There is a current trend in Philosophy "Critical Thoery". In this trend politics is very often considered.

>>>> In part the theory consists of liberating humans from all oppression and anything that would inhibit freedom, thought and creative ability. <<<<

The questions I'd like to explore regard what changes we might seek to make, in order for a peaceful and equitable global society.

Basically, let's brainstorm and then discuss what ideas or options we come up with.

AS we do this KEEP IN MIND the very loosly defined theory (here) of >>> Critical Thoery. <<<

To begin with, I would consider what things oppress and inibit human freedom, or squash human creativity. What do we need to be liberated from.

Let's make a list and then choose which items to discuss.

I'll start

1. Every country should make an effort to see that no individual is without the necessities and that includes medical and education.

Health is a priority and education follows. Through the extension of these two things much freedom can be found.

Is it possible for these thing to occur? Are there enough resouces between the industrialized countries to make this happen.

Is is feasible and would it make a difference?

So there is my first suggestion. Anyone else?

We want the world
and we want it NOW

We need to go back to horse and wagons - it's the only solution!

PREVENTS CREATIVITY

Being a creative individual I can tell you what inhibits creativity.

Television sucks creativity.
Spectator sports (for the spectator not the player) sucks creativity.

Too much wealth and technology prevent creativity.

No creative techniques are taught in schools, children are brainwashed to be a cog in the wheel... go to college... get a job working for someone else, work all your life, pay taxes, procreate, retire, die.

TO INCREASE CREATIVITY

We need to teach people to be self sufficient and self reliant and self employed business people.

Teach more artistic skills and carpentry and other trade skills in schools.

Education about healthy living and alternative cures.

Less dependence on prescription drugs.

More exercise and physical therapy.

Free education.

JB

any path that requires the governemnt to secure the welfare of the individual will stymie independent expression and innovation.

Motive born of personal initiative produces inexhaustible energy and excitement to reach the intended goal and it is typical of consensus to discourage individual exploration, research, development, creativity, innnovation, etc.

There exists, within every society in its respective and subsequent generations, those individuals with the inherent capacity ti achieve the seemingly impossible and do endeavor to accomplish some great feats in the process. But their complexity and profoundly thorough understanding of the discipline pursued by such individuals finds lack of opportunity and access within societies highly regulated and controlled by the government.

Taxation and revenue enhancing policies for the means of any government to procure such lavish entitlements as listed in the OP cannot be eficient, productive, innovative, universal and equal for all as all are not equal.

Advantage and privilege are unfortunately here with us to stay.

And therein is the "rub".

Were it not for the state, advantage and privilege are earned through entrepreneural enterprise, and in that vain, there is an advantage and privilege to those with access to knowledge, technology and means by sharing in the rewards as input and resources are shared.

Were it for the state, the state is the beneficiary and the state must supply adequate support and means for such endeavors. Again, taxation required, or proceeds from trade developed with the stagte's means. To wit, the state determines the will and the impetus to initiate the enthusiasm of each endeavor.

Rewards are inevitably a consequence of such efforts engineered by a "consensus of state".

Rewards are never equal.

Now then, the disenfranchised and neglected and abused and simple have needs far greater than the capable, but contribute little to the advancement of the state's solvency.

Invariably, they become expendable collateral and a "liability" as opposed to a "credit" to the state.

I do believe I have outlined the extreme difficulty of any "social consensus as state" to
model and procure for itself any benevolent posterity for all, equally.

Human nature forbids it.

I have not even begun to address the problems inherent with corruption and nepotism and "quid pro quo".

Then, of course, the lazy and the criminal mind.

The Unoited States of America is the best model in the history of mankind and it still falls short.

Deficit spending is a national pastime and living on borrowed time, talent and treasure is not without its risks. I know . LOL

If we could get ourselves away from the socialist trends that are steadily insinuating their way into our federal system the US could still be the pinnacle.

The ideal that everyone has access too good medical care, and education is noble, but somewhat naive in that it seems to presume that everyone has a desire to be productive in some capacity.

I don't believe people have an inherent value, and find it reprehensible that I should via compulsion, contribute to the well-being if the listless and willfully dull.

