In Floris post below, Larry insinuated that no one would be willing to give up their modern comforts etc for the good of our planet (a corollary of 'people are more important than trees...') I wouldnt disagree that a human life trumps a Sequoia's (specially if it's my life in question ) but Larry's argument had me scratching my head; it's foreign to me. When I lived in Arcata, CA for 3 years I witnessed first hand 1000+ year old trees being carted away on logging trucks. This is still occuring today, on private lands unprotected by government--ive seen it, and it was a very distressing thing to witness for one who values what's left of our ancient forests.
Admittedly Contrived hypothetical: If it were gauranteed by all involved, public and private, that not one more ancient (for the sake of this hypothetical--anything over 500 yrs old) tree would be cut down, if you agreed to turn in your camera and not take a single nature photo for the rest of your life--would you do it? Further assume that you would get no special recognitition or monetary reward for your agreement.
Id do it in a heartbeat. Any ancient tree left is worth the sum of all my photos. A real tree will always beat a photo. Any joy that my photos might bring is far less than the joy of standing under a redwood on a foggy day.
But i wont force my philosophy on anyone. Would you give up your camera?
I would in a heart beat Stan if it meant I could preserve any habitat say trees or wildlife. Most of my photography is an excuse to just be out surrounded by wilderness. Nothing beats a walk through the woods just as the sun is warming up the forest floor, that smell instantly makes me a carefree 10 year old roaming freely on our back thousand hectares of woodland from my childhood! So even with out my camera the experience would be just as rich! And granted I am not at a level where most people would notice if my work stopped showing up!!!!
I will try to clarify, but it will be philosophical and possibly religious... if that's allowed...?
I have no doubt you would sacrifice your camera for trees. Would everyone do it? Probably not.
Would you sacrifice it for people? That is the ultimate question...
I deem sacrifice or "proper" [whole other topic] action to THINGS as being "ethical". Ethics can invole people, things or situations.
I deem sacrifice or "proper" action to PEOPLE as being "moral". Morality always implies interaction between humans.
So with sequoias we are dealing with ethics.
I think many problems occur when people do ethical things but not moral things; conversely I think many problems occur when people do moral things but do not practice ethics.
Both of these concepts have a source. The source is the ideas that WORDS convey.
Here are some words.
Thomas Hobbes defined NATURE in his work, The Leviathan: "Nature, the Art whereby God hath made and governes the World."
He continued by saying that NATURE is BY "the Art of man, imitated," and becomes "an Artificial Animal".
So photography, according to Hobbes, is artificial at best. People, however, differ from the bulk of NATURE because they exist by and through relaltionships. Big difference.
Now if Hobbes definition of NATURE is true, [and humans will never all agree that it is and that's part of the probelem, of course] then according to my belief system the items of NATURE are for us to use "wisely".
My belief system also says that a rich man, or even one who seeks extreme wealth, is in danger of suffering from greed, an offshoot of pride. That leads to "unwise" decisons and use.
So I would say that trees can and should be used but wisely. It would seem that those trees which take much longer to propagate should be used sparingly and for purposes that are extraordinary. The more plentiful trees are those which reproduce more rapidly and become the primary resource. They can and should be used for more common needs [not wants].
The issue with probably all societies is those who are often leaders of governments, bureaucracies or corporations are those who suffer the malady of pride/greed. They simply want the power that money brings to feed a greatly altered ego.
So, in sum, we need an agreed upon belief system for such things.
But that will NOT happen.
I believe this to be factual: our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but we've lost those.
The result is where we are in the Greek Bow scenario whereupon the bow and string are in constant battle trying to maintain equilibirum at a certain point. It is no longer a matter of law based upon principles but upon laws that can wax and wane based on the use of the concept of "democracy" [we live in a Republic and we pledge to that Republic]. The power of the majority whether right or wrong--mob rule. This begs the question will "multi-culuralism" really lead to peace?
So, the battle will rage over trees and other items fragmenting our society into factions.
Factions is what the founders of this country feared most because it destroys nations. All of Federalist No. 10 is devoted to how they foresaw the solution. That solution was the ability to own "private property" and it became the fundamental force for the settling of America.
