Government Officials and Family

[_A1 (_A_)]

@Is_Yde_opN

The elite despises those who they rule and suddenly it is very selfish to not care about those who are ruled but instead about some ideals.
All ideals can be twisted and perverted. Wouldn’t be the first time to persecute in the name of love and to deem those who love their families as hateful.
Bottomline, those with a catlady psychology want catladies to rule.
Those who have no family or despise them and or their social environment often want to see it destroyed.
And so they recognise those who have the same goals. It can all be done in the name of love too.
“I love all those non-family members just as much as my family, I do even more for them. I am selfless and virtuous.”
→ Wrong, that’s just you being selfish, your kind of self-ishness.

Traitor mentality.
“Oh my god, this is so us vs. them!” That’s a booboo.
As I’ve said, a traitor mentality, a traitor psychology.

Selflessness is idealism. Selfishness is realism. You haven’t justified why you should be loyal to the ruling part or elite class, nor why they should be loyal to you.

If it’s all based on kinship and blood relations then, presumably, you are also a racist since those of your own race are closer to you than those of a different race?

You have missed the point of this thread. If the US president is elected, then at what point must the president put society before him/herself and before his/her own family? Ever? Or never?

Furthermore, at what point does any human put another before him/herself, except family and kinship?

Historically, European monarchs would marry their daughters off to a neighboring kingdom to ensure loyalty and cooperation. Kin was used as bargaining chips of power. Isn’t this what you are implying should be the case? Yes, it is.

[Is_Yde_opN]

@_A_

Selflessness is idealism. Selfishness is realism. You haven’t justified why you should be loyal to the ruling part or elite class, nor why they should be loyal to you.

It’s not a question of should but a question of are they loyal to each other or are they not. If one party is not, the other will eventually become disloyal as well and society breaks apart. Hence why people have less and less respect for society as a whole. How can this be rectified? - By dealing with the destructive elements on both ends.

The question is - Can elements from the elite work together with elements of the lower classes to remove to poisonous elements.

Selflessness is for people whose ideals disregard themselves, their selves. Hence why it is inevitably destructive. On the other hand, ideals don’t have to be selfless. They shouldn’t be, unless the self wishes to die.

If it’s all based on kinship and blood relations then, presumably, you are also a racist since those of your own race are closer to you than those of a different race?

Yes.
That’s an inevitable element of life and order. Let’s call it genuine multiculturalism and multi-people-ism, multi-society-ism.

You have missed the point of this thread. If the US president is elected, then at what point must the president put society before him/herself and before his/her own family? Ever? Or never?

Njet. What kind of scenario did you have in mind? They kidnapped his family to extort him? And so it’s better for him to not have this vulnerability?
Banality.
As I have said, catladies want catlady presidents and that’s all there is to Pandoras thread.
You know what else would be great, if the president wouldn’t give a shit about people in general. Because then he would not be distracted from serving the institutions and following the law.
And we all know that serving the institutions and following the law is what makes it all run smooth.
What does that even mean??
Serving the institutions…. lol. Who of those officials doesn’t do that?
Following the law…. There are countless people who follow the law and who work to destroy a society.

Historically, European monarchs would marry their daughters off to a neighboring kingdom to ensure loyalty and cooperation. Kin was used as bargaining chips of power. Isn’t this what you are implying should be the case? Yes, it is.

I don’t know what kind of chip you have on your shoulder about monarchies but I wasn’t talking about those.
It’s quite simple - an elite which doesn’t care about family bonds doesn’t relate or care about the family bonds of the lower classes.
So it’s in the interests of the lower classes who care about their families to have an elite which cares about their own families.
Likewise it is for those with a catlady or churchlady psychology and their wishes for catlady presidents.

All this selflessness talk is just a cheap tactic to emotionally manipulate people towards their wishes.
Because who likes to talk about selflessness but those who want somebody to do something they want them to do.

[_A1 (_A_)]

@Is_Yde_opN

All this selflessness talk is just a cheap tactic to emotionally manipulate people towards their wishes.
Because who likes to talk about selflessness but those who want somebody to do something they want them to do.

The premise of any society is selflessness. What you are arguing for, is anti-social. Society requires that people in general sacrifice degrees of kinship preference for the benefit of others. Who those others are, is of secondary concern.