The problem with that idea assumes that every person will remain fit to work and earn a living even in their old age. Social security may not be there for most at the current rate things are going.

I guess we could always go sci-fi and soilent green on everyone and recycle people at the age of 40 making food pellets out of them, or just the ones who are not fit to work... but eeeewwww.

No, I think we should take care of our elders and get better health education, perhaps some kind of healthy eating and exercise programs or any other alternative to drug therapy.

I know that will not happen with the current criminal element of drug pushers running the country now. Both legal and illegal drugs have become world currency.

JB

Yeah... so then we have to get into that sticky mess of defining who is worthy of receiving aid and who is not.

If you work 40-50 years, you should have put enough away to supplement you. If you are rendered incapable of working because of health... I'm sorry for you, but I think it should fall to you and your immediate family, or those close friends that care to donate too your care.

I'm all for private charity. I am not against charity at all, as long as it is my choice to give or not.

Unfortunately, as much as I hate to, I have to agree with this as being a fact of reality.

There are definitely people who are just plain deadbeats. That's a fact of life. The idea of trying to push those people into being creative is not a good idea IMHO. Maybe one thing that needs to be addressed is how we should treat the deadbeats.

I'm certainly not for treating anyone meanly or without compassion. I don't "judge" a deadbeat person to be 'worthless', but there must be some way to accomadate such people without trying to force them into a creative process that they simply aren't cut out for.

It is also true that there are leaders and followers. There no question about it. Some people do not like to lead or take responsiblity. They much perfer to 'serve'. At the risk of being chewed out for this, I feel that a lot of people are attracted to religion for this very reason. It's actually much easier to 'serve' a God then to take on life on their own. They can at least imagine that they are being a slave to another. This relieves them from being 'responsible'. And that can even apply to very active "warriors for God". They can be very outgoing and voiciferious, they are still not repsonsible because they are under the delusion that they are serving someone else (thus the responsiblity does not lie with them as they are mere 'sevants').

>>>> In part the theory consists of liberating humans from all oppression and anything that would inhibit freedom, thought and creative ability. <<<<

The sad truth is that evey individual is not interested in freedom, thought, and creativity. That's a fact of life. In fact, it may very well be true that the bulk of the masses would rather follow than lead. This may well be nature's way of preventing too many hostilities. If everyone wanted to lead that could potentially cause problems.

I think overall our school systems are designed to teach the 'followers'. In fact, often times they reprimand the individuals who see to be 'individually free'. Those people are the exception rather than the rule.

What we probably need is a way to allow the free thinkers to get out of the box of mass followers.

I think what we normally leave that up to the individual parents. Unfortunately it is the individual parents who are dropping the ball, not so much the government.

I personally don't feel that there is really much the government can do (other than provide funding systems for these thing), but usually those funding agencies are in place and available and it's up to the parents to seek them out.

Again, it often comes back to the parents. The resources are usually available, it's just that parents typically lack good parenting skills.

I really don't see it as being a governemental problem to be perfectly honest about it. I see it as being a parental problem.

Just my thoughts.

A "global" society is a scam. For example, when the USA won the war with Germany it was not possible for us to keep control of that nation anymore than it was possible for England to keep control over America. It just doesn't work because of logistics.

I also think that each nation should remain its own laws & rights to rule. We are actually in this global mess on terrorism because of nations banding together & this dumb "global" economy that is more trouble than its worth. It's the only thing that is a drain on economies people & their freedoms.

With the UN right here representing all the countries of the world why have THEY not done anything about stopping the war on terror, or hunger or slavery in the world etc etc.

They are as useless as the idea of a "global" society. Yuk! Yuk! The joke's on us.

BTW...since this is the religion board why don't you stop worrying about the "global" society & thank God for where you DO live & ask Him to continue to keep our nation & bless us instead of tearing it down?

1. Every country should make an effort to see that no individual is without the necessities and that includes medical and education.


i don't think this is the gov't's role, at all.......

This is an individual's responsibility. If the gov't does this "for you"...that act will stifle all creativity....

All these posts have something to offer, however, only one seems to have approached the OP from a more visionary perspective.



