Embracing Illegals

Certainly. It is a universal thing too.
Money(economics) will alter or supercede dogma in most instances. Many bias struggles such as religion, race, or nationality are often subsets of class struggle. Profit or fear of economic hardship usually trump other biases because they are more about real benefits or threats as opposed to the ones we make up. If everyone crossing the border drove SUVs and had platinum cards then there would be little concern for bigotry except among the most hardcore. Much of bigotry comes from economics or class and just perverts and perpetuates itself from there.

 

I plan on dying one of these days and then everything will be alright by me. Until then you live your life as best you can. Changing human nature is beyond me. A class war amongst poor and wealthy if won by the poor would create a society that would just degrade into class divisions eventually. If all classes are set as equal and let to go free there will be a natural division amongst people. The problems arise because these divisions unfairly compound themselves for those born into one class or another and are held down or up when the up is lesser than the down. And a false criteria develops among each class as to why they are where they are....and why THEY are where they are. And a just and unjust struggle ensues from both sides.
All the variables to setting things right or even knowing what would be the proper rules for utopia are beyond me. Heaven is a perceived utopia, but even if it is as described I would be hard pressed to spend an eternity there.

Although perfections exist within individuals or small groups of such, they don't within society as a whole. A certain contrariness within our animal nature will always twist us away from even the best of things eventually. The tools and ideas we use to move away from one problem will be interpreted differently by those who are recipients of those fruits and they will not be vigilant against the return of the threat or they will pervert the philosophy that got them where they are into some new problem. Look at those who live in the comfort of society. They will create the silliest of problems for themselves despite having all that they need for a comfortable existence. The conflict and divisiveness is in the root of our nature.

Brainwashing is one of the ways to control things. But towards what philosophy. A vigilant habituation or indoctrination will keep people in check for a time. Even if everyone in a society is getting along and not fighting will that be perfection. Equalizing society and the subjugation of free will solve many problems, but is it better than the conflict. What is the purpose of living free from conflict. Passing the days in passivity until you die. I think sometimes we should be thankful for some of the conflicts we face because they give us a false sense of purpose and importance.

It is tough to grasp the proper balance or the absoluteness of right and wrong. Such things in my opinion are beyond the grasp of even the best of us. Out of this confusion we grasp onto belief systems that provide a simplistic confine of understanding. This creates a comfortable self delusion that exists outside of reality. The confines of the philosophy provide a sanctuary of understanding to the detriment of those truths that exist outside the philosophy.

So in a way it is a false arrogance derived from our slight ability to reason and a limited conscious of our conciousness. We are not as much as we think we are and our advanced intellect should be understood for its vast limits as much as its vast abilities. Meaning that knowing and understanding as an absolute are things that are beyond our grasp. So we are doing ourselves no good in solidifying ourselves to any absloute understanding.

So the simple answer to your question is yes. War is the answer to change the class differences. And not just because I like to see stuff blow up real good.

Top that one Damon.

 

So you are only allowed to be so successful then you have to what? Stop there and not ever earn any more money? Who should decide where in society it goes? To what programs? Should we spread the wealth to those who just lie around their house waiting for someone to pay their bills for them?

I would much rather see a higher tax applied to higher salaries.

Not everyone thinks that way. Who defines what a higher level of dignity is anyway?

Yes every citizen, therefore those who are not citizens need to go back home and fix their own country, or become a complete part of our country and get their citizenship.
You get your voting rights at 18, if you lose them, well try to remember why they were lost.
Free education, then how do you propose we pay the teachers?
Free Heath Care, who pays for that?
Free Housing? That will be paid for how?
And if all this is free, then what incentive is there for people to work? Hey why work when you get your school, house and heath care paid for? What food you say? Oh hell we already have programs to feed people. With a reduced workforce, that would mean lower taxes being paid, which means bankrupt country.
Idealism is nice, but falters seriously when faced with reality.

