Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-06-2009, 10:39 PM   #26
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,353
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
The fact is, when the Soviet Union existed, they were one of the few societies with more prisoners than the US.
But that is not what you said originally, you said,

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
We are bigger imprisoners than the old Soviet Union.
So which fact are you using for the basis of your argument?

David

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 10:44 PM   #27
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,353
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Funny all these countries you dis so readily have freer societies than we do, better health, longer life expectancy, etc.
The only countries I've dissed in this thread have been the former Soviet Union and Communist China and they do not have freer societies than the U.S.

David

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 08:45 AM   #28
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
...Funny all these countries you dis so readily have freer societies than we do,
Wow, you really think Iran & North Korea & all those other communist countries & dictatorships have a society more free than ours?? Wow.... Really???

Quote:
...better health, longer life expectancy, etc.
Oh, okay, that makes living in slavery okay then. I see what you are all about now.

Quote:
...Of course...it takes a little intelligence to recognize things like that and a little honesty to admit them...so I'm not expecting you to get it...
Spoken like a true liberal.

By the way, what is the life expectancy of someone living in North Korea? China??
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 08:57 AM   #29
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

China: total population: 73.47 years
country comparison to the world: 105
male: 71.61 years
female: 75.52 years (2009 est.)

N. Korea: total population: 63.81 years
country comparison to the world: 170
male: 61.23 years
female: 66.53 years (2009 est.)

S. Korea: total population: 78.72 years
country comparison to the world: 40
male: 75.45 years
female: 82.22 years (2009 est.)

US: total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)

When you look at Communisim, there might be some truth to this.

However, it appears that countries with a socialist/democratic balance seem to do much better.

Canada, France, and Sweden 8,9,10 respectively. Germany #32, Spain #23.

I would argue that both the extremes of both Capitalism and Communism as economic ideologies hurt people in general.

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 09:24 AM   #30
Marc Abrams
Dojo: Aikido Arts of Shin Budo Kai/ Bedford Hills, New York
Location: New York
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,302
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Jon Reading wrote: View Post
I believe that a [successful] society gathers a group of productive citizens. In a [successful] society structure, successful members are capable of supporting less fortunate members:
1. The dependency of less fortunate members upon more fortunate members is a relationship of charity, not right. No person has a right to demand of another. Any person may ask for charity from another.
2. Society members must contribute to overall productivity for society to function. Less productive members results in a less productive society.

With those two points in mind, I think civilized societies can support its less fortunate. I think those less fortunate have an obligation to replay their charity though by becoming more productive.

Since the thread starter is based in the US, I'll make my observations there:
> The economic burden of citizens (taxes) is carried by the elite class - Something like the top 25% provide almost 80% of the tax collection.
> The lower members of society are not being productive. Collectively, the federal government spends crazy money on welfare programs. In addition to financial support, we have many individuals in prision who are not productive; we also have 10% unemployment nationally.

At some point our need for charity will overburden those capable of providing that charity. That scares me.

So my answer - We should provide charity for those in need. We should limit that charity so as not to overburden the society.
John:

The more important question is what is the "help" that is provided? Welfare and handouts do not work. In order to better understand how to answer that question, a person really does need to spend time working in those communities in order to understand where the communities are at and what might actually help. Those who typically "create" the help from Washington have the least understanding and many have a vested interested in writing in "poison pills" so that things really do not get better.

President Clinton had the right idea with "Workfare." The issues are deep and complex and should involve a lot more than charity and hand-outs. Solutions need to clearly identify problem areas that prevent healthy empowerment of the people so that they can help to create opportunities within their communities. Charity and handouts are kind of like throwing fish food in a pond every day. After a while, the fish simply adapt and wait for the handout. We can then call the fish lazy and unmotivated.....

Marc Abrams
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 09:58 AM   #31
jonreading
 
jonreading's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido South (formerly Emory Aikikai)
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,153
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Marc-

I think you are spot on. Right now the federal government spends significant money on aid programs and the results do not seem impressive. I am a small gov man and I do not believe the federal government should manage aid programs. I think aid programs should be run at the state level, county level, or even local/city level. The closer to the individual, the closer to seeing the problem - not to mention less waste in administration.

I prefer to directly support charities that are involved in implementing solutions on the ground. I also enjoy working through my church and local shelters. Toys for tots (although they may receive some kind of government assistance), Salvation Army, Christmas gift assistance programs, etc. are all great programs that are not government funded. Not only do I get involved in something more than writing a check, I can see the results of helping others.

