Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Americana’s Always Dirty Earth

Category: Mind Change
Please Register or Login to check out Americana’s Always Dirty Earth Back to Voting

Old Comments

  • To go further: Government tells you that you will pay. That is the duty of the American citizen or citizen-anywhere. You will pay taxes. We will put it where it should go. Providing services to people who are willing to pay…well, what is that? Are you saying that people who cannot pay won’t get services?

    The misunderstanding is that Dave is talking about governmentology and quoting me, but I’m not talking about changing government. I’m talking about changing humanity and building community. Not government. People. As soon as people are prepared, we can get rid of government.

    Posted by Van der Riese  on  01/03  at  12:28 AM
  • The injustice done to you and your ancestors ought to be repaired.  Likewise all other descendants of slaves (natives, etc.).  In my mind, the only way to do this is for the owners of those slaves (and the descendants of those owners) to be identified and given the information about the past.  Let’s pretend that I am one of the descendants of the slave owners.  Let’s suppose that I refuse to see your evidence, or, seeing it, choose to ignore it.  These are the problems for which you turn to government, taxation, and laws.  I see a better solution, and you are participating in it.  Why is it better?  Because it is just.  It doesn’t take from those who have and give it to those in need.  If justice truly requires violence to be served, then convince those who seek justice to join in the required violence.  I might be one of them.  But the first step is to convince.  Leave the government out of it - the government in this regard is a distraction - an illusion - a dead-end path.

    Those who cannot pay do not receive.  Sometimes, they will receive what they need from those that wish to show charity.  That is how life has worked for billions of years.  Payment is not just a money thing; any kind of effort counts as payment.  If your desperation drives you to theft, then so be it - your cost is to become a thief.  Is it better to prevent you from becoming a thief by institutionalizing theft (let’s all be thieves!) so that some of what is taken from just about everyone else can be given to you?  I think it is not.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/06  at  08:25 PM
  • Hello. Ok, we just disagree. That life has worked a certain way for billions of years does not justify the operation. I mention in the first part about ending our animal impressions. Animals are made to survive as the fittest. Humans have the capability to decide otherwise, that is, breaking the cycle of life. The dirty, money-driven, I-benefit-by-your-misfortune, I coerce/customer-service you to buy from me, is a billion years out-dated.

    The second, government is a two-faced operation of the people. Government is of the people, but once the people are intellectually empowered and decide to end government, that is when goverment will bring out the tanks. It’s about power. That aside, the government is in the mix. It’s as liable as people and “individuals” as it has one side “of” the people. I won’t recount all the statements. Also, all Americans and Canadians (that being the general area of discussion; again, I don’t know much about Canadian history) can be held accountable. You cannot cover your ears and close your eyes and say, “that was the past, la, la, la.” We all sit, stand, work, breathe, upon stolen land—At least. It is still stolen. As much today as yesterday. That is the benefit to even the poorest: the opportunity of America and Canada, if you believe one exists. The ills of the past are present with every step and every sight. It is always odd to me how that is not visible to everyone but the offended. Maybe that’s not odd at all. That’s interest.

    Also, I think you should be repaired for your family’s stolen business. The representatives of that government are dead, but the government is not. I understand that the government will not repair because their interest is not of people, but of power(Just like the operation of business is profit, not serving customers). We agree on that. That the government does not make an effort to repair black Americans (however insincere the effort) when it has made efforts to repair other races is more a statement of society than a statement of incompetent government because, as I’ve said, government will at least try to repair incompetently.

    Charity by choice, is a thing of the past, and “if I can do it, so can you,” is a misstatement. Charity is a necessity. It is required to break those patterns of life that keep people impoverished and keep people separated. Just because a person cannot pay does not mean they should not receive services. That assumes ALOT including that all people are of equal opportunity, mind, and circumstances, which is not true. Also, it gives those with money the power. Some are born rich, they haven’t “earned,” so-to-speak, anything, if you believe “earning” is a right to living. That returns us to the divine mandates of monarchs. Power to those given it by God. Power to those born to it. It is also a divisive concept. The charity of one has to be ultra-contagious to make a world of difference, otherwise, the charity of one will change the world of one, which is not bad, and from that, we can only hope the one will trigger the mind that will trigger the mind that makes a noise loud enough and convincing enough for the world to hear.

    Third, to make a change, we have to be of one mind. That does require convincing, but as long as there is an opportunist in the bunch, we will always take steps backward. Maybe, violence is that backward step to get forward. Maybe, to kill the “competitor,” the one who has the need to be better-than, the racist, the arrogant, the selfish, the money-whore—everything that prevents a world of loving thy neighbor for the sake of loving in favor of loving him or her because it makes life easier for you or makes them easier to buy—maybe that is the violent step backward needed to move forward.

    Understanding, we agree, is a key. You mentioned voice and folks flying planes into buildings. What I took from your statement was that we should have given those individuals a voice and conference rather than ignoring and bringing them to “revolution.” I agree. To understand your neighbor is to love your neighbor. Now, if the platform of these individuals is to destroy, they must be destroyed. If their motive is to deceive, they must be destroyed.

    I will quote the one who said that if we fail to learn from the past we are doomed to repeat it. I quote him because he makes my statement well. We continue our cycle of failed civilization, failed humanity, because we have failed learn to in a billion years.

