all based on an unquestioned value system. Little children are taught arithmetic with exampled of the price of apples and told stories about beggar girls becoming princesses, subliminally reinforcing, day by day, the inevitability of a monetary class system. Or they're told stories about brave soldiers and patriotism. Or Jesus and the saints. Some prefabricated frame of reference from which they are not permitted to stray.

So, the values taught in formal education systems always, always instill in the impressionable young the status quo of their their society. Wealth is good, poverty is shameful. Christians are virtuous; pagans are immoral. My country ('s current government), right or wrong, is worth dying and killing for. Love God, the Queen, the Flag, the President, the Shah.... no difference. Good citizenship in each country takes a slightly different form, but it's always about obeying the Law.

I wonder what we'd discover about the present state of American affairs if we reviewed the history of school curricula and voting patterns, state by state. Would the roots of this 'moral' divide become more evident?

It is cost-effective to have education for good citizenship because that is how to prevent crime and keep prison and welfare populations low. — Athena

Wouldn't a more equitable distribution of wealth be even more effective? And maybe enacting fair laws?

Is it because this movie was legitimately bad? Is that what opened the door to this? Or what? — frank

It is because, these days, when anyone with a social media account sees a teapot, they feel compelled to make a tempest in it. There was a time when bad movies simply failed at the box office and were relegated to late-night television or VHS. Now, everything has to be political and everything - yet another version of Snow White, ffs?? How could anyone with a life possibly care? - has to be controversial and everything trivial has to be publicly discussed ad nauseum.

So, what do you think US education is doing right, and what is it doing wrong, and why is this so? — Athena

I'm not that familiar with the current states (50?) of US education; I only see the odd articles like this; and on book-banning, forbidding the discussion of certain subjects. And one can't help noticing the astonishingly uneven levels of rudimentary knowledge. While there are many clever, well-read, knowledgeable Americans in medicine and other sciences, in entertainment, literature and jurisprudence, so many (even among university educated) people seem be clueless about so many things that they ought to know. (See Trump for a high-profile example. He's supposed to have earned a degree in economics.)

What do you believe is the purpose of education? — Athena

To impart to children the information required to navigate their culture and become aware of other cultures, the skills to take care of themselves, the foundations and tools to continue learning more complex material and they grow older; enable students to find sources of information, solve problems, evaluate situations and communicate with others. To prepare the young for responsible citizenship.To teach young people any skills and knowledge required to perform whatever specialized work they have the talent and inclination for, so that they can contribute and prosper.

What do you believe should be required subjects? — Athena

In elementary school: literacy and numeracy, basic geography and history, science - heavy on nature studies - music, art, literature, articulate discourse and social demeanour; health, safety and physical fitness, survival skills. Also the practice of elementary civics, kitchen and workshop skills.
In middle school, wider and deeper literature, art and music, research, debate and review; peer justice. Advanced history, geography, science, math and civics; comparative religion and at least one other language. Continue that through secondary school and build on the other subjects as the students advance.
From age 12 onward, take at least three months out of the school-year for real life activities: construction, community services, camping and foraging, mechanics, food production; various team projects under the guidance of adults who are versed in the particular trade.

Of course, throughout, the students need to be tested effectively for comprehension of what they have learned before proceeding to the next level. Rigid division of grades by age is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, not every citizen is well educated. — Athena

Huxley was. He had no excuse for misstating the role of past dictators.

I'm quite familiar with your point by now. It's a bit late to fix the multitude of Trumpian crimes with a change in education. — Vera Mont


On what facts do you base your argument? Education is scrambling to fix the problem. — Athena

Education is about to be disembowelled by the Trump administration, as well as several Republican states. Even if some of it survives and does a better job that its predecessors, their product won't be ready to vote until long after the damage has been done.