I partially agree with you, we need a new party in this country. One that is far more moderate and one that puts America first. We need to address the trade deficits, get out of Iraq sooner then later, prison reforms need to be put in place, reduce the need for oil based energy sources and transportation.

 

Well I didn't offer a solution. I was uncertain of any absolute solution or even one I would consider a best solution.

Wanting something does not necessarily make it possible. How do you end poverty. Raping the wealthy and distributing it amongst the masses.
Then what. Once that is gone where to next. Great swaths of the world have always suffered abject poverty. Even before there was vast wealth. Poverty is as much a natural position as it is a condition of society. Some poverty is created or held in place by wealth, but removing wealth will do little to solve poverty and in the end may broaden it. Also wealth or innovation are often created through ambition. Removing the wealth from the ambitious will sap their ambition and there will be less created wealth and less to lay claim to by those who can not or will not create it.

I tend to agree that a fair and equal education is an important step in a fairer society. Providing an equality of education is a fundamental to providing an equality of opportunity. It is also the best investment a society can make in itself. Health care is something I am less confident in. I can agree that ours is broken on many levels, especially in regards to the poor. Maybe it is best for a society to supply at least a basic level of universal healthcare. This is not something I have enough grasp of within myself to even give a hypothesis on. Housing I would put in the same boat. Voting is nice, but don't put too much creedence in the grandness of majority rule. The mob has its limits too. I tend to believe such things as our Bill of Rights and other guaranteed civil rights for individuals are even more important than a vote. Constant checks on power, even for a majority, are of major importance in my view.

Hypothetically, if there is no conflict worth you risking life over does this not make you vulnerable to someone like me who may be willing to kill to get what he wants. Animals will exploit weakness in nature as humans do in society. We are little different in our basic natures. I do not consider their use of power as a condemnable wrong. We tend to pervert it and through distortion justify it within ourselves. If a human will not or can not defend itself and I am in need or desire, why should I not exploit it.

I am not society, I am me. All these societal solutions involve removing individuality and plugging human beings into cogs on the gear of the greater society. While humans as individuals will still exist and will have a tendency to spin off from the whole.

I just have a firm belief that utopia exists only in death or in an abstract concept of the individual mind or within the limited expanse of its creation at the expense or manipulation of other individual concepts.

An idea of prefection is not necessarily functional in real world dynamics. Just to want something or have a vision of the better does not mean it is achievable. The constant conflict, between man and nature and man and man, seems like a permanent state to me.

 

¿Ilegal, tan qué?

 

Well, one comment, and it's about the statement you make about human nature. Thats á pretty old version of darwinism you show there, but it has evolved a bit since. Game theory shows there's all kinds of strategies (what's it called ,Tit -for-Tat, I think) that are beneficial for two organisms when they meet and try to gain as much from the other as possible. Strategies more beneficial than just killing the other. Win-win situation there. When you assume that such strategies probably evolved to being hardwired in humans, you have an explanation for humans building groups, villages and ultimately societies and institutions, instead of remaining single living cavemen. There is a basis for a bit of optimism there, I'd say, explore it.

 

My stating of the one on one conflict was just an attempt at simplification of and idea of conflict to help understand it. It is easier to understand the dynamics of the simple and apply outward to the broad. I meant it to apply beyond simple caveman politics. I was also using it to portray an acceptable option for human interaction in complex society. And to state it as much as a decision of reason as that of basic conflict instinct. If society is confirmed as passive and someone is willing to be aggressive and they can gain more from society by their ability to move its benefits towards the few who possess power then they will. I may not want violence and may want to try for the communal benefits approach, but if that is not working and my benefits as a cog in the wheel are barely sustaining then I should as a reasonable man attempt to pursue any option that may benefit me. It may be fashionable to say we are more evolved than that, but it is also naive and foolishly arrogant to deny violence as an absolute option. Violence is viable whether it be by our nature or our reason.

