Citizen Jimserac
gmail.com> wrote:>On Nov 21, 2:42 pm, Bob LeChevalier
lojban.org> wrote:>> CitizenJimserac
gmail.com> wrote:>>>On Nov 21, 8:46 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder
hotmail.com> wrote:>>
>>>Bob has interesting things to say
>>>but then he hides behind unstated
>>>philosophies and viewpoints while insulting
>>>the intelligence of the repsondent.
>>
>> You make the fallacious assumption that I have some unstated
>> philosophical position. I don't. I say what I think. I make no
>> attempt to have it be philosophically consistent. If I promote any
>> viewpoint other than the one I am explicitly stating, I cite it.
>
>NO! everyone has a philosophy including you, and if your
>last post to me is any example, you've got some pretty
>well thought ideas which, even if I do not agree,
>are interesting as hell.
A philosophy which makes no attempt to assert self-consistency is not
a "philosophy", and certainly not an ideology.
I KNOW that I entertain contradictory ideas that I cannot, nor do I
attempt to, resolve. That violates the rules of philosophy as I
understand them.
I even make assumptions that contradict other assumptions, depending
on what is convenient for purposes of argument. This violates the
fundamental concept of ideology.
>>>Bob his hiding his fundamental viewpoints,
>>
>> Maybe I don't have any other than what I explicitly express.
>
>Your implicit position involves a , how can I put this,
>DIFFERENT view of our history, but quite an interesting
>one.
But of course, I don't necessarily hold that different view of our
history. I merely entertain it as a possibility. It is useful for
looking at some historical phenomena and making sense of them. But it
is just as wrong as all other historical views, so I use other points
of view when they are useful, even though contradictory to this one.
>>>that regards us as cogs in a great machine - as
>>>a "workforce" to be replaced as cheaply as possible and
>>>to be used for spot wars >under the guise of "patriotism".
>>
>> Government doesn't regard us as any such thing. In fact, governments
>> don't "regard". The people who control the government, and the people
>> who elected those who control the government indeed do "regard" the
>> people as being just the sort of thing you describe.
>
>Well that is quite correct
The people who control the government are "we the people".
You just agreed that we regard ourselves as cogs in a great machine.
And indeed enough of us so regard ourselves, a critical times, so as
to make it a useful way of looking at ourselves for some purposes.
>but was implied in my usage, "government"
>as a collective noun included all that PLUS the abstract conception,
>you will pardon me for calling it "Prussianized" meaning the
>false idea that we exist to somehow "serve" government and the state.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people". The
government exists to serves us. We are the government. We thus exist
to serve ourselves.
Note who I quoted. If it did not exist before the Civil War, then
that critical idea about the nature of government certainly has been a
key concept of American ideals since that little speech over a
graveyard in Gettysburg.
>It is my belief that the most fundamental point of our revolution
>was quite the opposite, that the state exists to serve us, and this
>is QUITE UNIQUE even among western democracies.
But of course that was NOT what the revolution was about. The
revolution was about getting rid of a king who would not respect the
proper limits on government, the violations of which took up almost
all of the Declaration.
>I know
>you do not agree that the Declaration of Independence has political
>force
It has no legal force. Not the same thing.
>but I would hope that you would admit at least that it has
>a philosophical import.
ANYTHING can have philosophical import.
>>>But the "globalist" era destroyed the cogs and outsourced the machine
>>>and now we are here wondering what kind of government ignores
>>>our livelihood, subverts our lives, deceives our finances,
>>>cheats our health and bankrupts our economy
>>>while violating our rights by snooping on us
>>>to prevent "terrorism"?
>>
>> Actually I doubt that most of us are wondering any such thing. You
>> speak only for yourself.
>
>The election of November 2006 says otherwise.
I don't pretend to interpret the Nov 2006 election as saying anything
other than that certain people were elected to office.
There is no way to prove any greater meaning than the simple one, and
it is probably completely wrong to do anything else.
>WE,
>kicked out some republicans, supposedly because of the war
>as a distraction to the real reasons which I said above.
You are doing the supposing. I don't make any such supposition as to
why - at least not in terms of favoring or opposing any particular
ideology.
>Next election, WE are going to kick out lots more incumbents
>of both parties!!!
I'm sure that we will. I am not sure that we know which ones. And I
am quite sure that no one will know WHY we did what we did, because I
don't think most of us have any single reason why, and many of us have
contradictory reasons for electoral decisions.
>It's going to be fun!!!
I see it as being a deep responsibility. Fulfilling my civic duty is
"satisfying", but I don't think of it as "fun".
>>>not the corporations,
>>>not the social scientists, not the lobbyists,
>>>not the military,
>>>but WE THE PEOPLE.
>>
>> "We the people" don't have to do so, since "we the people" already run
>> the government.
>
>Uh uh uh, tsk tsk tsk, I submit to you that whatever is running
>the government now, is most certainly NOT "we the people"!!!!
I contend that you are quite wrong. It just happens that most of the
time "we the people" run things by letting them run themselves. That
isn't just true of how we run government, but how we run all of our
lives.
>> "WE THE PEOPLE" have controlled and subverted it.
>
>This is in part correct as even Gatto admits.
>But what is not admitted is the actual GOALS of the education
>system
There are no goals of "the education system", because there is no
education system.
>which Gatto claims split into two systems,
It started out as 50+ systems and it remains 50+ systems.
>one for the elite rulers
There are no elite rulers. Those who think of themselves as elite and
who can afford it often choose private schools and thus eschew "the
system" that is local to them. But those private schools do not
constitute a system either.
>and one for the "workforce".
We are all the workforce, including the elite.
>I know you think there is NO
>single unified goal and believe that it varies across states
>and regions.
Indeed. And across people within a state, or even in a family. If
you think the kid attending school has the same goals in attending as
his parents, you are truly off in never-never land.
And of course the goals that the kids have are more important than the
goals their parents have, since education is subject to the old adage
about leading horses to water but being unable to make them drink.
lojbab
