The modern man
- Thread starter aggravatedfarmer
- Start date
- Status
Actually, yes. The Romans were who we modeled our government on... with some adjustments.
Ha, yes, I thought that a young codger was what defines a hipster, guys under 50 with beards and old man hats.
I myself, mostly keep to myself. I don't like going out to much. I'm very much a Libertarian Capitalist. I believe in hard work and that I am responsible for myself and family. I do not want someone to cater to me.
Skinny jeans squish my nuts which means I will never reach "Ultra Hipster" status, so why even try?
BwaHaHaHaHa!!! When I clicked on Captainprophesy's link for Thrillist, it popped up: "Easy there, grandpa, looks like you're rocking an outdated version of Internet Explorer". Given the current discussion, that is pants-crappingly hilarious. (It's a work computer, so, you know...)
Hipsters, hippies, mods, etc. are simply kids (a mental as well as a physical state) finding comfort in a group, trying to find where they fit in life. It's nothing new and certainly not worth being concerned with. But, people being people, the fear (perhaps discomfort is a better word) of those who think or look different than us is also a natural reaction.
We, as humans, are always distrustful and approach with caution or derision anything which makes us uncomfortable. Me, I like to have a concrete reason for disparaging someone. I need to think it through a bit, develop a logic reason and not simply have a knee jerk reaction to something different or uncomfortable.
This is not to say that I never have a knee jerk reaction. I do sometimes trust my instincts or initial observation and react with no valid reason for doing so. Guess that makes me human, as well as embarrassed when I catch myself being purely reactionary.
We, as humans, are always distrustful and approach with caution or derision anything which makes us uncomfortable. Me, I like to have a concrete reason for disparaging someone. I need to think it through a bit, develop a logic reason and not simply have a knee jerk reaction to something different or uncomfortable.
This is not to say that I never have a knee jerk reaction. I do sometimes trust my instincts or initial observation and react with no valid reason for doing so. Guess that makes me human, as well as embarrassed when I catch myself being purely reactionary.
Not only that, but based on your posts in this forum, you tend to disparage practices and ideas more than people.
metal: My most serious shortcoming, as I see it, is poor or lazy behavior bothers me. I have low expectations of people in general but, endeavor to treat all I meet civilly and with unearned respect. Now, whether they can keep that respect is entirely up to them.
US Government: There was democracy for certain residents in Rome, for the ruling class most especially. Rome also had avenues through which people could gain full citizenship and therefore a voice in governing. So, not a democracy but a Republican Democracy. Only certain people could participate in governing, not everyone.
Jefferson saw the US as a republic in the sense that land ownership would be the defining element for who was to be in the ruling class as we did not have "hereditary titles" or peers. The Senate was to be our "House or Lords" while the Representatives were to come from the lower classes, the "hoi polloi." One of the reasons many Senators seem to hold themselves as special, even today.
The President was to be elected by the electors (read: political machines) with little or no input from the masses as they had nothing at risk (no land) and therefore should have little to say with respect to the serious questions arising in government. Jefferson and the other "Fathers" simply adopted, almost in total, the English mode of government without the monarch. Without a jog to the memory I believe Senators were to be elected by state legislators or some such.
The morphing of Republic into "Democratic-Republic" began immediately after ratification of the Constitution and is now morphed into majority rules with the Senate only a bit more powerful than the House. The House can now "shut down" government should it desire. The President is, in fact, still elected by "electors." The electors are under no obligation to follow the popular vote. This makes us now a "Representative Democracy." When, not if, the College is done away with and the President is elected by a popular vote the country will then, in fact, become a simple democracy.
I really wish this was still taught in the 6th or 7th grade. Everyone should understand at a young age that the US is not a true democracy at this stage in its short life. Neither is it the democratic-republic the "Founding Fathers" designed and intended. It has morphed into a "Representative Democracy." The Congress is popularly elected, the President is not and never has been. States with large populations wield the power, not the individual voter. Alaska has three members of the Congress. That equals three members chosen to the College.
I apologize for the length of the class. So, no homework assignment. Class dismissed!
US Government: There was democracy for certain residents in Rome, for the ruling class most especially. Rome also had avenues through which people could gain full citizenship and therefore a voice in governing. So, not a democracy but a Republican Democracy. Only certain people could participate in governing, not everyone.
Jefferson saw the US as a republic in the sense that land ownership would be the defining element for who was to be in the ruling class as we did not have "hereditary titles" or peers. The Senate was to be our "House or Lords" while the Representatives were to come from the lower classes, the "hoi polloi." One of the reasons many Senators seem to hold themselves as special, even today.
The President was to be elected by the electors (read: political machines) with little or no input from the masses as they had nothing at risk (no land) and therefore should have little to say with respect to the serious questions arising in government. Jefferson and the other "Fathers" simply adopted, almost in total, the English mode of government without the monarch. Without a jog to the memory I believe Senators were to be elected by state legislators or some such.
The morphing of Republic into "Democratic-Republic" began immediately after ratification of the Constitution and is now morphed into majority rules with the Senate only a bit more powerful than the House. The House can now "shut down" government should it desire. The President is, in fact, still elected by "electors." The electors are under no obligation to follow the popular vote. This makes us now a "Representative Democracy." When, not if, the College is done away with and the President is elected by a popular vote the country will then, in fact, become a simple democracy.
I really wish this was still taught in the 6th or 7th grade. Everyone should understand at a young age that the US is not a true democracy at this stage in its short life. Neither is it the democratic-republic the "Founding Fathers" designed and intended. It has morphed into a "Representative Democracy." The Congress is popularly elected, the President is not and never has been. States with large populations wield the power, not the individual voter. Alaska has three members of the Congress. That equals three members chosen to the College.
I apologize for the length of the class. So, no homework assignment. Class dismissed!
I agree and think people have forgotten what that vision of society involved, in that it depended on a lot more than government alone.
The Constitution tried to limit democracy, much like the Romans did. Same results.
I am not seeing the shortcoming. Raising standards is not just Christian morality, but Darwinism incarnate in a good form, not just seeing who adapts best to shuffling paper and shopping in malls. We should all push ourselves to excellence, and then push some more.
- Status