Our government says that you have the right to choose your religion. I think they realized that religious values would become self-evident with practice, to show what really works.
Our government is a capataloist government,… in that they tax the unfairness in order to make it less of an option. Our government is a democratic government in that we elect a polotician baced on integrety, so they can get educated on the issues for us.
Science won’t admit facts that haven’t been “established”. IE the soul,… or morals.
…
Our economy is driven by demand,… more then supply. We are resource rich, so it’s feasable for us to be a service economy.
Corperations best strength is to consolidate. Yet the consolidation of enviormental improvements isn’t realistic or applicable because of unknown reasons,… any EPA tax to improve the enviorment would be imediatly passed down to the consummer,… and hurt the consumer more then the corperation who has consolidated money,… and would just lay off employes.
Telling us that we have the right to do something, compels choice and desire, doesn’t it?
“What really works”??? You make me sad… sorry.
:-z
The tax… the “unfairness”?
I thought that they just harvested a percentage of all personal posessions, then focused these resources back at the people, in the form of control and heirarchy.
You wish!.. “integrety”?
Political correctness gets people elected. It’s just a popularity contest and a [soulless, false] beauty contest.
Um… ok. ‘Morals’ are ‘facts’?
And what does the word ‘fact’ mean to you, personally?
To me, ‘fact’ is an existent matter or energy system/state… But is civilization and governemnt based on ‘fact’, or illusion and idealism that will keep on decaying and failing?
Gods of mundane pursuites… Sub-government & anti-unity… Prepetual power struggles and mind control… Large percentages of capitol is being focused into fueling the worst areas and systems of civilization…
On second thought, the word ‘nihilism’ has been shit on by too many insane and un-cooperative people, and I’d now rather link to a description of pragmatism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
It’s more to do with social stability - if you’ve got a country where nearly 90% of people identify themselves as religious (bearing in mind that they may not be religious, the issue is how they see themselves) then making any strong demand for ‘pure’ secularity would meet with mass opposition and probably immense social upheaval. No government seeks to destroy the system that gave it power…
I don’t follow, and the notion of private ownership is based on a fallacy anyway…
Hardly…
Remember, the politicians that vote on legislation don’t actually read the bills on which they vote. Usually they read the Janet and John bit, the one-page summary on the top. A few rebellious or studious MPs (or equivalent) may read small sections of the actual bill but who can be bothered reading a 200 page document? Egocentric babykissers on 60 grand a year? Not likely…
Science won’t admit certain facts (all epistemological discourses fail to admit certain things, it’s part of how they define themselves as being different from other discourses) but I’m not sure that either of these are facts…
Our economy is driven by marketing, which governs demand. Why do you think that marketing was invented? Why do you think that it’s one of the biggest (i.e. most money moving about) industries in the world? If it didn’t work then that would be a waste of money…
Of course. Capitalism (particularly third stage capitalism or late capitalism, what we have now) cannot be reconciled with environmentalism. It is that simple…
In all likelihood we’ll get one of two future scenarios
the present system proves itself to be flexible enough (wouldn’t surprise me, capitalism reinvented itself at least twice in the 20th century alone) to deal with the shifts that are predicted in the next 20-50 years and certain things change but essentially we carry on
This has always been the case, individually;
But never, ever as a species.
You know, I think that death exists in nature to stop overpopulation, which would also cause death by imbalance, because of our taking away from our environment [and all things need their environment].
I’ve been wondering again, if all evil would stop [loss and conflict] once needs were nolonger existent [or consumption had no real loss]…
Import tax,… gas tax,… cigerrette tax. Liecencing to do anything that is considered dangerous yet nessecary.
…In reference corperations and consolidation.
Drug companies have made the best advances because of consolidated efforts.
Consolidated money gives people the power to buy scientists and mechanics and computer programmers,… witch have made the technological advancements in the past 20 years.
So the main reason people don’t shoot down religion in polotics is because they are people pleasers? So we shouldn’t think that religion effects poloticians personally?
If people had a concious, what was right would be what sells. It’s not the system,… but the lack of control of the people that run the system.
So the government is run by zombiefied poloticians that sit around and twiddle their thumb waiting for the day to be over?
science cannot replace religion in government.
Supply governs what we can market. Demand that lasts is what is practical.
I’ve no idea how it affects politicians (why do you persist in writing polo- instead of poli-?) personally, we never know politicians personally. My point was much broader - religion is a part of politics because of what it offers governments. This is was arguably the biggest mistake Stalin made, not realising that Marx’s secularity was a demand from a revolutionary (of sorts), not the head of state…
On the contrary, it is the lack of control of the people buying all the shite that people sell that is the biggest problem. If people weren’t selfish, stupid and shallow then the cosmetics industry wouldn’t be among the 10 most profitable in the world…
No, government is run by the Civil Service, at least in my country. Politicians run around giving interviews, brushing their hair, making statements, kissing babies, being photographed with ethnic minorities, dodging questions, fudging issues, sometimes just plain lying… Where would they find the time to actually read the legislation on which they vote? The answer is that they don’t, they vote politically (in the most petty sense of the word) in that they vote for what will be most likely to either further their careers or protect them from the boot(ing)…
I don’t think that can, but that won’t stop it trying…
I don’t understand the relevance of your comments here, would you care to expand on them?
On the contrary, the lack of control of the politicians is what promotes people to disrespect politicians.
The fact is people raised on TV have a different view of life as the people not attracted to it. Thus the impulsive, selfcentered nature of people today is because what is available to fill their head with. It’s a relationship of convieance.
We could spark other convienances. Untill we get past the current flaws.
Marketing the flaws to our enviorment is impractical. People don’t see dirrect cause and effect. It’s too abstract for these quaint buisy lives. Sometimes the people on top should help us get motivated. Like a parent who spanks a child for running into traffic. The pain is to associate what can happen for doing wrong. A spoild child will run amuck of these things.