As you say in the article you think you know what they "should" want, but they also think that they know what you "should" want. Strangely, the two "should's" bear no resemblance to each other and never will.

First, thanks for your nice words (that was quick .... My goodness, i just posted the article.... )

Second, open-mindedness and humility would get those two "should's" close enough to satisfy both sides. Of course that needs selfless groups.

Great piece of writing ThinkAloud!

The thing is, our Founding Fathers anwered most those questions by just not consulting the people in the first place.  They decided amongst themselves what kind of government they wanted, their meetings were behind closed doors, one person wrote the Declaration of Independence and when it came right down to it, only about 1/3 of the people were for a change in the first place.

The fact is, revolutions aren't about what "the people" want, they are about what that leaders, movers and shakers in the revolution want... even those few that establish a government "Of the People, By the People, and For the People".

 

~~~~~

btw, from what I've seen, what a chemical engineer does is carry a half a billion cards that keep them "up-to-date" on the latest and greatest government specs. Everything not on those cards seems to be secondary.  ;~D

from what I've seen, what a chemical engineer does is carry a half a billion cards that keep them "up-to-date" on the latest and greatest government specs.

Thanks Ted.

As for your answer ..... wrong . That is far from it. That is just part of the continuous self-education process they have to do ALL the time. That is the "Law" part I mentioned in the article. now you can only imagine what the Actual job entails.

Everything not on those cards seems to be secondary.

you see, it only seems that way. and It also seems absurd .... i might add.

Oooh I said that already.

revolutions aren't about what "the people" want, they are about what that leaders, movers and shakers in the revolution want

It may start that way. However, unless it eventually does what the people want it will always, always become a "dictatorial" regime. That has been proven allover the world many many times.

That is what i was trying to avoid. I knew what they "should" want, but i didnt want it to turn into a dictatorial regime. So i wanted to know what do the people want ..... the article tells you the result of that.

How do you get the majority to agree on a "way forward" is the trick. And it involves multitudes of things. I will try to summarize that in another article ..... soon i hope.

every other year at the voting booth

That's what I mean, the American Revolution wasn't something most the people wanted, but the Founding Fathers did it anyway. Dictatorial Regime? ;~D

As you say in the article you think you know what they "should" want, but they also think that they know what you "should" want. Strangely, the two "should's" bear no resemblance to each other and never will.

That is the best definition of democracy yet.  And why it does not degrade into totalitarianism - at least for awhile (short for some - see Venezuela).

But to your point of a Chemical Engineer - no I dont know Chemical, but I do know engineer, and your statement about "what you want, then call me" is universal to the trade.

And second, refer to the first comment.  What you see as the perfect way is not what I see.  And it is not a matter of pride (as you insinuate), but a difference in perspective.  I see your vision as a road to ruin.  Not as a salvation.  And I am sure you see mine as the same.  But as long as neither of us can prove the other wrong (Chemical, Electrical, Quantum, Network - they are all based on absolutes with undeniable rules - people are not), we will never agree on the way.

The problem with engineers is we have the solutions for perfect worlds (as the physical world is based on it), but not for the vagaries of human nature.

BTW - Great article too!

Thanks Doc for the nice words.



Sorry Doc, i dont see my way as perfect AT ALL. I see it as the best possible that is consistent with the principles that i live by.



No Doc. Our world is not perfect at all and YOU know it. We make reasonable assumptions based on the facts we have. and design with a margin of error to accomodate our imperfect knowledge of the world we deal with. We dont overload parts of the system because other STRONGER parts do not carry their fair share. We sacrifice some of our Client's desire in order to make HIS sytem safe and easy to operate. We dont sacrifice the weaker parts because they are weak, we protect them because they have a role to play. we also know that the design might not satisfy the Client's desire 100% and the client KNOWS that too. That is what is called "performance acceptable range". we design to get 110% but we get 95% and we dont call that a failure. actually it is excellent. That is our "engineering" world.

If we do the same in our "Human" world, we would be much much better and stronger and function as we wish to.