I guess the disspointing thing about these coversations is that when we talk about "rights" to things we see that as something that either comes from the government or does not exist. We sometimes forget about all the other non-government charities that work for those in need because charity is a bad word.

Last edited by jonreading : 10-07-2009 at 10:03 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:20 AM   #32
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,353
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

I found this comparison from an article written by Walter Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams)

It is a comparison of Gross Domestic Product per Capita a country has ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GD...a_IMF_2008.png) and the amount of freedom a country has. (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template...=363&year=2007)

Freedomhouse used the following parameters to determine freedom;

"The Freedom in the World survey provides an annual evaluation of the state of global freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey measures freedom—the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination—according to two broad categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that the countries with the highest Gross Domestic per Capita also has the highest degree of freedom.

David]

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:46 AM   #33
Marc Abrams
Dojo: Aikido Arts of Shin Budo Kai/ Bedford Hills, New York
Location: New York
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,302
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Jon Reading wrote: View Post
Marc-

I think you are spot on. Right now the federal government spends significant money on aid programs and the results do not seem impressive. I am a small gov man and I do not believe the federal government should manage aid programs. I think aid programs should be run at the state level, county level, or even local/city level. The closer to the individual, the closer to seeing the problem - not to mention less waste in administration.

I prefer to directly support charities that are involved in implementing solutions on the ground. I also enjoy working through my church and local shelters. Toys for tots (although they may receive some kind of government assistance), Salvation Army, Christmas gift assistance programs, etc. are all great programs that are not government funded. Not only do I get involved in something more than writing a check, I can see the results of helping others.

I guess the disspointing thing about these coversations is that when we talk about "rights" to things we see that as something that either comes from the government or does not exist. We sometimes forget about all the other non-government charities that work for those in need because charity is a bad word.
Jon:

Where I guess I begin to diverge from your perspective has to do not with the size of government, but with the corruption of government. A government is suppose to govern, regulate ...to protect the best interests of it's citizens (and not it's corporations or other legal entities). These entities have a vested interested in creating a government that fails to do it's job adequately. Could you imagine if the corporations were well regulated by our government? That is why their undue influence at all levels of government is insidious and destructive. If the argument now changes to smaller government because it cannot work well, then the corporations continue to unduly influence the process to their obvious benefit.

Al Gore, while he was a genuine A-hole, had the right idea in that we should demand that government run as efficiently and effectively as businesses should. That will not happen as long as the prostitutes, sorry "elected" officials are looking towards non-citizen entities to make their lives so nice and cushy.

I have no problem with a well-run, efficient and effective program being run at any level of government or private enterprise. Unfortunately, the higher up the chain you go, the more corrupted and useless our officials have become. That even includes our justices.

Marc Abrams
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:03 AM   #34
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

'Efficient govt program' ...

Interesting calculus for determination of efficiency. Dollars in versus dollars (or value) out-just how to measure efficiency? How many dollars going into a program is pretty easily found from many sources. Value is much more difficult to figure. How much value is obtained from dropping bombs? How much value is obtained from helping the unfortunate?

Our govt (in the US) is charged with providing for the common defense and the general welfare (amongst other things) but it is not stipulated how these are to be done nor in the relative 'weight' of each component so why complain about a lack of 'balance' when none is required?

Note that the common defense does not mean only the armed forces (note the constitutional limit of two years without continued congressional support).

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:14 AM   #35
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
So which fact are you using for the basis of your argument?
We "are" bigger imprisoners than the old Soviet Union. We "are" and they "were."

In any case, we are definitely bigger imprisoners now than Russia. So slice it any way you like: in today's world, "the land of the free" has more people in prison than any other industrialized 'free' nation on the earth.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:16 AM   #36
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
The only countries I've dissed in this thread have been the former Soviet Union and Communist China and they do not have freer societies than the U.S.
I'm referring to the nations I mentioned: France, England, Canada, all of which have been widely disparaged for their "socialized" health care systems in defense of our corporate system.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:18 AM   #37
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
Wow, you really think Iran & North Korea & all those other communist countries & dictatorships have a society more free than ours?? Wow.... Really???
France, England, Canada, Netherlands, Japan. Freer societies, longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality, mostly thanks to the American Republican Party.

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
Spoken like a true liberal.
No. Just true.

