Some sort of synchronicity could be blamed, I suppose, for the fact that I was refreshing myself on an old bit of reading material at the same time that the evening TV news ran a story about one of the subjects in the book I was checking out.
To be more specific, the news story was about people living longer and the resultant possibility of raising the retirement age to ease the amount of government payouts. The book was Looking Backward: 2000-1887, a utopian sci-fi novel by Edward Bellamy, focusing on an American protagonist who went to sleep in 1887 and awoke in 2000 to a socialist paradise. Granted, Bellamy shied away from the word “socialism”, preferring “nationalism” instead, but it’s the same either way. In Bellamy’s 2000, the retirement age was 45, people worked less instead of more, the nation’s wealth and productive output was owned by the government and shared equally among the populace. His ethical socialism presented a non-capitalist America, unburdened from debt by a population mobilized into a workforce that was considered an industrial army.
Such plans typically fall apart in practice when people decide they want to keep what they’ve worked for and want the power to decide what happens to it. That sort of "selfish" attitude might be especially true if you're someone who also produces genuinely special output instead of performing unskilled labor that virtually anyone could do. Likewise, you might start to feel disinclined to work a fifty-hour week if the determination was made that you were only entitled to thirty hours of credit. Like it or not, Bellamy’s book was wildly popular in its time, spawning socio-political movements and communes of 19th century hippies (there's an image). More and more, it seems we’re heading that way. By that, I mean, it seems we’re a society steering toward socializing.
How close do you think we are to writing off capitalism? Can we get everyone working who’s capable? Will providing our needs be enough? How will we take care of our wants? Would everyone having what they need be enough to eradicate most crime? You’ll never be rich or live in luxury, but you won’t be homeless or starving. And you’d have to give up some rights, but you can still…have whatever rights you’re told you can have. Should we keep heading that way or fight to hold on to the fading dream we had? By definition, though, it's got to be insane to think we could even get close to let alone maintain a utopia, right?
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Friday, August 26, 2011
16392--Lowering the Bar
I'm...wondering about us. I'm not just wondering about a selective "us". No, this time, I find myself concerned about the collective "us".
Stop rolling your eyes. This is for your benefit, too.
Our stories are our mythologies. They aren't strict histories, but they are tales of us and our culture. They may be more telling now than any other time we know as we have not only local cultures, but grand global culture as well. Tales of the global culture have grown and changed over the last few decades, with creators and audiences finding comfort in exploring greater levels of detail and emotional depth.
We have largely foresaken simplistic tales for those deemed more realistic. As a result, we have populated our stories with protagonists and antagonists who find themselves sharing more traits with each other. Antagonists who wear the mantle of tragedy or show some quality making them worthy of redemption have become most interesting. Likewise, protagonists are heralded not for the heroic qualities they use to rise above crisis and conflict, but their own flaws over which they find triumph in spite of lest they be deemed lacking of sufficient dimensionality. While we are certain we have gained previously unknown richness in our entertainment, have we done so at too great a cost to ourselves?
We have given ourselves protagonists increasingly willing to embrace internal darkness as part of their nature rather than as a part of their struggle. Flaws have become less the uncertain footing for a hero to guard against and more the traction of his foundation. A character like Superman has been deemed "too good" by many with his heroic ideals considered to be something to which we can no longer relate. Many modern folk have come to champion Batman and Wolverine as examples of those with whom they can find greater comfort because of their darker aspects. What are we saying about ourselves when we find that we're happier dealing with a hero who's a brooding alcoholic willing to take a few shortcuts to win the day than one who's willing to put other people's needs ahead of his own and make the right choices even though they're hard choices? On what side of the line in the sand have we chosen to stand when we find more ready respect for a villain than a hero?