Okay, where are you facts? — Athena

P 1:It's 2025.
P2: In 2024, a large enough percentage of the product of American education elected a mad, narcissistic ignoramus with a long record of criminal behaviour, public lying and reckless rhetoric president.
P3: After everything that mni wrecked in 100 days, his approval rating among the product of American education is still 41%.
P4: The next election is three and half years away.
C: however hard American education scrambles to reform, it cannot conceivably turn out an educated electorate in that time.

I see you are on the same page as AmadeusD. — Athena

You wound me deeply!

Human nature has not changed but its organization and technology has changed. — Athena

What's that to do with the historical inaccuracy of the Huxley quote?
Every society uses state-of-the-art technology to organize its power structure and deal - well or badly - with its population's requirements. This includes all tyrants and despots of past and present. They had available exactly the same tools as did their opposition.

And my point is what education has to do with leaving our democracy undefended. — Athena

I'm quite familiar with your point by now. It's a bit late to fix the multitude of Trumpian crimes with a change in education. Anyway, his regime intends to do away with education, social services and science altogether. Once they're gone, whoever is still here (unlikely to include your or me) will have to rebuild civilization in their own way.

Fine. The subject is tired, cranky and should be sent to bed.

Ok, then your argument is to just support the status quo. — Harry Hindu

No.

And you call yourself "progressive"? — Harry Hindu

No. I mostly call myself a socialist, but I do support policies that improve people's lives and reduce injustice. Progress is temporary; everything we build with long, laborious effort is regularly torn down by regressives. Wrecking is faster and easier than building. All the same battles have to fought again, generation by generation, just to be a little better than than previous century.

Yet, somehow we've made progress in our exploration and understanding of the universe and of ourselves as outcomes of natural processes instead of supernatural ones - all of which only happened after the Enlightenment where the focus on individual rights as opposed to the power of the government was realized and humanity began to shake off the bindings religion and authoritarian regimes have placed on us. — Harry Hindu

I wonder what percent of us actually understand more about the universe and ourselves and whaty percent has given up the supernatural answers. The regressives are even now dismantling the edifices of science and learning.

So you're saying that mothers need laws to protect their children? — Harry Hindu

I said children need laws to protect them from bad parents and other kinds of harm

Are you saying that you need laws to behave and treat others with respect?

I don't, Athena doesn't, maybe you don't; muggers and rapists do.

Or Huxley, who was talking about a past that didn't happen, not the future of America. — Vera Mont
Please explain — Athena

Your Huxley quote is apparently from Brave New World Revisited, published in 1958. He must have known that the past was as full of tyrants as his present - or any present. Tyrants have always managed to organize and supply their regimes. But he didn't know what technological advances were going to take place in the next half century.

What he's saying is essentially true, no? — AmadeusD

no

the drug trade across the southern border is no controversy — AmadeusD

The drug trade doesn't consist of migrants who just want a better life for their kids. They were not expecting the cages.

I can't quite grasp why that passage is a problem, — AmadeusD

Pity!

"All Mexicans are criminal". — AmadeusD

Sorry, my bad. Yes, the sweet man has allowed for some exceptions,

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

“They are all……..”. — Fire Ologist

They are, alas, all too human! — Vera Mont

Yes, they are.

Calling all Hispanic people criminals (which no one ever said) — Fire Ologist

Except Trump, whom the MAGA crowd adulates. If they don't agree with him, they shouldn't have voted for him.

When will “we” truly wake up from our caves and clans? — Fire Ologist

There is no all-inclusive "we". We don't all ... anything.

And that’s why we will always make war, always victimize, always feel victimized - because all of us are perpetrators of abuse, and none of us are saints. — Fire Ologist

That's not the cause of war.

It’s the feeling “I’m better than them, and they are lower than me” that is the problem, the abuse. — Fire Ologist

No; it's mostly about wanting their stuff, their land, their water, their gold, their labour - or all of those. The better-than idea is just one of the excuses for taking what you want.