Please let me explain my position in this. If we look at the global community at large we find that industrialized countries, are fairly new. We also find, there are many millions of people who are living without the luxeries that those in industrialized states call necessity.

It's been stated that governments should not be in charge of the people's welfare. Then what, may I ask does one consider the purpose of government?

It's been stated that humans have no inherent value, yet if that were the case, than cognition would not be a vital or necessary part of our being and we would be, simply, like any other creature, void of thought and living on instinct.

There seems to be two subjects being discussed and both, I might add, are similarly voiced by an severely American point of view.

Philosophy is a discussion that concerns the broadest questions of the spectrum of humanity possible. If the question is why are we here, one does not assume we are discussing why Americans are in America. We must be discussing "Why are humans on this planet". Understand?

Now with regards to creativity, this is a broad topic that has great effects within the broad spectrum of the human philisophical questions.

Let's begin small.

Is there anyone who cannot see that "teaching/Educating" is the wisest choice of all involved. For one thing, taking the time and resources necessary to teach, and educate those who are not now being so stimulated will find those brilliant minds that Wouldee speaks of. Those minds that might otherwise go untapped and never serve to help those in the community.

Does anyone not understand or agree that being, physically fit, as medically possible, is the best environment in which to "teach/Educate"?

So if man has an inherent value and that value extends through one of two souces, physical and mental attributes, does it not serve all of humanity to make sure that the best of these qualities are give the nurturing necessary to develop them?

To go further we must first discuss these issue and decide when to agree that they are made philisophically sound.

Are you going an another "assumption" that govts. today actually serve people?

QS, at this point in the discussion we haven't yet determined what governemts functions are.

What I'm trying to ascertain is, do we, as humans have a responsibility to see that all our brothers and sisters are relieved from oppressions?

Is it, in fact, the relief of any oppressive forces in a humans life that will add quality to a persons existence and thus to humanity as a whole?

Would we, as a human "global" community not ALL benefit from all our brothers and sisters being physically fit, mentally capable and educationally stimulated?

If those statments can be qualified then we might begin to discuss what those oppressive forces are, what they entail and how they might be allieveated.

Yes, there are enough resources

There are really only 2 kinds of people: The Owners, and the Workers. Those who have power and those who want it.

The Owners are the ones keeping these things from us.They have always lied to the Workers

A short version of the federal govt. role... I actually think it was more limited than this version but could not find it. Maybe someone else could add more.


The federal government of the United States is the centralized United States governmental body established by the United States Constitution. The federal government has three branches: the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Through a system of separation of powers or "checks and balances", each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches.[1] The policies of the federal government have a broad impact on both the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States. In addition, the powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, gives all power not directed to the National government, to the State level.

The seat of the federal government is in the federal district of Washington, D.C.

I'm going to say that I disagree with the above two posts. I believe that every individual has inherent value even if they are not apparent contributers of anything. I will go so far as to say that they are "necessary" although the reason may be a little unclear. It has to do with the 80/20 principle.

Before I post information about the 80/20 principle I will give you my reasons.

Everything has consciousness to a degree in my opinion even if that is not apparent, for example, a tree or a rock. These physical things are made up of atoms. Some of these atoms may not seem to contribute anything but they do. They help make up the mass of the tree. The tree itself does not contribute much except maybe shade and its bit of oxygen that it emits. So even a tree contributes. What does a rock contribute? Probably not much, but we put them in driveway to keep our cars from sinking in mud. So even a rock contribute in many ways.

Now to people. What do the unproductive people contribute? They are consumers. I could go into many things that their presence contributes to the whole but I will just say that they are storehouses of data and information. In the physical world matter stores data for the universal mind stuff.

Now here is the 80/ 20 principle.

**************************************


The "Pareto principle"

A Brief History of the 80/20 Principle

In 1897, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) noticed a regular pattern in distributions of wealth or income, no matter the country or time period concerned. He found that the distribution was extremely skewed toward the top end: A small minority of the top earners always accounted for a large majority of the total wealth. The pattern was so reliable that Pareto was eventually able to predict the distribution of income accurately before looking at the data.