Have we lowered the bar too much? In some ways, it seems we have. I've become concerned for us because it has started to look like we are more comfortable with protagonists and antagonists who seem more realistic because of the challenges they don't represent rather than those that they do. An antagonist we can understand is one we can possibly talk with rather than fight. A protagonist who doesn't stand as too tall a role model, daunting us with lofty aspirations, makes us feel less inadequate but also gives us lower goals for which to reach. Sadly, we're left lost and confused.
Remember the TV series "Heroes"? It started off with decent energy, but lost its way as the most heroic heroes squandered their potential and became too flawed to function. As that went on, the show's most villainous villains had themselves more put together than the heroes to the point that the baffled audience no longer knew for whom to cheer. The show ended quietly, mercifully, as ratings fell along with interest. On this side of the TV screen, we've likewise been battered with years of ridiculous presidential failures. Some have been as simple as maligning English and the image of the office. Others been more blatant machinations like lying to Congress and We the People, having the audacity to question the definition of "is" to avoid answers or engaging in complex criminal activities while investigators and whistleblowers die off in curious ways. Flaws and shortcomings like these will apparently persist as long as we abide them. Are they what we want? We are the ones who've decided to hold people to a lowered standard.
I recently found myself ready to fight over one noted writer's notion that Superman was disliked because of his working-class background while Batman was loved for being a billionaire who beat up poor people, thus representing a wish fulfillment fantasy. My vehement response included a recommendation that said writer had at the least become a victim of his self-professed drug use and could do far worse than to submit himself for psychiatric evaluation. If surveyed regarding his opinions, I will obviously choose the "strongly disagree" option. I don't think we've gone so far afield yet that we've completely lost sight of the "good guys versus bad guys" basics.
In a time when many of us have become more comfortable with celebrating mediocrity and comforting underachievers, however, it seems to be increasingly within reason that we would succumb to this brand of socialism that has us seeking our lowest common denominator. That's the thing about socialism, though: you can bring everybody down, but you can't lift everyone up. It seems odd and sad that many of us have given in to weariness, since we have so long held that our reach should exceed our grasp and aspired to better ourselves. I know, though, that we know better than to merely surrender. Just as satisfaction comes from achieving our goals, it wears on us to fail. We have always set that standard of success as having the will to rise that one last time and to never stop striving to be more than we already are. That's the heroism that blossoms from within us. It fuels our strength to rise, our courage to be unselfish and our will to face our fears. It brings none of us down and can lift everyone up. That is a part of ourselves we must never relinquish or we resign ourselves to always being less than our best.
Oh, sure, a certain level of laziness, settling for less and reclining in comfort holds a basic physical appeal to us. We need it. This allows us to enjoy our rest from our efforts and relax. There's a limit to how much of that we can handle, though. That's the line where outright sloth begins. Reaching for more is inherent in our psyche, a basic part of driving us to improve. Looking at it closely, it still appears to be worth our efforts not to abandon anytime soon. Daring ourselves to dream means not lowering the bar. It means finding the strength to fight evils that are indeed evil and not merely misunderstood, just as it means allowing ourselves to feel worthy of heroes who are better, stronger and faster than we are so that we might learn to fly and continue to achieve ever-greater goals.
Stop rolling your eyes. This is for your benefit, too.
Our stories are our mythologies. They aren't strict histories, but they are tales of us and our culture. They may be more telling now than any other time we know as we have not only local cultures, but grand global culture as well. Tales of the global culture have grown and changed over the last few decades, with creators and audiences finding comfort in exploring greater levels of detail and emotional depth.
We have largely foresaken simplistic tales for those deemed more realistic. As a result, we have populated our stories with protagonists and antagonists who find themselves sharing more traits with each other. Antagonists who wear the mantle of tragedy or show some quality making them worthy of redemption have become most interesting. Likewise, protagonists are heralded not for the heroic qualities they use to rise above crisis and conflict, but their own flaws over which they find triumph in spite of lest they be deemed lacking of sufficient dimensionality. While we are certain we have gained previously unknown richness in our entertainment, have we done so at too great a cost to ourselves?