The siren-call of private property is so strong that it elicits "risk taking" beyond anything else.
That's why the settler's risked everything for 160 acre farms or moved from the east to the extreme west--where they found huge old trees.
Ethics, morality, pride, greed, ambition, charity, discernemnt, etc. should be measured in all our decisions. But we have become shallow in recent time nurtured by a degrading agreement on basic values. We don't reflect--we react.
It won't get any better. It will eventually end up that decisions will be made by those in power and those who disagree will be eliminated--so says history.
We think we know a lot. Most "nice" people really don't understand how the mases can be manipulated.
Read "Necessary Illusions" by Noam Chomsky--a series of speeches and not difficult. It is about the media in a democracy. We are mere plastic in hands of the powerful.
In closing, The "tree" issues is sibsidiary to "relationships" between people. An agreed upon unchangeable ethic/moral standard would lead to the appropriate tree decision. Discernment and reliance upon lofty principles, not greed and pride, is the engine for resoving issues.
Again,this philosophy if practiced as it should be, would be based on unchangeable concepts acting as arbiter, provided the rules are outside human control. That is the "religious" part of our existence. Realize if/when there is nothing for guidance outside the box of humanity there simply no chance for agreement.
As you can see, really an UNSOLVABLE issue for humans. And we are supposed to be a PART of NATURE. I wonder if we really have arrived, or if we ever will.
Bottom line: advocating for wise use of the sequoias is closer to being part of nature and a good photographer and a good human being. That's how I read the Christian Bible--wise use of God's ART.
David makes a valid point - and there are a lot of other factors that would play into it. Just because they wouldn't be cut doesn't mean a man-made forest fire wouldn't destroy them. I wouldn't consider it for a moment to be honest - as the fact that a tree is "ancient" (which is completely arbitrary) has very little definable affect on its ecological value. Example - the magnificent redwoods you are so fond of are obviously old, are magnificent in size and are awe inspiring. Well, where I live (which is an area that I know you are familiar with) some of the oldest trees are Black Tupelos in swamps that have been aged to around 700 years. You would never ever know it looking at them and I could find you Black Tupelos that are 50 years old that are larger than the 700 year old trees. So why does the old one have more "value"?
I work for a local municipality and one of my job duties is to enforce clearing restrictions and investigate tree clearing complaints. I would say that 9 out of 10 people who call and complain state that the alleged offender is taking down trees that are "at least 100 years old". And I can tell you that 9 out of 9 people are wrong - because Long Island has VERY few areas with trees that are that old due to development, farming, fires and hurricanes. But to the person complaining, they put some extra value on the arbitrary age of 100 years. What if it's a tree that lives routinely to 1000 years? 100 years doesn't seem all that impressive now does it?
Given the single choice of a camera vs. a tree, the tree wins. I prefer strong stewardship to preserve nature while enabling it to provide for human needs. No zealots.
Luke and David: I agree with everything you've said--im just making up a simple hypothetical, that's all. I could have just as easily said "would you give up your camera if it could be gauranteed that Long Island Sound could be returned to the state it was in 200 years ago"--the point would be the same. I just arbitrarily chose 500 years since thats before 1492! So, can i assume your answer would be no, guys? I wouldnt fault you for it--but its really a simple hypothetical and rationalization will just unecessarily complicate things IMO
Larry--This is Hot Topics and everything goes til Jim shuts us down
Seriously, I hear and respect your view--i admire that you're drawing on literary works--Hobbes is fine but Dr. Seuss is more on my level. Im not sure the greed of those who clearcut inthe early 1900s was any less than the greed of those who clearcut in the last few decades--its just we have helicopters now to aid in the clearcutting.
Some interesting thoughts for sure. Coincidentally, while looking at national park info for a trip im going on, i just came across an artist-in-residences bio for one of the parks, and he mentioned that the aboriginal people, Sherpas, Navajo etc: "have a tremendous connection to the land, living in harmony with it rather than striving to control, or exploit it. I believe we have much to learn from these ancient cultures."
What do you think of that statement?
First off, to answer Stan's question: yes, but can I do it for birds? or better, for large, functional and representative blocks of every ecosystem type and an extinction rate that reflects the background rate over the last few billion years with no anthropogenic spike?