Pareto was greatly excited by his discovery, which he rightly believed was of enormous importance not just to economics but to society as well. But he managed to enthuse only a few fellow economists. Although he could write lucidly on less momentous subjects, his explanation of the "Pareto principle" lay buried beneath windy academic language and dense algebraic formulae.

Pareto's idea became widely known only when Joseph Moses Ju-ran, one of the gurus of the quality movement in the twentieth century, renamed it the "Rule of the Vital Few." In his 1951 tome The Quality Control Handbook, which became hugely influential in Japan and later in the West, Juran separated the "vital few" from the "trivial many," showing how problems in quality could be largely eliminated, cheaply and quickly, by focusing on the vital few causes of these problems.1 Juran, who moved to Japan in 1954, taught executives there to improve quality and product design while incorporating American business practices into their own companies. Thanks to this new attention to quality control, between 1957 and 1989, Japan grew faster than any other industrial economy.

In the United States and Europe in the 1960s, the Pareto principle became widely known as the "80/20 rule" or "80/20 principle." While it is not wholly accurate, this description was snappy and influential. Engineers and computer experts began to use the principle routinely.

The 80/20 principle is an empirical "law" that has been verified in economics, business, and interdisciplinary science. It states that 80 percent of results flow from 20 percent of causes. In other words, most of what exists in the universe—our actions, and all other forces, resources, and ideas—has little value and yields little result; on the other hand, a few things work fantastically well and have tremendous impact. There is no magic in the 80 and the 20, which are merely approximations. The point is that the world is not 50/50; effort and reward are not linearly related.

Most of the universe consists of meaningless noise, which can drown out those few forces that are tremendously powerful and productive. But if you isolate and harness those powerful, creative forces within and around you, you can exert incredible influence.

In 1997,1 wrote The 80/20 Principle,2 the first book on the subject. I showed how the principle could be applied not merely to help corporations drive business results, but also to help individuals improve their lives. I explained how to become effective or happy by realizing the importance of just a few isolated people or things. If you concentrate on the few that work best for you, you can get what you want. You can multiply your effectiveness, and even your happiness.

This idea broke new ground, since nobody had previously linked the principle to individual fulfillment. It struck a chord; as many readers around the world discovered, the 80/20 principle is an extremely useful way to get more out of life.

JB

note:

Since this "law" exists in all of the Universe, I am going to assume it is vital and necessary.

I suppose your theory can be true, but feel there are more believers whose commitment to God is based on being accountable for THEMSELVES and to mankind as a whole.

I think a greater power in ones life is not meant to steer them, but simply to remind them that there are greater responsibilities than self gratification. Does not that in itself qualify as a greater "responsibility"?




I totally agree with this. We are not all designed to be like minded in our aspirations. If everyone owned the company, who would be left to do the work?

That, what each individual strives for, or even just accepts out of life, is so variable, is the only way we have enough parts working together to make this clock tick at all. IMO

Isn't that what college is for? I know even college curriculum comes under attack as being structured for mass consumption. But by this age, the method in which you accept what you are learning and relate it to your own views, has as much to do with what you will get out of it...does it not?

I am not picking on YOU, Abra. Your statements simply drew my attention. I respect your opinions...just sharing mine with you.

Overall, I feel that the idea of a Global Society is just another idealistic essay on world Eden-ization. I think it's sweet to want the whole world to be equal and share the same freedoms and advantages. Do I think it's doable? absolutely not. But please give the kid who wrote it an A before sending them out into the real world.

Didn't the first Garden of Eden create enough chaos...what makes anyone think we could handle the responsibility of one now? Because we have grown wiser from out mistakes, matured into people who respect their neighbor? Or is it because we have learned to respect one another for our religious, racial, societal and even introspective differences?

I am laughing so hard I am typing blind now!




If we could teach the whole world how not to drop their quotes, I will sign up for that class.

If everyone wanted to lead it would be an impossible situation and a blood bath. If every individual inherently wanted to be free, then the atoms in your body would all go flying off in every direction. They would not be cooperating with your whole unified field or taking the direction of their "superiors."

So be grateful that there are many who live to serve. There are people who live to server others or their God, and there are atoms in your body that live to serve you and your universe. They, each one of them are necessary, vital, and needed.

JB