We have given ourselves protagonists increasingly willing to embrace internal darkness as part of their nature rather than as a part of their struggle. Flaws have become less the uncertain footing for a hero to guard against and more the traction of his foundation. A character like Superman has been deemed "too good" by many with his heroic ideals considered to be something to which we can no longer relate. Many modern folk have come to champion Batman and Wolverine as examples of those with whom they can find greater comfort because of their darker aspects. What are we saying about ourselves when we find that we're happier dealing with a hero who's a brooding alcoholic willing to take a few shortcuts to win the day than one who's willing to put other people's needs ahead of his own and make the right choices even though they're hard choices? On what side of the line in the sand have we chosen to stand when we find more ready respect for a villain than a hero?
Have we lowered the bar too much? In some ways, it seems we have. I've become concerned for us because it has started to look like we are more comfortable with protagonists and antagonists who seem more realistic because of the challenges they don't represent rather than those that they do. An antagonist we can understand is one we can possibly talk with rather than fight. A protagonist who doesn't stand as too tall a role model, daunting us with lofty aspirations, makes us feel less inadequate but also gives us lower goals for which to reach. Sadly, we're left lost and confused.
Remember the TV series "Heroes"? It started off with decent energy, but lost its way as the most heroic heroes squandered their potential and became too flawed to function. As that went on, the show's most villainous villains had themselves more put together than the heroes to the point that the baffled audience no longer knew for whom to cheer. The show ended quietly, mercifully, as ratings fell along with interest. On this side of the TV screen, we've likewise been battered with years of ridiculous presidential failures. Some have been as simple as maligning English and the image of the office. Others been more blatant machinations like lying to Congress and We the People, having the audacity to question the definition of "is" to avoid answers or engaging in complex criminal activities while investigators and whistleblowers die off in curious ways. Flaws and shortcomings like these will apparently persist as long as we abide them. Are they what we want? We are the ones who've decided to hold people to a lowered standard.
I recently found myself ready to fight over one noted writer's notion that Superman was disliked because of his working-class background while Batman was loved for being a billionaire who beat up poor people, thus representing a wish fulfillment fantasy. My vehement response included a recommendation that said writer had at the least become a victim of his self-professed drug use and could do far worse than to submit himself for psychiatric evaluation. If surveyed regarding his opinions, I will obviously choose the "strongly disagree" option. I don't think we've gone so far afield yet that we've completely lost sight of the "good guys versus bad guys" basics.
In a time when many of us have become more comfortable with celebrating mediocrity and comforting underachievers, however, it seems to be increasingly within reason that we would succumb to this brand of socialism that has us seeking our lowest common denominator. That's the thing about socialism, though: you can bring everybody down, but you can't lift everyone up. It seems odd and sad that many of us have given in to weariness, since we have so long held that our reach should exceed our grasp and aspired to better ourselves. I know, though, that we know better than to merely surrender. Just as satisfaction comes from achieving our goals, it wears on us to fail. We have always set that standard of success as having the will to rise that one last time and to never stop striving to be more than we already are. That's the heroism that blossoms from within us. It fuels our strength to rise, our courage to be unselfish and our will to face our fears. It brings none of us down and can lift everyone up. That is a part of ourselves we must never relinquish or we resign ourselves to always being less than our best.
Oh, sure, a certain level of laziness, settling for less and reclining in comfort holds a basic physical appeal to us. We need it. This allows us to enjoy our rest from our efforts and relax. There's a limit to how much of that we can handle, though. That's the line where outright sloth begins. Reaching for more is inherent in our psyche, a basic part of driving us to improve. Looking at it closely, it still appears to be worth our efforts not to abandon anytime soon. Daring ourselves to dream means not lowering the bar. It means finding the strength to fight evils that are indeed evil and not merely misunderstood, just as it means allowing ourselves to feel worthy of heroes who are better, stronger and faster than we are so that we might learn to fly and continue to achieve ever-greater goals.