There's a lot of other ideas afloat here, but I should probably ruminate a bit more before responding.
As long as we're considering giving up something to save nature, let's all turn off our lights, computers, refrigerators, tv's, park the car and live ONE day without using anything that requires electricity or any kind of fossil fuel in its operation. (guess we'd better all wear cotton or wool, eat things that are grown within 20 miles of our homes, no make-up, no rubber or plastic, the list is endless) It's incredible how many things humans do that are "bad" for the environment. It is also amazing how many things we do in the effort to protect and preserve it. Simple fact is, there are too many of us for the human race to live in harmony with nature any more. We can live carefully, gently if we will but as long as money and possesions are valued more than the song of a meadowlark or an unbroken expanse of pure white snow, there's little hope for a balanced earth.
Larry, I've gotta admit you've got a great, diverse reading list--from Hobbes to Madison to Chomsky. You've sent me back to Federalist 10 (thanks!), and I disagree with some aspects of your reading of it.
First of all, I think you're using "factions" in a way different than what Madison had in mind when he argued that they were a great threat to a nation. You appear to define multi-culturalism and debates over environmental and political issues as creating 'factions,' whereas in paragraph 2 of Federalist 10, Madison defines it quite differently
By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. [emphasis mine]
And while you appear to view a loss of Judeo-Christian principles as a cause for the 'factions' dividing our country, Madison even then (paragraph 7) identifies "a zeal for different opinions concerning religion" as one of the basic causes of factions. So perhaps things were not as homogeneous religiously, even then, as you might imply.
Further, you state that Federalist 10 identifies private property as the solution to factions, when in fact, Madison appears to consider unequal distribution of wealth and property as a predominant CAUSE OF (not solution to) faction. However, he sees such inequity as inevitable (and no doubt desirable given his own position). Whatever the cause of faction, the important role of the republic, of representative government and separation of powers, is to guard against one becoming a tyranny of the majority.
If you accept Madison's definition that a faction acts in a manner adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community., then I think one could argue strongly that the corporations that are damaging our clean air, clean water, and public lands that we OWN, that these corporations are in fact the factions acting against the aggregate community interests and the entities we should be most worried about.
Anyway, that's my opinion. It's an awfully long time since I read any of this stuff, so thanks for sending me to the bookshelf.
Well, my answer to Stan's question is a resounding yes. But that is not the problem or the answer. The problem is not just our cameras, although they do contribute, but also our autos, our lavish houses, that require more heat and cooling than nature would prefer, and all the other "stuff" we tend to accumulate that is really unecessary (Oh, my boat). Would you be willing to give all that up?
I tend to think that most on here would do that, but most in our society would not. Then of course, the real problem is that if society did decide to give all that up for nature's sake, where would we all work? There would be precious few jobs left and most people would not be able to earn a living.
It is a most complicated situation we've gotten ourselves into and I don't have the answer, but I really do appreciate the opportunity to hear (see) discussion on it. Thanks for starting the thread Stan.
This has been some kind of reading, I really enjoy the knowledge and opinions of all. It has me going down a path that I had no idea I would go down being a member of a nature photography network. Thanks to all who share their adamant views on topics such as this and especially the fisch for being willing to dive into this and make light of issues that most find easier to turn a blind eye to than willing to bring to light.
I will stick to the basic question that Stan posses that of "Give up your camera to save the Trees"? Firstly, it is very evident in this day and age that the environment is a hot topic. Many make claims that they would do "anything" to save for example, a sequoia. Some don't go that far but claim they would be willing to never photograph again to save a tree. I find this to be somewhat pretentious and this is why. It is easy to pretend, to fantasize about what ifs knowing that they will never come to be. These are not goals I am talking about, giving up your camera to save the great sequoias is not a goal it is fantasy so an answer is easy because you will never have to live out the reality. I realize you all understand this and am not trying to be pretentious in my own right, it is a completely valid question Stan posses for evaluation of ones opinion of themselves and asked purely as a hypothetical. No one knows what they would do or how they would react to any situation until they are actually faced with having to make that decision based on the current events and conditions of the situation.