Pandora is still correct to imply that familial loyalty and kinship selfishness is a liability, not a benefit, to any political system. A self-serving political system would be, necessarily, authoritarian and totalitarian, fascism, sacrifice of the populace on behalf of the ruler.

Even monarchic families turn on themselves and begin infighting after foreign threats diminish.

[Pandora]

@Is_Yde_opN

It’s quite simple - an elite which doesn’t care about family bonds doesn’t relate or care about the family bonds of the lower classes.
So it’s in the interests of the lower classes who care about their families to have an elite which cares about their own families.

The ugly fact is that the families of elites do not follow the same rules, or have the same opportunities as the families of the poor. A son of a mayor may run over and kill someone after spending a night clubbing and doing drugs and his daddy can use his political influence to pull some strings and get the judge to acquit his son, or to lessen his punishment quite significantly. Things like that happen. It’s his son after all, but not only that, his own reputation gets on the line, too.
And we are supposed to what, envy and admire that?

[Pandora]

The hacking and conspiracy case of West New York Mayor, Felix Roque, and his son Joseph Roque, which happened in 2013. His son was accused of hacking into his father opponent’s website, shutting it down, and harassing the people associated with website. The two are accused of working together, which Mayor denied.

In the outcome of the case, the Mayor is acquitted and his son gets misdemeanor (probation, community service and a fine). The mayor’s major opponent was/is Commissioner Count Wiley, who was exposing corruption in Mayor’s administration and trying to get the Mayor out of office.

During re-elections, Wiley and Mayor’s son get into a physical altercation, and after the Mayor gets re-elected, the Mayor’s son gets a clerical paid job at the County Department of Roads and Public Property.

Pre-trial:

The hacking and conspiracy charges:
nytimes.com/2012/05/25/nyreg … -site.html

Mayor Roque on the Indictment, “I have the money, the time, and the people with me to fight the indictment”:
youtube.com/watch?v=9YPl2A0LDQI

Commissioner Wiley on the corruption of Mayor’s administration:
youtube.com/watch?v=GFctMxSjd5k

youtube.com/watch?v=YVuHRrBjyik

Post-verdict:

Mayor wins the case, "I have the best of lawyers, and the truth came out. Remember, I’m the good guy."
youtube.com/watch?v=xs9-HEsfYgs

[u]Wiley’s comment - despite all the evidence provided, the Mayor came out clean, and made his son take the hit for him:
youtube.com/watch?v=TGHAlxdDSJs

Physical altercation during re-election, Roque Jr. vs. Wiley:
youtube.com/watch?v=FEy5LUir_HU

Mayor’s son gets a county job:
nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015 … s_son.html

youtube.com/watch?v=iPy6MfU0BaI

[fuse]

That political leaders sacrifice principles and the pubic good for personal or family benefit will not be solved by removing the family. Those same people will always fail the test of good leadership. Poor character is not solved by the removal of temptation.

Instead of legislating to lowest common denominator, i.e. to treat everyone along the lines of the worst/least capable among us, why not put more effort into selecting/training/protecting the people in political office/leadership?

[Pandora]

@fuse

Instead of legislating to lowest common denominator, i.e. to treat everyone along the lines of the worst/least capable among us, why not put more effort into selecting/training/protecting the people in political office/leadership?

But that doesn’t remove the liability, only ups the maintenance. Official’s family can still have an undue influence. How much does it cost to make this happen? Looks like a lot.

Now, I don’t know just how accurate this number is, but if the true number is anywhere in that price range, that’s still pretty high.

[b]Obama family ‘costs taxpayers $1.4BILLION per year’ (that’s 20 times more expensive than British Royal Family)[/b]

Barack Obama and his family cost the taxpayer $1.4billion per year, according to a recently published book.
By contrast, the British Royal Family costs less than $60million each year.