Monday, May 2, 2011
14886-Give me liberty or die
Awhile back, I was talking with my wife about health care. She related to me someone's proposal to nationalize America's medical care. I suppose this is an issue that's just not going to go away. It's certainly not the first time I've heard it and I doubt it will be the last. The federal government isn't supposed to be involved in this and doesn't have a track record that shows it'll be able to run such a program to our benefit. This isn't to say it can't be done. Many countries have excellent healthcare programs that are nationalized and their people are very happy with them. They do not live in our country. We have a government that once took control of a brothel (through the IRS) and mismanaged it out of business. I can't even begin to fathom the depths of ineptness required to mismanage running a brothel. That alone should make enough of my point, since medical care is supposed to be for the benefit of those receiving care, nationalizing it isn't likely to put it into the best hands.
Our federal government has an instruction book that defines how it's supposed to work. It's called the Constitution. It's the law of the land, but it gets ignored a lot. That's not the way the system is supposed to work. You don't sit down to a board game, play around the rules that everyone's agreed to and expect it to work right. If you don't like it, find another game. Oooh, listen to me, sounding all radical and conservative simultaneously. Face it, we have a lot of rule-breaking politicians in the game. Many seem to want to get into it just to see how much they can cheat the system.
Anyway, with our government being run that way (don't act like it's a surprise), the people who keep getting into it try to meddle in ever more areas outside the set boundaries. With more meddling comes more mess (classic red tape, price increases) and less of people taking care of their own affairs. Unfortunately, people receiving "free" stuff (actually, the stuff of others that's been legislated away from them in a Marxist redistribution of wealth), is one of the great lures of a governmentally run program. Under such relentless socialistic assaults, personal responsibility is very nearly dead. Once the ball gets rolling, people just keep asking the government to do more and more for them. "Somebody should do something!" "There oughta be a law!" Personally, I feel like we have plenty of laws already. I don't get up in the morning and phone a politician to ask how to get through my day. I wouldn't even ask one to hold my wallet for me, let alone housesit. I'm sure not going to ask them to babysit.
One of the ongoing battles involves the efforts to use legislation to protect children from internet and television content. The danger of tarnished innocence is just a click away they tell us, whether it's from a remote control or a mouse. These cries always smack of hyperbole to me and make my eyes roll of their own volition. Whether the dangerous content is on your TV or on your computer, the safeguard is a simple one. Follow: it's your television and your computer. What shows up on them is up to you. You have the right to make those choices. These are rights that have been fought for and it is of criminally tragic proportion to give them up without as much of a fight. If you don't like what's on, change the channel or turn the thing off, but never never ever abdicate your authority away to a bunch of people who can't even handle the things they're already assigned to do.
Likewise, the law and the nature of Freedom saddles you with the burden of making decisions for your children. Anyone attempting to change that should make any responsible adult spew forth bile like a geyser from the depths of his enraged innards. They're your kids watching whatever on your stuff in your home. Should a bunch of strangers you wouldn't let babysit really be responsible for what you can watch? No. The solution is (write this down) that you pay attention to what your kids are doing and watching. No, you don't get to cop out and tell me you're too busy. I pay attention to what my kids are watching on TV, whether we're watching something together or not. I know what's in their video games and sometimes play them with them. They ask for permission to use the computer and are subject to having their shoulders peeked over frequently and randomly.
Blame my parents. Yes, both my parents worked in demanding careers, but I still managed to have home-cooked, balanced meals so often that I barely remember the times it didn't happen. More impressively, that low-incidence of take-out meals occurred even with great New York pizza and Chinese food being readily available. With such dedication came parents who knew what my favorite TV shows were, what music I liked and sometimes even watched Saturday morning cartoons with me. We were also known to actually talk with each other and they encouraged me to read and...Well, the point is, be in control, don't hand it away. Exercise self-discipline and taking charge of your home will be easy.
