America's future

[mdeminico]

So, in my book, Barry Goldwater was dead wrong in 1964. Extremism is not only a terrible vice, it is the most pernicious evil humanity has ever faced, all through the millennia. I see way too much of it in public discourse here in the states, including some of these conversations here in this forum. That fills me with sadness, and a great fear for our future. It is the wrong path.

It's good to know that you don't want any "extremism" in defense of YOUR life, liberty or property. I personally feel that compromising on certain issues like being raped, killed or imprisoned is simply not acceptable.

The Founders were extremists. The Abolitionists were extremists. Both instigated wars that forged the decent aspects of this nation.

How about Martin Luther and his Ninety-Five Theses nailed to the Church door? After all, we wouldn't want anyone to get "extreme" about the selling of indulgences.

How about the Magna Carta? King John forced to sign by a bunch of extremists.

Lincoln was an extremist.

*clap clap clap clap*

Thank you. That was very well put.

To expand this to the rest of the world: Richard Wurmbrand was living in Romania, minding his own business, when the Nazis invaded. A few years later, the Communists invaded, kicking out the Nazis. Years later, he was on his way to Church to preach (he was a pastor) and he was abducted by the secret police, thrown into solitary confinement, beaten, tortured, etc. His family was told he was dead.

All in all he spent 14 years in a Communist prison. His plight was not uncommon. As a matter of fact, his plight was so common that nearly every family under Communist rule had *someone* who had been abducted and put in jail.

Now, if a group of private individuals got together, pooled their resources, and staged a rescue operation to break into those jail cells, killing any guards who opposed them, that's EXTREMISM. Are they wrong to do that? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I would hope if I were privy to such information, that I would have the courage to risk my life to free those people. And were you in that jail cell, I would hope you wished for someone to do the same for you.

[mdeminico]

My recollection is that "Usury" is excessive interests. If I remember correctly, it is any interest rate in excess of 10%. i.e. "loan sharking."

That is the current distinction. But the KJ Bible uses the term "usury" throughout the ir Bible while the New International Version uses "interest".
And the only interest rate I recall was 1 percent. But was that 1% of constant value grickles or a flat 1%?

It certainly wouldn't be 1% of 2011 US Dollars, because those are going to be dropping like a rock in value with the quantities that they're creating out of thin air.

[KitemanSA]

Consider. The years of Jubilee didn't require giving everything back. Only certain things: land and manumiting slaves, etc. IIRC.

Also note that the price of land is required to be adjusted by the number of years remaining til Jubilee. In other words, you aren't buying the land. Its GOD'sland and the most you can do is lease it til Jubilee. Then it goes back to the one God gave it too in the first place. Weird, but not socialist either, quite.

[rjaypeters]

Its GOD'sland and the most you can do is lease it til Jubilee...

Or until you die, a good reminder for all of us.

[djolds1]

Utopianism cannot last forever. The human animal is inherently conservative in that it does not like change.

Only in so far as you might mean it strictly with respect to unrealistic (utopianist) levels of change.. iow change for the sake of change.

Which is the de facto definition of all social "progress." There is no aimed for end point. "Progress" is its own justification, a call for endless revolution to "expand freedom."

The problem is that the endless revolution is destabilizing in and of itself.

Conservative is merely the previous version of "progressivism."

Otherwise, if "conservative" implies right wing, I have to say that's wrong. Change is inevitable. Change is what engineering was made for. To enable people to incessantly learn, with e.g. a permanent state of mind that looks like the Problem>Solution>Problem[...] loop. As more literary minded people've said: an accomplished man learns how to thrive outside his comfort zone. Change is to man's intellect what bumps in the road are to good chassis design. The better the latter, the better your performance; the Better Life is.

Change is not something the human animal inherently likes. We live in a very dynamic period, and humans can be socialized to like such times, but it takes a lot of effort to maintain periods such as ours. The Iron Law of Oligarchy always tries to reassert itself (witness capital (re)concentration over the last 30 years). Historically, dynamic periods such as ours are rare and inevitably snuffed in favor of more sclerotic yet stable regimes that cease to threaten the prominence of the elites. Endless change eats away at established elites, and recall that the most powerful opponent of capitalism is the successful capitalist.

Also, witness to what ends "social engineering" have been applied in the last 50 years. Generally to ensure the continued existence and dependence of a lower class of laborers and servants. In the abstract, the "engineering" paradigm is powerful. As applied in the concrete, it is less than salutory. The interest of those who have already won is to remain winners, and capitalism is correct in that interest rules. Maintenance of free market ideology & competition however requires a level of idealism that interest inevitably trumps in time.