Saying all 40 million “MAGA” hat wearers are sub-human is abuse, — Fire Ologist

Hardly akin to throwing them all in jail. Anyway, I never said that. They are, alas, all too human! Because of what they want, they're ready to buy the better-than bullshit. It gives them permission to act on their basest instinct. We all have those instincts, but usually keep them in check. When a large number are empowered by what they accept as a strong leader (even if he's just a lard-assed grifter or seminary dropout with an axe to grind) they become willing to consent to, then support, then perpetrate atrocities. Yes, some people do behave better than others, and I respect the good actors, not the bad.

The only sinner we can know is a sinner is our self. Judge not, lest you bring condemnation on yourself. — Fire Ologist

Tell them! I'm not calling all Hispanic people criminals and pet-eaters, firing people for gender identity, depriving them of health care. (I'm not much worried about any god's judgment of me based on my opinion of bullies.)

People, all of us, should have more hope for each other. — Fire Ologist

That's what Kamala Harris tried to tell them.

This is not the world of Genghis Khan, Caligula of Ivan the Terrible. — Athena

Or Huxley, who was talking about a past that didn't happen, not the future of America.

Which is what I've already said and further to the point that political parties are not like these groups in that they hold many views on many issues, and if you disagree on any of them then you are a heretic. — Harry Hindu

Who came to that conclusion, on what basis? Heresy is a religious term, not a political one - no matter how badly people these days abuse the meaning of words.
Recently - as in the last 25 or so years, we have seen the Republican party push out moderate conservatives as it was increasingly taken over by the hard right, which has been courting the racist and fundamentalist vote since Nixon's last campaign, and more recently, the misogynist vote. I didn't see that happen with the Democratic party, the Green party or the Libertarian party (granted, the last two are pretty obscure; not many blips on the radar, except in that more greens are female and most libertarians are male.) If you disagree with the party platform, you can quit participating, change parties or go independent. Unless you're a big noise, nobody cares which you do.

Yet a vast majority of babies survive to adulthood regardless of which society you live in. How does that happen? — Harry Hindu

Because no societies are libertarian. Most societies provide some kind of support for one another and some protection for the children. Not all, but most.

I have said numerous times now that there should be a level playing field of competing ideas where logic is the only referee, and let the best idea win. — Harry Hindu

Oh yes? Have you recruited Logos for the refereeing job, or are you planning to stand in for him? Can you cite a single year in human history when a society had perfect equality of rights and opportunity? Should is just wishful thinking. As long as you respect 'property rights' and vote against taxation, you're working against any possibility of a level anything. (I hate the playing field analogy! People living on the street and people fleeing from bombs are not engaged in a game. But I would like to see all the CEO's and venture capitalists in America stripped down to their underwear, running a marathon. On a level road, obviously. Winner gets back one of his houses - as soon as everybody who wasn't allowed in the race gets one. )

You seem incapable of putting the pieces together. — Harry Hindu

There is a reason human affairs are in pieces: humans break things. Of course I can't put them together again. Neither can you.

(Somehow, with all the reiteration, you never got 'round to answering my question about the origin of 'rights'. It's okay, though, I think we've sufficiently covered your position.)

Ok, so you can hate those attitudes and beliefs, but the people, they can still be loved and respected. — Fire Ologist

Not by anyone who is horrified by the brutality of the regime they support.
'Hate the sin, but love the sinner is for saints.' Those of us ordinary humans who suffer and witness the abuses of these sinners cannot love the perpetrators of those abuses.

You do not believe that there are people that have joined groups for the wrong reasons, or were duped into joining a group because of the way the group falsely portrayed themselves? — Harry Hindu

Certainly. Gullibility is a major human trait.

Then why join a group? — Harry Hindu

Lots of reasons, both societal and individual. A common interest, such as rugby or landscape painting, strength of numbers for political activism or labour-management bargaining, country club for social climbing, team-building corporate board for financial advantage, book club for friendly discussion, fan club for celebrity gossip, car pool to save money and environment, PTA to track child's education, army for.... a number of idiotic and/or idealistic and/or economic reasons... In none of these groups are you expected - or able - to share the other members' views on any subject other than the purpose of the group.