We have all the local cable channels available and high-speed internet. External media product is piped into our home daily and the only nakedness I see on a regular basis is my wife's. How is this possible? My choice. I click and click and click, yet I don't find myself accidentally staring at hours of erotica. Neither do the kids. Trust me on this. I don't sleep much, so I know. Maybe Congress is keeping me awake with all the noise they make. If only there were some way to keep those government guys under control. There oughta be a law.
Our federal government has an instruction book that defines how it's supposed to work. It's called the Constitution. It's the law of the land, but it gets ignored a lot. That's not the way the system is supposed to work. You don't sit down to a board game, play around the rules that everyone's agreed to and expect it to work right. If you don't like it, find another game. Oooh, listen to me, sounding all radical and conservative simultaneously. Face it, we have a lot of rule-breaking politicians in the game. Many seem to want to get into it just to see how much they can cheat the system.
Anyway, with our government being run that way (don't act like it's a surprise), the people who keep getting into it try to meddle in ever more areas outside the set boundaries. With more meddling comes more mess (classic red tape, price increases) and less of people taking care of their own affairs. Unfortunately, people receiving "free" stuff (actually, the stuff of others that's been legislated away from them in a Marxist redistribution of wealth), is one of the great lures of a governmentally run program. Under such relentless socialistic assaults, personal responsibility is very nearly dead. Once the ball gets rolling, people just keep asking the government to do more and more for them. "Somebody should do something!" "There oughta be a law!" Personally, I feel like we have plenty of laws already. I don't get up in the morning and phone a politician to ask how to get through my day. I wouldn't even ask one to hold my wallet for me, let alone housesit. I'm sure not going to ask them to babysit.
One of the ongoing battles involves the efforts to use legislation to protect children from internet and television content. The danger of tarnished innocence is just a click away they tell us, whether it's from a remote control or a mouse. These cries always smack of hyperbole to me and make my eyes roll of their own volition. Whether the dangerous content is on your TV or on your computer, the safeguard is a simple one. Follow: it's your television and your computer. What shows up on them is up to you. You have the right to make those choices. These are rights that have been fought for and it is of criminally tragic proportion to give them up without as much of a fight. If you don't like what's on, change the channel or turn the thing off, but never never ever abdicate your authority away to a bunch of people who can't even handle the things they're already assigned to do.
Likewise, the law and the nature of Freedom saddles you with the burden of making decisions for your children. Anyone attempting to change that should make any responsible adult spew forth bile like a geyser from the depths of his enraged innards. They're your kids watching whatever on your stuff in your home. Should a bunch of strangers you wouldn't let babysit really be responsible for what you can watch? No. The solution is (write this down) that you pay attention to what your kids are doing and watching. No, you don't get to cop out and tell me you're too busy. I pay attention to what my kids are watching on TV, whether we're watching something together or not. I know what's in their video games and sometimes play them with them. They ask for permission to use the computer and are subject to having their shoulders peeked over frequently and randomly.
Blame my parents. Yes, both my parents worked in demanding careers, but I still managed to have home-cooked, balanced meals so often that I barely remember the times it didn't happen. More impressively, that low-incidence of take-out meals occurred even with great New York pizza and Chinese food being readily available. With such dedication came parents who knew what my favorite TV shows were, what music I liked and sometimes even watched Saturday morning cartoons with me. We were also known to actually talk with each other and they encouraged me to read and...Well, the point is, be in control, don't hand it away. Exercise self-discipline and taking charge of your home will be easy.
We have all the local cable channels available and high-speed internet. External media product is piped into our home daily and the only nakedness I see on a regular basis is my wife's. How is this possible? My choice. I click and click and click, yet I don't find myself accidentally staring at hours of erotica. Neither do the kids. Trust me on this. I don't sleep much, so I know. Maybe Congress is keeping me awake with all the noise they make. If only there were some way to keep those government guys under control. There oughta be a law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)