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
By the way, what is the life expectancy of someone living in North Korea? China??
You're the expert. I'm talking about free nations.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:26 AM   #38
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
it appears that countries with a socialist/democratic balance seem to do much better.

Canada, France, and Sweden 8,9,10 respectively. Germany #32, Spain #23.

I would argue that both the extremes of both Capitalism and Communism as economic ideologies hurt people in general.
Exactly. I've always been a capitalist. I believe in the ability to make money freely, but not without limits. When capitalism pushes beyond all limits, as we saw during the Bush years, it's just like anything else that grows explosively, without control and without regard to the host organism in which it grows: cancer. Our problem in the US is that we've developed cancerous capitalism in the US and it has seriously eroded all areas of healthy life.

Some folks see which side the bread is buttered on and sycophantically serve the interests of the super-wealthy in the naive belief that they, too, will join those ranks by working hard at the car company or the airline or wherever they go in their cars with the W stickers on the back. And they vote as they're told to vote and the wealth of the nation concentrates even more thoroughly in the hands of the super-elite. Which what totally sank our economy and resulted in landslide victory for the Democrats in Congress and the White House.

The people are bound to swing back, eventually, to a more "conservative" position, but maybe only after the Republican party has been replaced by something a heck of a lot smarter and less corporate-owned-and-operated.

Thanks.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:28 AM   #39
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Marc Abrams wrote: View Post
Charity and handouts are kind of like throwing fish food in a pond every day. After a while, the fish simply adapt and wait for the handout. We can then call the fish lazy and unmotivated.....
"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

True, but isn't it crazy how some people can only understand that in an either/or context?

If the man needs food, then give him a fish and teach him to fish.

Your deep insights are well appreciated.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:29 AM   #40
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

I wonder if this result to which David Skaggs cited reflects the definition of "freedom" and "rights."

This definition of freedom sound pretty much like the classical liberal model (now recast as libertarianism); freedom from political control by the state and freedom to associate with others for private, commercial, and public purposes.

At the time of their emergence in the Eighteenth Century, these concepts expressed the aspirations and grievances of European (and colonists abroad) who owned property. They struggled to prosper in an emerging capitalist economy still encapsulated in the cocoon of monarchical and often absolutist states.

These classical concepts remain central and crucial to the bundle of ideas that I would include under the aegis "freedom;" but I think some minimal freedom from want should and must be considered a societal commitment too. Not only from a moral perspective, but a self-interested one.

I know the idea at the heart of this thread must strike some as "socialist." Indeed, there are countries, including if I recall correctly China, that have defined "freedom" to include prominently the idea of freedom from physical want.

Irrespective of how well or poorly the Chinese government has provided this sort of freedom to its people (much less other sorts), the inclusion of this idea as a "human right" makes immanent sense if you understand a little about Chinese history beginning around the time of the Taiping Rebellion of the mid-Nineteenth Century, when whole swaths of the Country were depopulated by successive wars, famine, disease, and social disintegration.

I also believe that it's pretty clear what kind of society emerges when terms like liberty and equality are understood solely as those ideas originally were intended, including the right to resist any governmental infringement on property ownership and use. (Except, perhaps to protect other property rights or, as illustrated in the U.S. Supreme Court's "Slaughterhouse" case, in the legitimate exercise of limited "police powers" to protect the common good.)

History suggests such a society will develop great differences in wealth, influence and opportunity -- de facto social stratification.

Ironically, moreover, while the emergence of a stable middle class is critical to the political and social stability of advanced industrial or post-industrial capitalist societies, the emergence of the middle class has been midwifed in substantial part by governmental infringements against the classically defined "freedom" to own property.

Examples include laws, resisted in this country until the devastation of the Great Depression, surrounding issues such as minimum wage, working conditions, tax policy, governmental spending, and social welfare programs.

I hope this Country comes to appreciate again the value of these kinds of protections for our society as a whole, and moves away from the "lifeboat logic" of recent years that declares another person's physical survival to be none of my concern.

FWIW.

cdh

Last edited by C. David Henderson : 10-07-2009 at 11:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:42 AM   #41
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Jon Reading wrote: View Post
I guess the disspointing thing about these coversations is that when we talk about "rights" to things we see that as something that either comes from the government or does not exist. We sometimes forget about all the other non-government charities that work for those in need because charity is a bad word.
Plenty of good points, Jon, but who sees "rights" as "something that either comes from the government or does not exist"?