So based on that, and attempting to give a completely honest answer as I understand the details at this moment I would say no I would not give up my camera to save any tree, and this is why. As of now my camera, your camera or anyone's camera is not the reason we are losing old growth forest. I believe that to be the truth and my answer to be an honest reflection of how I feel now. I also realize that I am and can be somewhat selfish, and that's about as honest as I'm going to get here.
Now if someone had a magic wand and could actually save all the trees over 500 years old if I never photographed anything again would I? And what would be the effects of never cutting any tree over 500 years old?
I would answer this but looks like I need to be reading the Federalist Papers, gezz thanks alot guys.
And Stan- I put in two degrees worth of Arcata time, so I bet we have more in common than differences.
But as to your hypthetical question? No I wouldn't give up my camera to save a tree. I'd use the camera to save a tree. Been there done that, as a matter of fact. A more direct approach to saving the tree is to stop buying and using any product made from redwood, and to encourage the same in all friends and venues. Been there done that, too.
I find the hypothetical flawed, in that it's kind of like asking folks whether they'd rather lose a daughter or a son. Sad to say, we lost a daughter too, and in no way did it make us wish we had lost her sibling instead.
I think so many great points have been made, but I just wanted to stick to Stan's question. I think people's way of thinking is changing and I am guilty of my own carbon foot print, but how we live as a family is we buy second hand a lot of things that we feel we need ,we don't buy the latest and greatest . We consume very little processed foods or chemical based foods, last night I spent 2hrs. making two weeks worth of pasta by hand with a hand crank machine. My car only leaves the drive way once a week ,I walk everywhere I can. I never idle my car even at -40.We use the very minimum of energy we can. This is not a brag session, but people are changing and my children will be far more aware at an earlier age than I was. I grew up in the country side we were eco friendly before we even knew what it was. I would not classify myself as a wanna be new age hippy, I am way too cool for that!!!! But as a child we lived off the land and made what we needed. I was an hour an a half from town so you had better really need it if you wanted to drive to get it. Now I live in suburb hell and stores as far as you can see, we buy local or from the next Province over at least. We buy clothes made in Canada (where we live) and natural fibers, yet my kids look on trend with everyone else. These are choices that were easy to make, so when I say again I would give up my camera I am sincere. If it could make a difference I would, but if I could use my cameras images to save the very something I would. And as far as giving up a life, if it would guarantee and I mean guarantee my children and every other child would grow up in a chemical free green planet Then you can have mine. These are not empty promises of fantastical dreams, this may seem naive to many of you but if we are not willing to stand behind what we say how can we expect others to ! I am not a radical person by any means ,but if I thought I could make a difference I would do what ever it took of me to make that change! I am not very good at saying what I think or believe. I am generally a very shy person, I believe Stan's statement is really what would you do to save the things you love. If your a photographer who loves to photograph trees what would you do if they were no longer available to you or any aspect of nature for that means .Our cameras are what we have as photographers ,and we hold them dear, so the lost of there impact in our lives would be great but the lost of the things we photograph is greater. Rant over! Cheers
The value of a single tree is measured in board feet. But if any tree is part of a viable functioning plant community, it is priceless. Its value for recreation, watershed, fisheries, climate control, genetic diversity, and habitat is beyond value. That's why it is vital to save watersheds instead of trees. As for the fellow who feels we should be saving 100 year old trees, these trees are not the same as old growth stands that have developed for thousands of years. A single rotting log in an growth stand has more biodiversity than hundrreds of acres of second growth forest. Also consider that 500 years from now there may be no Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, Red-backed Tree Voles, salmon, and countless other small organisms to populate the "new" old growth. Fisch, people as a whole just don't fit your constructs. Reminds me of trying to read the Communist Manifesto. The world moves on.
Stan, in answer to your question, if it is the right tree, yes.
Brian,
I seldom find people like yourself who take the time to read the more difficult "stuff" in which the Federalist Papers are certainly included. At least hard for me.
I'll go back to my notes and the original Federalist No. 10.
If memory serves I had to paraphrase what I thought Madison said. Sentences that are a paragraph long on hard to digest for moderns. I reduced it to ... the protection of private property if foremost in preventing factions and therefore must be the first object of governemnt...
