What's a better sytem of...living?

[Lancer]

Seems that chasing money is bringing the world to an ecological brink. People driving hours to push papers that mean nothing really. All about money, which is power...

What's better? Can't we feed people and not destroy the environment? Why can't we legislate that new cars have to get a hundred mpg because it's the right thing to do? Do we as individuals have a right to cars that may well be ruining the earth? If we can make international; laws that prevent the killing of elephants for ivory why can't we make laws that keep the oceans out polynesia, and eventually swamp coastal cities? What about laws that restrain the growth of population? Is China right? Does it serve the needs of the people to be up to our butts in humanity?

I'm done.

[notyoueither]

We could do better.

It starts with an idea of responsibility that extends beyond our immediate family.

[DanS]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those questions mainly revolve around coercion of other people rather than a sense of personal responsibility.

Don't be too shocked when many don't buy that line.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Lmao!!!! You thinks it is all about money?? My friend its all about education!!!!!! The smarter we get the worse it becomes. We push education on our kids and want them to succeed to get the almighty dollar but what your not aware of that comes with that education is a mind of their own.. They the educated decide where we go from there.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Lmao!!!! You thinks it is all about money?? My friend its all about education!!!!!! The smarter we get the worse it becomes. We push education on our kids and want them to succeed to get the almighty dollar but what your not aware of that comes with that education is a mind of their own.. They the educated decide where we go from there.

Are you a know nothing?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DanS
Not to put too fine a point on it, but those questions mainly revolve around coercion of other people rather than a sense of personal responsibility.

Don't be too shocked when many don't buy that line.

Responsibility doesn't mean by personal choice only.

If more people felt greater responsibility, it might be easier to pass laws that would benefit more people.

I'm not a libertarian who thinks it is a good idea to disband government and leave everything up to personal choice. I'm a Tory who believes that greater wealth entails a greater responsibility to look after things that are beyond my own nose. Government and laws are the best way to organise that.

[Lancer]

We seem far too individually selfish, and cumulatively self destructive, that's my point. We need to be more like an ant colony.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Lancer
We seem far too individually selfish, and cumulatively self destructive, that's my point. We need to be more like an ant colony.

We may or may not be selfish. But t here's an inherent contradiction between embracing free-market capitalism, which means predicating your economic success on the maximization of individual self-interest, and expecting people to make socially responsible (as opposed to individually satisfying) economic choices.

[notyoueither]

There's no contradiction in the maximum hours of work, child labour laws, work place safety codes.

Why not mandate 100 mpg autos? We already have pollution controls, safety standards, etc. The only reason is our political system is not serving the maximum common good with reasonable restrictions on the free market.

The reason is that our citizens are not willing to accept an adequate level of responsibility for the world we leave our grand children. Immediate gratification with little thought of the consequences. Irresponsible.

[Guardian]

Anyone remember the song from Spiderman 2 ?


You keep watching from your picket fence
You keep talking but it makes no sense
You say we're not responsible
But we are, we are


We want freedom to make our own choices, yes. But all choices have consequences. So, with freedom comes responsibility and we can't all just turn our backs on that and expect things to turn out all right in the end. It doesn't work like that. The consequences of our choices won't go away.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
We seem far too individually selfish, and cumulatively self destructive, that's my point. We need to be more like an ant colony.

Where the females are the workers and soldiers, and the males are just used for sex??

(Sorry. Didn't mean to threadjack)

[Solly]

Originally posted by Lancer
We seem far too individually selfish, and cumulatively self destructive, that's my point. We need to be more like an ant colony.

We haven't destroyed anything. We've created an enormous lot and are passing on a great legacy to our descendants.

[Zkribbler]

The thrust of Lancer's OP, used to be the general rule in America, rather than the exception. I can remember when the nightly news reported, not only the stock market ups and down, but also the change in the standard of living for the average America. That report is never heard nowadays. In fact, that standard of living for working-class Americans didn't increase between the early Nixon Administration and the late Clinton Administration. The entire growth of the American economy went to the richest Americans. The sixties were marked by a general rejection of materialism and an emphasis in civil rights and the ecology.

The first symptom of change came with Ringer's book Looking Out for Number One, which climbed to the top of the best seller list and stayed there. This book wasn't the cause of the techtonic shift, but it was the first symptom. In the 80's, corporate raiders appeared, with their Gordon-Gecko motto, "Greed is good." They served a certain purpose because, at that time, there was a lot of corporate fat that needed to be trimmed. Their daconian reforms whipped a lot of flabby corporations back into the black. But the result was a malignant philosophy that corporate profits are the ultimate goal of the American economy. The economic well being of the average American and a healthy economy were only concerns to pay lip service to.

I had hoped that the pendulem would swing back once the Democrats re-took control of Congress. But soon after their celebrated "First 100 Hours," they're falling back into the same ol' grab-everything-that's-not-nailed-down philosophy. Palosi's personal use of a 747 to fly back-and-forth to her district is but one example. She could have directed the people's tax money to health care, to the infrastructure, to erasing the deficit, but instead she chose a flying palace for herself.

I yam disgusted, dejected, and dispondent.

[Tattila the Hun]

Law of the monkey applies...

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

[Nubclear]

Re: What's a better sytem of...living?

Originally posted by Lancer
Seems that chasing money is bringing the world to an ecological brink. People driving hours to push papers that mean nothing really. All about money, which is power...

What's better? Can't we feed people and not destroy the environment? Why can't we legislate that new cars have to get a hundred mpg because it's the right thing to do? Do we as individuals have a right to cars that may well be ruining the earth? If we can make international; laws that prevent the killing of elephants for ivory why can't we make laws that keep the oceans out polynesia, and eventually swamp coastal cities? What about laws that restrain the growth of population? Is China right? Does it serve the needs of the people to be up to our butts in humanity?

I'm done.

We live in a free market. Commie