We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but those are not all the rights our Creator has given us (and though this was written in the US Declaration of Independence, it was written as a statement of the universal nature of humanity).

The problem in the scenario you have given is that you attach no level of responsibility to those on the upper end of the economy and very little other than responsibility to those on the lower end. In other words, all rights for the wealthy and no responsibility. And while you protest the tax burdens of the super rich, you neglect to note that those people own virtually everything in the United States. Therefore, they accrue the far greatest benefits of the society to themselves and should pay the greatest price. And they still come out thousands of times better off than those on the lower end.

That super elite also has the greatest degree of control over the social structures within which the less privileged must live and operate. They control the laws, the schools, the courts, the businesses and they profit by everyone else's use of those systems. They also create the social conditions under which "the land of the free" has more people in prison today than any other industrialized "free" country in the world. Their policies separate families and condemn young people to lives without fathers in communities where very little evidence of hope and opportunity are to be found. Sure, some individuals can overcome that. Theoretically, any individual could, but mostly they languish.

So it's not a clean cut matter of personal choice to be rich or impoverished. As much as we know that an individual's choices can lead him to a better life, it's not at all surprising that millions of very poor people never learn that.

Best wishes.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:44 AM   #42
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Marc Abrams wrote: View Post
Where I guess I begin to diverge from your perspective has to do not with the size of government, but with the corruption of government. A government is suppose to govern, regulate ...to protect the best interests of it's citizens (and not it's corporations or other legal entities). These entities have a vested interested in creating a government that fails to do it's job adequately. Could you imagine if the corporations were well regulated by our government? That is why their undue influence at all levels of government is insidious and destructive. If the argument now changes to smaller government because it cannot work well, then the corporations continue to unduly influence the process to their obvious benefit.
You leave nothing unsaid. Very well done.

Thanks.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 11:56 AM   #43
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
David Henderson wrote: View Post
I wonder if this result to which David Skaggs cited reflects the definition of "freedom" and "rights."

These classical concepts remain central and crucial to the bundle of ideas that I would include under the aegis "freedom;" but I think some minimal freedom from want should and must be considered a societal commitment too. Not only from a moral perspective, but a self-interested one.
Great post, David.

Especially that last bit above.

Look at economics as we look at health. It's in our best interests to prevent pandemic flu because if we don't, we and our families may die. How stupid is it to refuse to help someone else when his problem could so easily become our own?

Just the same, failing to educate our citizens and failing to provide opportunity (while taking fathers from the home and imprisoning them) guarantees that they will mostly fall into the lowest of ways and end up endangering everyone.

Many people have pointed out how it is in our best interest to fight AIDS in Africa because of the vast numbers of children left orphaned and homeless when their parents die of AIDS--not because we care about the orphans, but because we understand that they may well be swept up in militant causes and organizations such as Al Quaeda and Taliban.

Of course, it's not good to have people who live off the government entirely, but why only focus on the poor who live off the government? They have wretched lives at best and are targeted by right-wingers as the cause of all trouble, while the super-wealthy get even more benefit from government and use their advantages to further exploit and weaken the lower classes.

Thanks!

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 12:08 PM   #44
Keith Larman
Dojo: AIA, Los Angeles, CA
Location: California
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,604
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Assumptions...

I heard a commercial yesterday for Meg Whitman. She is starting up her campaign for governor here in California. Ms. Whitman served as CEO of Ebay beginning when it was a startup and helped "grow" Ebay to the powerful corporate entity it is today.

Anyway, the commercial I heard trumpeted her Corporate roots. How she can "run a business". I remember Romney running a similar campaign.

But it did get me to thinking... Where does the assumption come from that a state (or any government) *should* be run like a company. Sure, certain aspects I can agree with. Efficiency issues, issues of identifying wasteful activities. But is the overall model really the same? Or even remotely close?

It seems to me in the last few decades we've gotten onto a track of saying that government *should* run like a business.

The real question is "what is the role of government". Few argue about government providing law enforcement and various other "public services". So we have the military and provide them with health insurance coverage (which I think we should before anyone starts lobbing grenades at me). No one screams "socialism" at this. And few really question that such things are part of the responsibility of government. We also provide education for our children (although in many areas the quality of that education is severely lacking -- we work very hard to keep our one child in a private school due to the loud sucking sound that is the Pasadena Unified School District). We have a semi-government run postal system. Social Security. Medicare. And on and on. It seems almost patchwork at times.