I'll take that there is more than one option. To a reasoning mind there is the thought that combined skills can be more beneficial than a sort of destroy and pillage scheme. A building of a cross sectioned society is worth the investment. A cultivation rather than a hunt and gather thought process.
But the potential for the other exists and will exist well beyond my lifetime. When individuals and groups meet the potential for conflict exists. In humans this can exist as a conflict of resources as it usually will in nature, but also as a conflict of ideas. If I can't gain from cooperation and I possess power I will gain from power. That can be instinct, but it goes beyond that and can be a reasonable decision. To destroy rather than cooperate when cooperation is less beneficial or limits my perceived potential. In humans we also use and sustain more emotion in our decisions. We also play the games of my religion is better than yours or skin color or nationality, etc. This is our evolution too. Our ability to reason is as detrimental as it is beneficial. Or at least it can be. It gives us potential for greater conflict beyond any Darwinism. Our conflicts go beyond simple natural laws. At the same time we cooperate and benefit from such we also sit within moments of the potential to destroy our existence completely. This threat is not shrinking either. While we have the potential for greater things with compounded progress, we also just came through our most violent century in human history. So as humans, by gathering and the positive growth associated with it we also put ourselves beyond any potential for destruction that exists within the simpler associations in nature. Is this evolution? Higher intelligence? I do believe we have the potential to survive these threats within ourselves against ourselves. But it will exist for millenia to come. We already can destroy ourselves in totality. Will we survive this potential destruction over the course of time it will take to evolve beyond this? And will this survival be secured through passivity or force or a combination? I may want these abstract ideals we conceive that involve the zenith of human potential, but I am not living in an ideal. I live and function in form and not abstract. I think we should work from a point of functional reality towards an ideal rather than forcing an ideal upon reality. We have to accept that there are limits to our wants and that our vision of utopia and human possibility may not be achievable and we should find what is and accept that. We should accept the potential pitfalls and not deny them because they don't fit within the concept of the ideal. Know that we are not better than that just by saying so simply because we can be better. How can we improve or work from within the flaws? The flaws will break you if they are ignored or denied. Our mark made through technology has outstripped our social growth. And I believe we are the same people from however many years ago that we think we are better than now. Now it becomes almost a desperate race of can we catch society up with the accumulated technical achievements that has far outstripped its growth and may have given it the false perception of an equal growth. We live with things that someone as early as my grandfather did not conceive yet I am the same man as he and am not removed whatsoever in reasoning ability from his understandings of the world that would be considered foolish by enlightened modern man. Our destructive and foolish uses of reason are the same now as those who burned people as witches. We shouldn't make the mistake of moving one step away from one concept of our ignorance and then immediately deny its potential to manifest itself within the same or a new form within ourselves.

My experience of man is that he exists more so within delusional denials as he does within truths. He develops tainted understandings and explanations of his place in the world. We have potential that comes with this seeming gift of reason, but we must accept that our reason and its ability to grasp and maintain an understanding of the broader truths of our existence and interactions and the implications of these interactions is not wholly understood by us. Nor is it certain that it can be. I have seen genius in man, but I have seen foolishness within these same men. A few have been able to grasp broader truths, but even the best of us has never grasped a grand depth and heigth on a macro scale. Many of those who do are ignored or their message is equated with that of fools or is perverted by fools who cannot grasp its meaning and is left distorted for those who next experience it.

Well anyway I'll take your message to be optimistic to heart and I'm sure that everything will be just fine. Whatever your concept of just fine may be. I don't necessarily see any greater importance in being optimistic or worrying much about the necessity of man's achievement of any of his concepts of perfection. I don't see a greater meaning of things so I usually don't judge man's movements, be they great or small within the conception or standards of any man be he great or small, through his world with too much importance. Best of luck to you or another in the achievement of your or his concept of the better future of mankind.

 

So you consider middle glass above 43 thousand?

 

Actually we should embrace illegals: with handcuffs! Ship 'em back where they came from...

Our laws on immigration need to be followed... illegals make a mockery of those that follow the law on immigration and threaten national security.

 

Just google the WashPost Sunday magazine special LaRouche is referring to.