Two of the principal costs of the the Obama presidency - and any other presidency - are staffing and security, according to Robert Keith Gray’s book Presidential Perks Gone Royal. When it comes to keeping the First Family safe, few would dispute that it is worth paying a high price to keep the President safe from harm.
This means paying for hundreds of Secret Service agents, travel in the secure space of Air Force and funding a team of doctors to follow Mr Obama around.
But even this essential expense can be exploited to political ends, according to Mr Gray, a former staffer for Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
When the President travels around the country on campaign, he is obliged to take Air Force One.
His party reimburses the taxpayer with the cost of a first-class air ticket per passenger - but this is far from the full cost to taxpayers.
It also provides a President running for re-election with a national transport network which is unavailable to his challenger.
Moreover, much of the money spent on Mr Obama’s family goes to perks such as entertainment and household expenses.
For example, the White House contains a movie theatre which is manned by projectionists 24 hours a day in case one of the family feels like a trip to the cinema.
And even the Obamas’ dog Bo costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars - his handler is reportedly paid over $100,000 a year.
Another huge presidential outgoing, according to Mr Gray, comes in the form of staff members who can be appointed by the commander-in-chief at his own personal discretion.
226 members of Mr Obama’s staff are apparently paid over $100,000 - and the President can increase their salaries at any time.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -year.html

I wouldn’t call this kind of strictly controlled environment ‘a family’ in any traditional sense of the word.

[fuse]

Yes, you’ve picked the most extreme example. Their dog handler is paid over $100,000 in salary. This is, of course, not the cost that is necessary to select/train/protect all government officials. Measures which can significantly minimize the “liabilities” of family.

Let me follow up on a question I asked in my first post: How would you eliminate an official’s parents, siblings, and extended family – any of whom might be targets – from the picture?

[Pandora]

@fuse

Let me follow up on a question I asked in my first post: How would you eliminate an official’s parents, siblings, and extended family – any of whom might be targets – from the picture?

Well, the primary targets would be the closest and most immediate family members. I don’t know if going after distant cousins or any family members the given official is not that close to anyway, will have the same effect. But I don’t know, may be they could be taken as hostages as well. Some officials could attempt to protect them by distancing their association with them: i.e. sending them overseas and providing anonymity. So, the public may know their original name (and that’s about the extent of it), but not their currently used name or whereabouts. The potential problem with that is any contact (sending money, phone calls, etc.) could place them in danger again. So, even this approach would take quite a bit of effort.

[Pandora]

I was going through S. Korean Choi scandal and was reminded of a point you made,

@fuse

Moreover, it’s not just love & attachment for one’s family that’s at stake with this proposal. Living without familial ties affects one’s psychological balance and stability. It affects personal development, perspective, values, etc. Plus it feels a lot like giving in to the people who would try to use such methods. It is an incredible concession, which is a psychologically weak position. I still think the immeasurable benefits of close relations outweigh any possible harm I can imagine.

President Park has a very interesting biography. She grew up as a daughter of a president, but had to live through an assassination of both of her parents (her mother was killed in public during her father’s public speech). She isn’t married and doesn’t have a family, and “claims to be married to the nation”, but as it was found out, she did have a proxy-cult-like-family that exerted influence on her after her real family was killed. However, one of her notable features, to me, is a weak and submissive personality, a selfless person who dedicates her life serving others. I think it is this quality about her (her innate non-assertive and submissive attitude), combined with early trauma that made her vulnerable to exploitation by others. And that exploitation started quite early in her life, and allegedly was even allowed by her father (supposedly for her own good, which is one of the factors that were behind her father’s assassination).

Park’s biography:
youtube.com/watch?v=sei0GCmF0Gk
Current Discussion on AlJazeera:
youtube.com/watch?v=Hp9-N7ywSpU

Her mother’s death:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuk_Young-soo
youtube.com/watch?v=-d-aVd57AKA

Another account of Park-Choi Scandal:
askakorean.blogspot.com/2016/10/ … n-hye.html

I see Park as a victim of circumstances in this case, I believe her intentions were good, but her personality (if she had any) was too weak to resist outside influence, plus I don’t think she really recovered from her parents public assassinations (her mother supposedly killed by a stray bullet aimed at her father). I don’t see this as a case of someone who is affected by not having a family, but more likely as someone, who had a family and lost it in a violent way, and maybe even went a little bit crazy as a result. She should not have pursued a political life of her own, although she was born into it. But what’s unique (and sad) about this case is that people actually expect politicians to be corrupt and self-serving, because they see this behavior as rational and predictable, and Park was completely selfless.