So now we look for "business leaders" to fix our problems. And many run on these platforms of being successful "business people". But is the government really a business? Isn't government supposed to be about providing those things we feel *should* be done by government for our common good? Yes, rooting out inefficiency and redundancy is a good thing, but isn't the "bottom line" different here?

Anyway, just a random thought after hearing a political advert.

My position is that we as a society do have some responsibilities to our fellow citizens. Government is there specifically for the purpose of providing those things to society that we deem important to be done for the benefit of everyone. To me that means education. Infrastructure (roads, highways, schools, etc.). And it would mean providing a bare bones basic health insurance option individuals could choose to buy into (given the tremendous drain uninsured people have on the system in general).

Bah, this could go on forever. I'm gonna go work instead. Gotta pay my skyrocketing health premiums.

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 12:29 PM   #45
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
Assumptions...

I heard a commercial yesterday for Meg Whitman. She is starting up her campaign for governor here in California. Ms. Whitman served as CEO of Ebay beginning when it was a startup and helped "grow" Ebay to the powerful corporate entity it is today.

Anyway, the commercial I heard trumpeted her Corporate roots. How she can "run a business". I remember Romney running a similar campaign.

But it did get me to thinking... Where does the assumption come from that a state (or any government) *should* be run like a company. Sure, certain aspects I can agree with. Efficiency issues, issues of identifying wasteful activities. But is the overall model really the same? Or even remotely close?

It seems to me in the last few decades we've gotten onto a track of saying that government *should* run like a business.

The real question is "what is the role of government". Few argue about government providing law enforcement and various other "public services". So we have the military and provide them with health insurance coverage (which I think we should before anyone starts lobbing grenades at me). No one screams "socialism" at this. And few really question that such things are part of the responsibility of government. We also provide education for our children (although in many areas the quality of that education is severely lacking -- we work very hard to keep our one child in a private school due to the loud sucking sound that is the Pasadena Unified School District). We have a semi-government run postal system. Social Security. Medicare. And on and on. It seems almost patchwork at times.

So now we look for "business leaders" to fix our problems. And many run on these platforms of being successful "business people". But is the government really a business? Isn't government supposed to be about providing those things we feel *should* be done by government for our common good? Yes, rooting out inefficiency and redundancy is a good thing, but isn't the "bottom line" different here?

Anyway, just a random thought after hearing a political advert.

My position is that we as a society do have some responsibilities to our fellow citizens. Government is there specifically for the purpose of providing those things to society that we deem important to be done for the benefit of everyone. To me that means education. Infrastructure (roads, highways, schools, etc.). And it would mean providing a bare bones basic health insurance option individuals could choose to buy into (given the tremendous drain uninsured people have on the system in general).

Bah, this could go on forever. I'm gonna go work instead. Gotta pay my skyrocketing health premiums.
This is an essential Republican Myth That Government run as a business is somehow "better" than government run as a "social obligation or civic duty."

The Author Thomas Frank specifically address this folly in his book "The Wrecking Crew"

Check out his interview with Bill Moyers:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/bl...th_thomas.html

Meg Whitman WILL NOT be getting my vote...I am tired of the so called "efficiencies" of private business wogs running the government. All private business has done over the last 30 years is to vastly enrich themselves at taxpayer expense and almost completely destroy the faith Americans used to have in their system of Government.

William Hazen
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 12:45 PM   #46
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Keith Larman wrote: View Post
Assumptions...
...My position is that we as a society do have some responsibilities to our fellow citizens. Government is there specifically for the purpose of providing those things to society that we deem important to be done for the benefit of everyone.
And the very word "govern" contains the concept of control and limitations. What are they supposed to limit? Not personal freedom, but exploitation. So there would be a level at which business would be left completely alone to do as it must.

However, as William Hazen also pointed out, business will eagerly go very far beyond that level and there is where some "government" is needed. And that is the function of "government." To protect the general welfare from the purely self-interested ones who will exploit others to death and poverty if they, themselves are not "governed" with limitations. Ergo, banking regulations.