If both are achieving their goals without their goals infringing upon the other's rights, then what is the problem? — Harry Hindu

Rights? Never mind infants' goals and rights - they haven't any, but may be protected by the governance, so that even if the mother's goal is to throw one into the sea, she is deprived of that right by society.
Groups of people may have a common goal, but even in families individual goals often conflict. In a larger society, there is no evidence that mutually beneficial goals are the norm rather than the exception.

You keep talking about 'rights' as if that were something conferred upon individuals by a supernatural entity. A right is nothing but a social concept about who is allowed to do what. Who has what rights and what obligations under a given regime is arrived-at by a generally held belief system, which in turn engenders their legal code. It seem you're a big fan of "property rights." (I sure don't have much respect for the current state of ownership!)
Various political philosophies have varying views on what can or should be owned, by whom, under what conditions. Whichever political philosophy prevails (determined by majority of numbers or coercive power) makes the rules and sets up the mechanisms of enforcement. Government and law. Infrastructure. Agencies.
Political parties are just groups that people join by choice to express their preference for the style of governance they want for their country. The members don't need to think similarly on any other subject but the issues of their platform. If most people were Libertarian, why did the party finish just below the Greens in popular vote.

And yes, individuals should belong to certain groups by choice - not by being lied to and conned into joining. — Harry Hindu

And yet, people are ignorant, opinionated, kind, selfish, forgetful, ambitious, clever, mean, greedy, violent, co-operative, compliant, manipulative, generous, reckless... People do lie. And cheat. And steal. And fight. And kill one another. Nobody has a "right to live" - only the protection of a lawful society.

Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Vera Mont
I'm not. Only socialists and theocrats tell others what to think. — Harry Hindu

In fact, we seem to have some very notions of what things mean.

If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks. — Harry Hindu

BS

In joining a group, you always run the risk of the group not sharing all of your ideas. — Harry Hindu

You're born into a group whether you like it or not. Could nos survive without the group until you reach at least puberty - by when you belong to several groups, either by choice or circumstance. All this individualist nonsense is wishful at best, disingenuous at worst.

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental efficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak.

Much as I respect the Huxleys, that's total bilge. Had he never heard of Caligula or Ivan the Terrible?

Do we want to believe there is no difference between the past and present bureaucracies? — Athena

Which past? Which present? Which places? It's not a question of wanting to believe: the fact is, some kind of civil service has existed since the advent of city states. They are necessary to the running of a nation. If that nation is compassionate enough to take care of the weak, the sick, the needy, the old and the children, more civil service is required, because, frankly, the churches made a dog's breakfast of social services. Big, diverse societies need more bureaucracy than monarchies by divine right, that's true - but fewer people are killed at the whim of their liege or starve to death in a severe winter.
You know there have been some pretty good kings, just as there have been pretty good presidents and prime ministers.

Is that equal to how we select people for different jobs? Has the belief system possibly changed, changing the power of those in authority? How are people judged in the past and present? — Athena

Which past? Which present? Which places? Hereditary rule is most obviously not equal to democratic elections. Different jobs have different selection processes. People are judged, as they have always been, by their peers for civic responsibility, by their spouses for compatibility and fidelity, by their employers for job performance, by their congregation for piety, by their regiments for bravery and discipline, by law enforcement for adherence or infraction. How is any of this relevant to the moral divide?

Our forefathers were very leery about giving anyone too much power and they created a form of government that limits power. — Athena

They're dead. They don't get a say anymore.

I listened to a man known for his international charity work, and he also commented about the errors of USAID and how things can be done better. — Athena

Everywhere humans operate, mistakes are made and things could be done better. Everything can be corrupted. Shutting off all aid doesn't end corruption or profiteering; just moves it to another agency. Reform, yes. Indiscriminate woodchipper, no.

You might like the book "Empire of Illusion- The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle" by Chris Hedges. — Athena

I used to be familiar with Hedges - liked his commentary in Bush times. How American politics have devolved since then was somewhat predictable, no matter how we wished it were unthinkable.