    Posted by Van der Riese  on  01/12  at  02:21 AM
  • (I have to add this here because I ran out of text on the other comment)

    Empowering someone to have a “better” life by helping them with tax dollars is not stealing from tax-payers. The requirement of citizenship is taxation. When you become a citizen, you say, “I agree to surrender so much money in tax dollars.” It’s not stealing. It is not taken against your will. And giving that to your fellow citizen, whom you should not judge or assume is a lazy low-life who has never worked a day in his life, could possibly raise your fellow citizen’s standard of life. If that is a danger to you, that’s a problem. Also, tax dollars are no longer your money, no matter what the government says. That “tax-dollars” are the people’s money is politics. It COMES from the people. There’s a difference (there’s also an opportunity, but I digress). Again, at the very least optimistic welfare will eventually enhance your fellow citizen’s status of life. And he/she’s probably paid into it already! Probably served their country! Nevertheless, when you decide not to be a citizen, you can say that your tax dollars are being stolen from you. Of course, then you’ll be booted out the country, but you’ll have made a brave statement. Taxation, politics, and business are operations of the dysfunctional world as it exists.

    If only slave owners are responsible, then only Hitler is responsible for the Holocaust. Not his officers, not Nazis, not Austria, Germany, the Pope John Paul should not have apologized for lack of Catholic intervention, the Austrian government should not repair disenfranchisement, and the people should be insensitive to affected Jews. They should put Nazi stickers in their car windows and defend their right to do so as a statement of their German Heritage. (The comparison is to Black Americans and Rebel/Confederate Flag) But you know what? The German’s acknowledge are not proud of that part of their country’s history. What’s more, they act on it. They don’t say, “bad things happened, then, but, hey, I didn’t do anything.” It’s funny, Nazis cannot march through Jewish neighborhoods in Germany, Austria, wherever, but they can march through a black neighborhood in Florida.

    Posted by Van der Riese  on  01/12  at  02:23 AM
  • More consonantly, you want people to truly control government and to be individually accountable for their actions. I want for people to live cooperatively while governing themselves. No matter how thin, there is a common vein. To disagree is by no means disallowed, but Integrity, Honesty, Peace, Love, and Understanding should not be delayed by its couriers. If one step comes before the other, it is no less progress.

    Posted by Van der Riese  on  01/12  at  05:12 AM
  • First, my example was not real (at least not to my knowledge), and I’m sorry if I made you feel it was.  It was just an example, but plausible, right?  The problem I have with getting the government involved in reparations is that it gives the evil cancer another reason to exist.  You point out that there might be some good in politics, but that’s like finding the silver lining.  It’s bad at its core, regardless of any positive effects that offset that essential problem.

    You wrote “More consonantly, you want people to truly control government and to be individually accountable for their actions. I want for people to live cooperatively while governing themselves.”

    I would rather have what you desribed last than what you described me as wanting - people governing themselves.  In fact, it sounds like something I should have written.

    You wrote “Now, if the platform of these individuals is to destroy, they must be destroyed. If their motive is to deceive, they must be destroyed.”

    You seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that people grow and change.  You must think all the peaceful non-violence campaigns like The chinese students in Tianenmen square and Ghandi’s work in India were idiotic.  They had a cost, and a big one, yes, but the future impact of those campaigns, unlike all campaigns that use violence, does not include any revenge at all.

    Taking into account your other points, I will agree with you.  But I insist that between you and me, we don’t need the government.  You tell me how much or my taxes should be used to repair for the enslavement of your ancestors and I’ll see about sending it to you instead of the tax man.  That is the kind of civil disobedience I think will change everything.

    In any case, we are very much on the same page, but arguing specifics on certain points, both philosophically and pragmatically.  I don’t usually find it useful to point out that I agree with what others say when my agreement isn’t complete.  I don’t know why that is.  Of course it’s useful, and I should mention it more often.  I think it is a male thing to find stuff to argue about and then have at it in an attempt to win.  It’s all about impressing the ladies - sticking out, as it were - you know, evolution and 5 minutes for a man vs 9 months for a woman…?  I’ll try to honor my feminine side more.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/21  at  11:41 PM
  • wink I’ll buy that. But no, I don’t find civil disobedience idiotic. I mention civil disobedience as an angle of attack. The example I use is Palestinians sitting on their rooftops to deter bombing in their neighborhood. If the Israelis weren’t trying to have some civility about them, they would have massacred these people anyway. I also use an example of everyone refusing life.

    And no, people can change. My point applies when all have conferenced and the other is adamant about not changing. Right now, we’re just accusing people of not wanting to change, then we attack as visciously as they rebel and call them uncivil for not bending. This is when violence reinforces violence.

    I use slavery reparations as an example because I think it highlights race history and present race relations in America—just the psychology around it: The many reasons of “No,” and the concession of Blacks for feeling powerless against America. It’s not a great country. It’s a compromise. And to tell you the truth, right about now, I want reparations for me.

    Anyway, I’ve just started catching myself when arguing details. If people don’t completely understand me, I run the risk of alienating myself over miscommunication.

    Yes, it’s as difficult for me to say, “hey, let’s just focus on what’s the same about our arguments.” I’ve never really felt like a lady, so that’s my excuse.

    I’m thinking of posting a comment I made elsewhere in response to mankind’s blaming God, or belief in a God, for the many ills of the world. I find that a total cop out.

    Posted by Van der Riese  on  01/23  at  06:20 AM
  • Page 1 of 1 pages

    Add a comment
    What makes a good comment?.

    Name: (Already a member? Login)





    Remember my personal information

    Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Submit the word you see below:

    Or Use Disqus Comments Below

    comments powered by Disqus

    << Back to main