Some dimwit recently claimed (again) people buying houses they couldn't afford caused the recent meltdown of our economy. But no person can buy a house they can't afford unless someone loans them the money. It was the mortgage brokers working for fees and commissions, then selling the mortgages to others, that inflated the bubble that burst and left us in free-fall. It was the investment houses paying multi-million-dollar bonuses to top people while selling poison investments to the public that really pumped it up. It was a whole incestuous writhing mass of greed from the top down that put us in such a bind. Otherwise, why did Stephen Green, head of HSBC, say this:

"Mr Green, in Istanbul for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, admitted the banking industry collectively owed the world an apology for the financial crisis."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8293981.stm

Healthy business is part of the community. A grocery store on the corner where local people can walk to get groceries, where the owner lives in the community and provides jobs to other people in the community, and maybe credit to his customers. That's a real win/win situation in which the business and community are interdependent. But in the modern world, business is corporate and "the community" is mostly defined by bank accounts and money flows, leaving no concern for the people on the little local streets living their daily lives. Such big businesses will shut down the little local grocery stores and hardware stores, etc., in an ever-progressing win/lose strategy that leaves them ever richer and real people ever poorer.

And then the corporations control the elections and the politicians and therefore the government. And that is Cancer Capitalism.

Thanks to you both.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 06:24 PM   #47
SeiserL
 
SeiserL's Avatar
Location: Florida Gulf coast
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,888
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

IMHO, societal responsibility is a two way street. Isn't it?

Lynn Seiser PhD
Yondan Aikido & FMA/JKD
We do not rise to the level of our expectations, but fall to the level of our training. Train well. KWATZ!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 06:51 PM   #48
Toby Threadgill
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 166
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Hi,

Does this sound somehow relevant?

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

- Franklin D. Roosevelt
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 07:23 PM   #49
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Quote:
Toby Threadgill wrote: View Post
Hi,

Does this sound somehow relevant?

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Hi Tobs
While true, I think the real dilemma we are facing is that the Senate and congress are for sale. I see no reasonable way to fix it either. I think nothing delights them more than seeing Conservatives and Liberals polarize every issue. Why? It keeps the issues divided and the money pouring in without anyone realizing both sides are on the take.
Due to the nature of my business I deal with wealthy people quite a bit. I had a client of mine (lets call him David) tell me a story once of being on his boat with two Senators and two Congressman. After they made their deal, The democratic senator said to him "David, if the people of this country ever knew what we were doing in D.C. they would come down and kill us all. Not long after; bing, bing, bing, three major projects occur benefiting him personally-one underwritten with state funds. Who got it done. It just so happens it was the the democratic Senator....this time.
What makes the situation so dire, is that there is no one group that is guilty and can be pointed to. There is a diversity of special interests both public and private, lobbying and/ or paying off the ones who are in charge, and who make the laws and approve the spending of our money. And they are the ones who are corrupt.
I don't trust anyone of them-as a group. A fool can can see $60M being spent to get a job paying $250K and know something is desperately wrong. But on it goes. I don't see the country ever coming together to jointly face the one overiding issue that continues to erode our countries best efforts.
I don't think we get a clear picture of just what we are capable of doing with the delicate balance of creating safety nets, and programs for support, while leaving enough incentive for those with creative energy and drive to be rewarded over those who do not sped as much effort to succeed.
Human nature is best revealed in rewarding hard work, striving and charity. The struggle is how to reward the one, support the other, and not remove incentive.
Cheers
Dan

Last edited by DH : 10-07-2009 at 07:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 07:47 PM   #50
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Societal Responsibility

Edit:
I don't think we get a clear picture of just what we are capable of doing with the delicate balance of creating safety nets, and programs for support, while leaving enough incentive for those with creative energy and drive to be rewarded over those who do not spend as much effort too succeed.
Human nature is best revealed in rewarding hard work, striving and retaining a charitable heart for those who need help.
But that is a very simplistic view. There are people who have great ideas and money to support the implementation of those ideas, for the public good-that get to "influence" (through advertising dollars) television, culture, politicians, public policy, not only to benefit them financially but any interests they may happen to hold dear.
And none of that is reserved for conservative or liberal politics. It's money politics.
The struggle to reward the one, while supporting the other, and not removing incentives nor offer unfair advantages to any one, select group will go on because our system is broken, and those who are supposed to fix it are the cause.

Cheers
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Power and Compassion bkedelen General 32 06-28-2008 07:14 AM
Responsibility: Teacher's or Student's? akiy Teaching 35 03-03-2006 12:31 PM
The Nage/Uke Dynamic - Guidelines senshincenter General 47 02-20-2006 06:20 PM
Social responsibility vs individualism ian Spiritual 19 02-17-2006 01:16 PM
Training while pregnant WuMarci Training 9 05-07-2005 12:13 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:31 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate