3 ms·

I think most things actually are as simple as that. They're just made unduly complex because the obvious solutions to these problems don't align with the ulteri

I think most things actually are as simple as that. They're just made unduly complex because the obvious solutions to these problems don't align with the ulterior motives and sinister agendas that are often involved in politics: You want to secure people's right to privacy? Defund the NSA and use the money for something that's actually useful (like leaving it to the tax payers to spend as they please). You want to uphold human rights? Stop condoning human rights violations. Close down Guantanamo today, explicitly condemn torture and prosecute those who were responsible for acts of torture in the past. You want to counter terrorism? Stop getting politcally or militarily involved in other countries' affairs. Instead, trade with people. Foster economic and cultural exchange. Educate people. Now, this is a long-term one because it obviously won't do away with terrorism instantly but it'd be a first step in the right direction. You want to solve the perpetual financial crises? Simply allow bankrupt banks to ... well ... file for bankruptcy instead of donating them tax payer's money. You want to do something against global warming? Stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies. Make more use of the abundant solar energy available in the desert regions of the planet. Admittedly, this will be expensive but given the huge amount of money that's wasted annually in first world countries it's not impossible either.

meric 12y ago
I adore the purists' positions and if ever we have a government or president that will act with pure intention they will have my full support. Nonetheless without accounting for politician's and their supporter's ulterior motives they will never succeed. In an alternate universe where you BjoernKW was emperor of the United States and you pursued domestic policies that aimed to act purely in the interests of the people, without considering of the ambitions of less noble, less than two hundred years later you might be labeled by historians as a "well meaning but ineffective man". You want the people to be free from the hold of Opium? Ban it, burn it and banish the smugglers from your shores. "He issued many edicts against opium in the 1820s and 1830s, which were carried out by Commissioner Lin Zexu. Lin Zexu's effort to halt the spread of opium in China led directly to the First Opium War. With the development of the Opium War, Lin was made a scapegoat and the Daoguang emperor removed Lin's authority and banished him to Yili. Meanwhile in the Himalayas, the Sikh Empire attempted an occupation of Tibet but was defeated in the Sino-Sikh war (1841–1842). On the coasts, technologically and militarily inferior to the European powers, China lost the war and surrendered Hong Kong by way of the Treaty of Nanking in August 1842." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor.
- mc32 12y ago
  I think lots of people with good intentions fail to give the problem of the commons proper weight. While you may do good and provide a better way, by doing all things good and proper, you will get trounced and relegated to irrelevance. We can only move forward if we get the majority to go along. One can't unilaterally pull away, you'll be at a severe competitive disadvantage, your leverage gets reduced, your idealism forgotten and overwhelmed by those who take the opportunity offered by your benevolence. That's why, i believe, the only, but frustratingly slow way to go, is to slowly and gradually gather consensus and momentum and get things done, in the end. Falling on the sword serves the self but does not serve society at large someone with less morals will come in and swoop up the opportunity, sadly.

meric 12y ago

I adore the purists' positions and if ever we have a government or president that will act with pure intention they will have my full support. Nonetheless without accounting for politician's and their supporter's ulterior motives they will never succeed. In an alternate universe where you BjoernKW was emperor of the United States and you pursued domestic policies that aimed to act purely in the interests of the people, without considering of the ambitions of less noble, less than two hundred years later you might be labeled by historians as a "well meaning but ineffective man". You want the people to be free from the hold of Opium? Ban it, burn it and banish the smugglers from your shores. "He issued many edicts against opium in the 1820s and 1830s, which were carried out by Commissioner Lin Zexu. Lin Zexu's effort to halt the spread of opium in China led directly to the First Opium War. With the development of the Opium War, Lin was made a scapegoat and the Daoguang emperor removed Lin's authority and banished him to Yili. Meanwhile in the Himalayas, the Sikh Empire attempted an occupation of Tibet but was defeated in the Sino-Sikh war (1841–1842). On the coasts, technologically and militarily inferior to the European powers, China lost the war and surrendered Hong Kong by way of the Treaty of Nanking in August 1842." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor.

mc32 12y ago
I think lots of people with good intentions fail to give the problem of the commons proper weight. While you may do good and provide a better way, by doing all things good and proper, you will get trounced and relegated to irrelevance. We can only move forward if we get the majority to go along. One can't unilaterally pull away, you'll be at a severe competitive disadvantage, your leverage gets reduced, your idealism forgotten and overwhelmed by those who take the opportunity offered by your benevolence. That's why, i believe, the only, but frustratingly slow way to go, is to slowly and gradually gather consensus and momentum and get things done, in the end. Falling on the sword serves the self but does not serve society at large someone with less morals will come in and swoop up the opportunity, sadly.