The best thing about our "Engineering" world is that those parts of the system are selfless. They do their role honestly and willingly. they dont say "those little parts hanging over there are putting load on me .... take them off my shoulders". they dont say that, if they can carry it, they caryy it. no complaint. Good engineers dont put parts that just hang overthere. they have a role. The big load-carrier may not see it but the engineer does.

In our "Human" world, that is what we should try to get people to understand. Be less selfish, less biased, more honest in what we say and do, more consistent and must not judge things ONLY from our prespective. Good Humans, must take other perspectives in consideration before they make their judgement.

There is only one catch in the engineering world. If he doesnt get the RIGHT engineer the client will end up with a mess on their hands. The bigger the project, the bigger the mess.

In the case of a country, if the the people (i.e.client ) dont get the Right Government (i.e. the engineer) they will end up with the biggest mess on their hand. And that is where we are now.

I dont see your perspective as "Ruins" I only see it as not the right one. I dont see mine as perfect, i see it as more suitable. My perspective is wide open to all reasonable changes that make the system better and the Country stronger.

To do that, we must get "our act together" and figure out what Exactly we want our country to be. if we cant agree on that. then no is progress possible. If we do, nothing is impossible.

remember rome was an empire by now.


we are close to that but not quite there. despite what gene says. and despite what the democrats want.

remember rome was an empire by now.we are close to that but not quite there. despite what gene says. and despite what the democrats want.

This is a perfect example of what is happening.

First, it is as if the Democrats do not like the USA to be an Empire while the Republicans do. That is the bias and the one-sided judgement i mean.

Second, the USA is not even close from being an Empire. Unless of course you consider Port Rico and other US possessions to be a significant part of the world.

Empires treat their subjects as citicizens, they move freely to and from all parts of it with no restrictions. They have the same "Emperor" ruling them with local rulers appointed by him with laws that are applicable within the whole Empire. An Empire collects taxes from all its regions and takes care of the regions in return.How are we compared to that?

We are occupiers of many places. Not an Empire.

Here is a simple definition of an Empire:
"An empire is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power" (from Wikipedia)

And here is another from the dictionary:
"a large state or a group of states under a single sovereign who is usually an Emperor"

When the Iraqis, The Germans, The Japanese, The Saudis, The Kwaitis, The Italians,... etc can get in and out of the US freely, no passports required (US- EMPIRE ID will do), when their governments are appointed by the US President (Emperror!!!!), when they pay taxes to the US treasury, when the US Military laws apply to armed individual fighting in its name in those regions (Blackwater ....!!!!) .... etc then we can say the US is "close" to being an empire.

would that convince you or anyone who says the same? i doubt it. And that is the problem.

If even a well established definition of a political entity is misrepresented like that, how can we agree on anything else.

the Founding Fathers did it anyway. Dictatorial Regime? ;~D

Not at all. They had the right people around and that is why they were able to reach something called "The Constitution". Didn't they reach an agreement on that? it allows us to do what we agree on. doesn't it?

The problem is our current leaders, unlike them, can't agree on anything. They had that 20% of reasonable and logical people around them. We dont have that now. Current leaders play to different type of people than the Founding Fathers.

i refer to the fact that the democrats in the last ten or so have been calling for a prime minister

Really? when did that happen? and who called for that exactly? and how many Americans have that idea about the Dem's? is that the new talking points?

But before all that: what does this have to do with being an Empire?????????????

both parties have been calling for a national id card. so that you can be identified when moving from one state to another. (can i see your papers please.)

Show me your papers first. And you cant use that ID to go into any of those countries we occupy, so how is that compared to an Empire-ID?

and we do exercise a few empire powers. we dictate to our trading partners what rules they have to apply when sending products to our country to be sold. and yes i am sure they do the same thing with us.

Then we are part of their Empire?

Empires dont dictate, they Govern. i dont know if that makes a difference to you. But there is a huge difference. Physically, psychologically, culturally and legally. Empires are responsible for the well being of their subjects and for what they do to their lands and resources. Is that what we do???? !!!!!!!!!