I am not a fan of Kennedy, but this message opens me to wanting to know him better. — Athena

You mean the Kennedy mutant who makes up his own version of science? Concerned about food additives, but not about the wholesale firing of food safety inspectors? Doing yet another study on autism and vaccines, but okay with terminating research projects? Ugh!

When it comes to respect, either we are respectful people or we are not, because what we say and what we do depends on who we are, not the other person. — Athena

I'm not. A feeling is not a behaviour; it's neither good nor bad until you act on it. I respect or despise or condemn on the basis of what the other person does. I cannot respect sleaze, cruelty, dishonesty, meanness or evil. Sorry!

Some people talk about fairies as though they are as real as butterflies and deer. Does that make fairies and unicorns real? — Athena

The words are real, whether true or not. Yes, I categorize those who speak untruth as liars. What someone says about fairies and unicorns does not affect the unreality of fairies or unicorns, but it does show that person to be a fantasist, and that is how I categorize them.

Now, are we to believe all the hateful things a White Supremacist believes to be true of people of color? How is that different from the words of hate flying between the left and right? — Athena

Words are real, whether true or untrue. As to differentiating left rhetoric from right, you need to listen a little more closely to the actual words. They're not the same on both sides.

Actions, however, deal with reality. — Athena

Words signal, incite and precede actions. They can do quite a lot of harm even before the actions are taken. Trump and Vance told us what they were going to do, and a great many people didn't believe they'd actually do it. They did more and worse. Hate speech consists of words, as do slander, racial slurs, verbal abuse and propaganda.

Of what good is that consensus if there isn't a human instinct to conform? — Athena

Self-interest; interdependence. The instinct is not to conform but to co-operate.

These labels are not facts, like a train coming to a crossing, is a fact. — Athena

Words and actions are real enough. Anyone who screams at people instead of talking with them, who wants to take away other people's country, who buys foreign prisons for his countrymen, I characterize as as evil and categorize as enemy, regardless of what label he's stuck on himself.

I need to respect you no matter what. — Athena

I save my respect for those who have not torn up and trampled on my values.

How was it determined if someone qualified as a king? — Vera Mont

*They bled the infants: blues on top, reds on the bottom.* Qualifications rarely came into monarch selection. In Hungary in the middle ages, the nobility elected kings from among their number. Still hereditary, but it didn't reward incompetence or mental instability. (Now, of course, it's reversed.)
Another way, of course, is conquest. Whoever leads a successful invasion is king, and so is his son - or, if needs must, daughter, since bloodline is more important than gender. (Not everywhere)

While this belief system did lead to wars, it is nothing like the bureaucratic order we have today. — Vera Mont

War and bureaucracy can co-exist. In fact, bureaucracy tends to increase before and during warfare.
Monarchs also needed civil servants to keep track of logistics and finances. Social services were left to the church... for what that was worth.

In the news today, again and again, people in the know have said reform has been necessary for some time. — Athena

Reform would be good. Slash-and-burn tactics merely deform. It's easier to destroy things than to build them. Smashing the departments of education, health and housing will not end corruption. And of course, you costs will go up, not down.

Do you approve of the Military Industrial Complex established when Eisenhower was in office? — Athena

I approve of very little that was established in the Red Menace years. Or, indeed, US foreign policy generally - with some bureaucratic exceptions, like USAID.

Decisions are more apt to depend on personal interest than on ideals. They will follow charismatic leaders like so many followed Hitler. — Athena

That's the worst case scenario, yes. (What I utterly fail to grasp is the charismatic leader.)

We are social animals and have a need to belong, and that leads us to conform to the ideals of others so we are accepted, and consequently also define who is not one of us. — Athena

A good - that is, well functioning - society does not require compliance and conformity, but rather a consensus on matters of common interest. Belonging to a community does not entail rejection of other communities, unless there is a strong motive to do so, such as conflict over water and territory. Pre-European societies did a lot more trading and intermarrying than fighting. Even if you fight with another tribe, you're not required to hate its members: you can respect an enemy and become trading partners or allies after peace is made. ( see Haudenosaunee Confederacy)
The modern version, both in so-called advanced societies and former European colonies, is a bastardized form of tribalism, brought about by artificial divisions within a larger polity.

