Nu ne mai vaccinam copiii,
In schimb le lasam mostenire o gramada de datorii,
Iar atunci cand vine vorba de cheltuit banul public nu reusim sa ne intelegem la imparteala…
Cat o sa mai tina chestia asta oare?
Nu ne mai vaccinam copiii,
In schimb le lasam mostenire o gramada de datorii,
Iar atunci cand vine vorba de cheltuit banul public nu reusim sa ne intelegem la imparteala…
Cat o sa mai tina chestia asta oare?
First of all freedom is a state of mind and only subsequently may become translated (or not) into social reality.
Whenever an oppressor/oppressed relationship exists neither of them is really free, not even the oppressor: he is permanently bound to take care, of sorts, for the oppressed. Otherwise the oppressed would wither away, either literally or by gaining their liberty.
This doesn’t mean Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t right, it still is the duty of whoever feels oppressed to start fighting for liberty, it just puts the onus on both sides of the relationship.
In fact time and time again human history has produced ample proof that as entire societies became freer their individual members fared better and better.
Wealth and technology can only help but cannot replace (perceived) individual liberty.
A rather heated debate is currently going on between ‘specialists’ about how ‘economic fairness’ is influencing growth:
The problem is that most of these ‘specialists’, usually economists or politicians, while sometimes finding interesting facts, rarely stick their heads out of their narrow fields of expertise high enough to notice that too much economic inequality is counterproductive precisely because it creates a relationship of dependency between the haves and the have nots.
Taking care of your dependents uses precious resources that could be better spent concentrating on further development.
This is exactly what Henry Ford had understood and motivated him to double the wages of his employees. This is the sole explanation for why the American economy took off after WWII. More and more individuals were able to stand on their own two feet because the economic climate was good, business thrived AND the wages were decent – without the government or the unions having much to say about this.
Today business people care almost exclusively about the bottom line and the next quarterly report – thus favoring short term results versus sustainable growth, the governments regulate more and more, arrogantly believing that they know better than the (no longer) free market and the union leaders concentrate on gathering more and more clout instead of taking care of the long term interests of their union members.
This byzantine maze does nothing but creates a highly oppressive medium in which everybody is oppressed by everybody else.
And human society, if it is to work properly, needs free cooperation, not generalized oppression.
I don’t remember ever waking from a dream in which I did anything against anybody.
Every one of my dreams were about me achieving something, by my own or as a member of a team.
Then how come so many of us are plotting, when being wide awake, against others of our kind – against some of our brethren even?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam
any one still wandering about how come the Jews managed to survive for so long, against the so long odds as they had to face?
As almost everything else on this world this also can be looked at from two different vantage points.
The disgruntled citizen says: “I know I’m stating/asking the obvious here, but with all the Big Corp. favoritism, what’s the point in the people voting? Big money talks louder than the peons. Fire every one of them- here and elsewhere.”
Yeah, OK, I get your point…but what if those already ‘at the wheel’ understand/interpret the act of non voting as approval of the current state of things/people being discouraged about the possibility of any change being made so they take it as a carte blanche?
So unless more of us actually going to the voting booths and manifesting our will the simple wish that: “I only HOPE that this next election, people will wake the fuck up and quit ALLOWING this to continue.” won’t mean much…
Alternatively, our mere ‘presence’ – even if unhappy about about everybody on the ballot we cancel out vote – means ‘hey, this guys have waken up, maybe we should clean up our act’!
Somebody just asked me:
“People all over the world are all about themselves these days?”
Unwisely so…
Actually it’s nothing wrong about being ‘about one’s self’!
The real problems start only when crossing the divide between one amongst/with others versus one above/against all others…
“Si mai vorbim despre “globalizare”…”
“And we are still speaking about “globalization”…”
“- What’s your opinion about the food shortages in the rest of the world?
– What does ‘food’ mean?
– What’s that a ‘shortage’?
– What’s that ‘the rest of the world’?
– What’s that an ‘oppinion’?”
“- Ce parere aveti despre lipsa de alimente din restul lumii?
– Ce sunt alea ‘alimente’?
– Ce inseamna ‘restul lumii’?
– Ce este aceea ‘lipsa’?
– Ce este aceea ‘opinie’?”
Pai da, vorbim!
Si pe drept cuvant.
Din pacate ‘globalizare’-a asta inseamna deocamdata ca toti alergam ca disperatii dupa bani. In loc sa actionam firesc, sa reactionam la imprejurarile in care ne aflam, incercam, in disperare, sa folosim aceste imprejurari pentru a ne umfla conturile din banci.
Si dupa aceea ne miram de ce a iesit…
Yes we do!
And rightfully so!
Because, until now at least, ‘globalization’ only meant a planet wide treasure hunt. Instead of acting naturally – reacting to the circumstances in which any of us happens to find himself – we desperately/obsessively try to use those circumstances with the sole goal of inflating our bank accounts…
And then we are flabbergasted by the outcome…
Bine, inteleg ca pentru asta ar trebui sa intelegem odata (?) ca bogatia este doar o unealta, ca telul suprem ar trebui sa fie doar ‘supravietuirea’/capacitatea de a evolua si ca astea doua nu sunt chiar identice … dar oare de cate argumente in acest sens mai avem nevoie?
OK, I understand we’d need to understand, once and for all (?) that wealth is nothing but a tool, that the sole reasonable goal is survival/ability to adapt and that these two are not exactly similar… but how many more proof do we still need?