[Betruger]

I mostly agree: "Conservative" just sounds like yet another ideology instead of the ideologically agnostic (other than what are, to me, self-evident fundamental ethics) system of policies that an "engineering" approach to statesmanship would be.

"Engineering" system of policies as I see and mean it wouldn't lead to socialism. "Social engineering" here is just a semantic coincidence. Capitalism has proven itself, at least moreso than socialism. Right? So "engineering" common sense says it's a better solution than socialism, unless one's corrupted by dogma - wants "social engineering" to trump capitalism (where beyond some basic ethics of fairness, one's left to his own fate which isn't hard at all nowadays, all things considered) IE your successful (corrupt) capitalist detractor.

Don't fix what ain't broke. Build on it. The american people don't seem in tune to this anymore, evidenced by their failure to think this way when they allowed so many bailouts instead of cropping off those dead financial entities and letting American "capitalism" regrow from that stump as it excels at. There's one classic show of "conservative" lack of flexibility.

That's the "change" I'm referring to, that one must learn to take in stride and that an "engineering" state of mind excels at dealing with. I'm not proposing any novel system of policies here. What I'm saying's in line with Chrismb's comments. And that just doesn't seem to be in the air in the USA anymore. People have gotten too complacent and cling to their material goods instead of to the state of mind that best produces those goods. You don't need to cling to mere material goods when you've got endless positive cash flow.

[Diogenes]

re: Years of Jubilee

Regardless, I see no merit in the idea, and it is about as far fetched from contemporary thinking as anything else you could have come up with. In other words, the idea is too ridiculous to grant it any credibility. I, (and I suspect others, plead ignorance and apathy.

1. It's not my idea.
2. Are you saying since the idea of years of Jubilee is far from contemporary thinking it is ridiculous? And you style yourself after an ancient philosopher.

Being far from contemporary thinking does not make it ridiculous. I think much of contemporary thinking (Nancy Pelosi) is ridiculous. I point out that it is far from contemporary thinking (Meaning I recall no one mentioning it before you did) AND the idea is ridiculous. (now that you mention it. )


As for styling myself after an ancient philosopher, I am expressing cynicism which is the philosophy he is given credit for espousing.

Consider. The years of Jubilee didn't require giving everything back. Only certain things: land and manumiting slaves, etc. IIRC. Even with years of Jubilee, there is room for individual accomplishment, recognition and accumulation. Wouldn't that be enough for even the greediest Capitalist? Well, I suppose not...

If everyone in the world were born at the same time, and were permitted to obtain whatever they could for the next 40 years, after which they might have to give back their property, then life would become very much like a football game, after which everyone shook hands and left the field.

However, People are NOT born at exactly the same time, they are born continuously throughout each and every year, so by appointing some arbitrary date for the acquisition game to start over, it becomes completely unfair to those born shortly before the year of jubilee, and very much favors those who are born just after. Just one of the obvious flaws with the idea.

As for Greed, greed is the motivating factor of every organism on earth. The smallest creature works constantly to find and keep food. Others acquire hunting territory which they aggressively defend from competitors.

Greed is what motivates us all, and is what made this nation (US) great. Of course the term "greed" is meant to be derogatory. A more appropriate term would be "ambition." That being said, can it be taken too far? Certainly. There are those who lust for excessive power over their fellow man, and have come to regard other people as little more than pets or worse, vermin. (Nancy P and the Ds.)

It is the duty of us all and our nation to constrain these people sufficiently to prevent them from oppressing others.

Everyone who responded about interest rates in the Bible: Thanks for the corrections. Even though I read it last year, I can't remember everything I read.

My problem as well.

[rjaypeters]

Yes, there would be problems with a modern implementation of the years of Jubilee. I expect _very_ few people to be interested in the idea and for me that is part of the attraction.

Re: ...Nancy P and the Ds...

It is the duty of us all and our nation to constrain these people sufficiently to prevent them from oppressing others.

I agree that is one duty. Would you also agree that oppression, from any source, must also be opposed?

It must be my Protestant upbringing. I'm more suspicious of those in power than any other group.

[Diogenes]

Yes, there would be problems with a modern implementation of the years of Jubilee. I expect _very_ few people to be interested in the idea and for me that is part of the attraction.

Re: ...Nancy P and the Ds...

It is the duty of us all and our nation to constrain these people sufficiently to prevent them from oppressing others.

I agree that is one duty. Would you also agree that oppression, from any source, must also be opposed?

It must be my Protestant upbringing. I'm more suspicious of those in power than any other group.

If I understand you correctly, Yes. It is the duty of society to protect people from bullies, be they in government or be they private individuals.

[rjaypeters]

I like the word "constrain" in this context. Protect, well, seems so nanny-ish. But I think we agree.