In this thread, people are working hard to prove that people can be categorized as one of us or one of them. — Athena

I don't see a hard work here. A social conservative does not necessarily align with the platform of a political party that calls itself Conservative (like the odious Polievre, who wants to conserve all the wrong things, like plastic straws), but in an all-pervasive capitalistic culture, a conservative outlook is assumed to be pro-business and anti-welfare. A person who calls himself Christian and behaves in ways that would make Jesus weep can be classified, but not as a Christian.

We cannot know millions of people as individuals and judge them each according to their degree of Trumpism or whatever. So we categorize people according to how their words and actions compare with our own mind-set, expectations and aspirations.

In the past, when a king died, that was the end of him. — Athena

But not of his regime: there was usually a recognized successor to carry on. Otherwise, bloody civil war. That, I'm afraid, is what will happen in the disunited states of America.

Trump is not all wrong in his efforts to disrupt that bureaucratic reality. — Athena

Yes, he is. He and his henchmen are disrupting exactly those departments that have done the best job. A whole lot of people will suffer for a long time as a result.

Trump is getting rid of all those who do not salute him and march with his agenda. — Athena

Top brass. Not all the men and women who obey the top brass - or refuse to. My feeling is that armed forces will split along ideological and/or ethical lines (Remember, they swore to uphold the constitution.) Civil War reboot.

Trump is a good Christian. — Athena

:rofl:

I think that most people are Libertarians. — Harry Hindu

Most people are tribal to some degree.

They just don't know it because they've been conned by the two-party system into believing that the other side is trying to take your freedoms away. — Harry Hindu

The two-party system is American. Most other nations have several parties represented in their legislatures, so that minority voices are also heard - indeed, if one of the largest parties does not get a clear majority, their administration depends on support from the minor ones.
(Please don't tell other people what they know or think!)

It is the idea that we need to change reality as it is by abolishing political parties — Harry Hindu

You have my blessing to do that.

"Live and let live" does not necessarily mean Libertarians do not work together to better the lives for themselves. — Harry Hindu

The operative word there is bold. They might beable to, sometimes, if a competent leader is acknowledged by all participants and they are all equally willing to do their part. But in order for that that to happen with any reliable frequency, the people involved would have to be very much in agreement about all kinds of fundamental things. What you have in your little coloured chart is aparty platform, not a formula for most people's actual lives. Once a political party gains power, it's not eager to cede to any other organizing entity.

You're straw-manning. As I was saying - the two groups were made up of Libertarians, so why would there be a problem in two groups of 100 Libertarians each merging together? — Harry Hindu

There wouldn't be. The problem emerges when you discover that not all people are Libertarian.
If everyone were a dedicated environmentally conscientious, compassionate, vegetarian socialist, I would have no problem, either.

The issues you speak of are the problems if an authoritarian society (either communist, fascist or theocracy) where you attempt to force everyone to think the same way. — Harry Hindu

(You left out capitalist.) They invariably do, and quite successfully.

Over 70 million shared a common interest that either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump should be president of the U.S., millions of people are part of political parties that share common interests, so you claim that 1 million people share very little is bogus.

That statement is bogus. All those people did not share those opinions. They chose the agenda that they thought more closely aligned with their own interests. Many were wrong in their assessment; many are now regretting their choice. I fully agree that those two options were insufficient to cover all the issues and concerns of the population, and that the system needs a serious reformation. I do not believe that yours could cope with the the reality of where the US is at this moment in history.

Libertarianism is far less dependent on people thinking the same as everyone can have different means and methods of obtaining happiness - only as long as those means and methods do not infringe on anyone else's goals. — Harry Hindu

They invariably and inevitably do. Not to mention the logistical difficulty arising from hundreds or thousands attempting to build roads and bridges all their own, any place they liked. All those unfinished projects would waste a lot of resources and clutter up the landscape.