[Arminius]

@Pandora

@Is_Yde_opN

It’s quite simple - an elite which doesn’t care about family bonds doesn’t relate or care about the family bonds of the lower classes.
So it’s in the interests of the lower classes who care about their families to have an elite which cares about their own families.

The ugly fact is that the families of elites do not follow the same rules, or have the same opportunities as the families of the poor. A son of a mayor may run over and kill someone after spending a night clubbing and doing drugs and his daddy can use his political influence to pull some strings and get the judge to acquit his son, or to lessen his punishment quite significantly. Things like that happen. It’s his son after all, but not only that, his own reputation gets on the line, too.

Yes. But it is not possible to completely avoid corruption. Animals already practice corruption.

[Pandora]

Melania Trump’s father, Viktor Knavs, was a member of Yugoslavian Communist Party:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -Lady.html

metro.co.uk/2015/10/30/donald-tr … m-5470817/

[Kriswest]

The only problem with Communism, it has humans. On paper , it is pretty good.

[Arminius]

Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel’s dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history, also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.

[Pandora]

@Arminius

So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.

I agree with this.

This relates to my Sins of Fathers thread, in that people often look to history to justify their aggression against others. The real reason may be just for resources, but people will still look to history for moral justification.

[Arminius]

@Pandora

@Arminius

So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.

I agree with this.

Thanks.

Now, because there is not less but more war (=> history), the conclusion must be either (a) the trial to finish history or (b) the search for other solutions. Ending history is theoretically possible. Maybe the machines, the genetic engineering, and the cyborgization will lead us to the capability of ending history practically in the future. At the moment there is more war than ever before.

[Kriswest]

Humans are bored, there are no frontiers or exploration left. War cures boredom in such species.

[Arminius]

War requires weapons. Either they are part of the body, or they need to be made resp. bought from someone else. So war is a business too. This means that war becomes more and more lucrative and that nobody of the big war business has an interest in giving it up.

Especially in modern times the contradiction between the war business of a very few people and the wish of living in peace and harmony of the most people is very obvious. So the rhetorical lies are on top, since the few people of the war business are powerful, whereas the most people are powerless.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@Arminius

@Pandora

@Is_Yde_opN

It’s quite simple - an elite which doesn’t care about family bonds doesn’t relate or care about the family bonds of the lower classes.
So it’s in the interests of the lower classes who care about their families to have an elite which cares about their own families.

The ugly fact is that the families of elites do not follow the same rules, or have the same opportunities as the families of the poor. A son of a mayor may run over and kill someone after spending a night clubbing and doing drugs and his daddy can use his political influence to pull some strings and get the judge to acquit his son, or to lessen his punishment quite significantly. Things like that happen. It’s his son after all, but not only that, his own reputation gets on the line, too.

Yes. But it is not possible to completely avoid corruption. Animals already practice corruption.

Incorrect. Mayors are not Mafia, they are Town. Mayors rarely get off easy. The Government is the Gang. The only difference is Russia doesn’t even try to hide it, while America desperately tries to hide it in a cucky MSNBC family wrapping.

[Arminius]

@Ultimate Philosophy 1001

@Arminius

@Pandora

The ugly fact is that the families of elites do not follow the same rules, or have the same opportunities as the families of the poor. A son of a mayor may run over and kill someone after spending a night clubbing and doing drugs and his daddy can use his political influence to pull some strings and get the judge to acquit his son, or to lessen his punishment quite significantly. Things like that happen. It’s his son after all, but not only that, his own reputation gets on the line, too.

Yes. But it is not possible to completely avoid corruption. Animals already practice corruption.

Incorrect. Mayors are not Mafia, they are Town. Mayors rarely get off easy.

You misunderstood me here again.

I am saying that “it is not possible to completely avoid corruption” (in general!) and you are talking about “mayors”. I was not talking about something in special (e.g. mayors) but about something in general: corruption (in general!). And in that general case, it is relatively irrelevant whether mayors are also corrupt or not, although they sometimes or even often are (it depends on their social environment, its culture, its political structure).

Corruption map:

@Ultimate Philosophy 1001

The Government is the Gang. The only difference is Russia doesn’t even try to hide it, while America desperately tries to hide it in a cucky MSNBC family wrapping.

The governments are parts of the big gangs.