I have been able to get others to change their mind, or at least to consider other opinions and options as valid. — Harry Hindu

You may have persuaded some of your peers to consider this option, but I'm not aware of the actual functioning society you established thereby. I considered it intensively in the late 1960's. Sounded good, superficially; could not bear scrutiny.

Okay, but this shift does not begin with him, — Athena

No, it's been building for some time, but it may end with him or his successor.

and we can not resolve the problem without a better understanding of it — Athena

Understanding isn't difficult. Which 'we' is it that wants to, and is willing to make the hazardous and arduous effort to resolve it? Trump still has a 42% (!!wtf?!!) approval rating.

We internalized our enemy to have the strongest military force on earth. — Athena

yes. I wonder which way the armed forces will choose when (not if) it comes to the point.

Rule by law begins with reasoning. It is understanding logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and good manners. Science supports democracy, not Christianity with its superstition and myth. — Athena

Which is why the Trump miministration is in such a hurry to abolish science, education and free speech. Their aim is to reduce citizens to abjectly cowering serfs, fighting one another for crumbs off their oppressors' table.

Ridiculous. If it works for a hundred people here and a hundred people over there, then why would it not be the same if those two groups interacted? — Harry Hindu

Interaction, no problem; merging, huge problem. That's what happened to tribal cultures when they became - or were subsumed by - nations.

It makes no difference in the size of the group. — Harry Hindu

It absolutely does. You can know 99 other people, at least to speak to or work with; you cannot know millions. 100 people can form consensus on what's in their individual and collective interest, since these overlap to a great degree and the welfare of each is the welfare of all, so it's good for you to help your neighbour and be trusted by him. 1,000,000 people share very little of common interest; each depends on only a few others; they cannot know whom to trust nor have the same regard for all the others. The larger the group, the harder it is to communicate and keep track of what others are doing, harder to care what happens to each stranger. But much easier to lie, cheat and exploit.

The difference is simply how you decide to treat other people — Harry Hindu

No, it's not. What I decide doesn't influence people who want something different - like pillage the environment in which I live, limit my freedom of movement, foist their religious beliefs on me, or use my labour to enrich themselves. If they're stronger then me or have more friends, my decisions matter not at all.

I'm too old too smart to want it.

Both sides look to the government to "fix problems", either economic or social, depending on which side you are on. — Harry Hindu

Yes, but most of the problems that need fixing were created by governments past, and/or a privileged class controlling some aspects of government.

So yours, and others, tactic to put Libertarians on the right side don't really understand what Libertarianism is. — Harry Hindu

What it is is naive. The ideology can maybe work with groups of a hundred people, not in a large, diverse population, not in a capitalist society and certainly not in a nation with international relations.

All positions must max out at two terms, and Supreme Court Justices should be limited to 16 or 20 year terms. — Harry Hindu

Okay on the first, though I prefer one 4-year term, staggered, with half of the incumbents overlapping with rookies, so there is both experience and fresh input and less opportunity to consolidate power. If there is no financial backing involved, one level of corruption is eliminated; if lobbying forbidden, there is another. Get rid of a third by not having elected officials award government contracts to corporations and a fourth if no lucrative or influental position is by political appointment. This is especially important as regards high court judges: all judges should be elected by their peers. When they retire depends on competence, health or personal choice. (Some people are worn by their sixties, some can still be going strong at 80) Likewise top civil service posts should be earned through work record, not favour.

Presidential elections require the entire country to be involved. — Harry Hindu

If there are no political parties, who says you need a special election for a president? You're a fan of voting for specific candidates, including independents, who will then enact legislation on your behalf. So why not let them elect one of their member as chief administrator and a second for backup? Also key cabinet positions that don't require special expertise. Review their performance after two years and replace them if the constituents want to.
And fps, stop making jurisprudence and law enforcement political!