That merges well with the Soviet idea that they, the people, really wanted private property restored before the fall of the USSR. It was thier foremost desire.
Thanks for the reply on such a high level. I do note that Dawkins is an atheist. I'm not.
the fisch
Thanks, Rob.
Hank and Brad: Excellent points guys! IMO, you are overthinking my question. I probably could have posed a less 'flawed' hypothetical (Maybe, would you sit in a tree for a year to save it? Many would answer 'yes' but how many have really been on the 'front lines'?) but it would lose the dramatic effect it's kind of like asking folks whether they'd rather lose a daughter or a son
Maybe, but my hypothetical does not use the word "rather"--im asking for a decision, not a preference. And i specifically stated that human lives trump sequoias.
You missed my point, Stan, due to my inclusion of a very personal element. Human life aside, to be fair your hypothetical probably needs a third choice- i.e., save a tree and keep your camera. We face the same bipartite choices in public opinion surveys from all political stripes that direct us to "choose which fits best" between two impossible alternatives.
Create a public opinion poll that asks to choose between say, gas guzzling cars and walking 20 miles a day round trip to work, and most respondents will pick the gas hog. Then the folks that hired the pollsters are free to say that Americans really do in fact prefer big cars without regard to gas mileage. While that is a strict presentation of the results, the original choice eliminated a huge portion of the true views and forced responses in line with the views of the contractors.
This is a very standard practice in polling. In fact I was taught how to do it in classes there in Arcata, lo so many years ago.
Now I'm getting confused.
One writer in answering Stan's question said she was "guilty of my own carbon footprint".
I'm may need correcting but what is there that is bad about "carbon"? Espeically if we want seedling Sequoias to grow.
Is not carbon and essential "nutrient" for plant life?
Is not the by product of that nutrient in plants the production of oxygen?
It would appear to me that what is good for plants may be bad for polar bears.
Now which do we choose??
the fisch
Lorna, my point was you are NOT guilty of anything except living.
We are being made to believe that we are destroying the planet.
Mt. Pinatabo put more "carbon" and other stuff into the atmosphere that all the history of human "carbon footprint" creation. And that occurred within 2 years--the duration of the eruption.
Things need to be evaluated, not overstated as I feel carbon footprinting has been.
Again, follow the "money-trail"--who will profit from this propaganda about carbon??? Right now it is the "government subsidized" windfarms and ethanol and other stuff. I suspect 'carbon footprinting' contains elements of truth but not the full story.
Heck, we've had one of the coldest winters in 20 years. Why? I don't know but I would suspect the result of the century-class sunspot minimum from which we are now exiting.
FYI the longest sunspot minimum [called the Maunder Minimum] lasted an unprecedented 70 years and coincided with the "mini-ice-age" in Europe during the mid-1700's. We easily forget the sun's power when its output changes but a fraction--as it does routinely over long periods.
Always measure what "experts" tell you and don't feel guilty too soon.
We ALL have a little pride and greed within us. I would advocate first measuring our individual "self-government" and avoid many of the pitfalls individually and socially that we claim others are doing. Clean conscience and cleaner environment--double win.
I think you have measured yourself Lorna--nothing wrong with that. Just measure against accurate parameters.
Remember----"Those who are unaware, are unaware, that they are unaware".... OR, as Socrates said of the same topic, "He who knows not that he knows not, knows not; he who knows that he knows not, knows".
What this thread illustrates more than anything else is that such decisions are made based on emotional and subjective factors rather than hard facts. In turn, this leads to a collective outcome that is not based on objective rationalization and ultimately does not really solve anything.
Would I give up my camera to save a specific group of trees? absolutely not. Will I do so to secure the future of all trees? certainly.
The difference is in the extent and effectiveness of the sacrifice. A sacrifice for altruistic reasons which yields no real change, while possibly heroic, is ultimately unnecessary.
The factors that may "save" humanity (not the planet, which doesn't really need saving) are population size, consumption and dietary habits, sustainable farming practices, etc. If one is looking to sacrifice anything, they should be willing to sacrifice something that truly counts.
If Person A commutes by bicycle, recycles everything possible, votes for representatives supporting environmental goals, enjoys barbecues on weekends, and is a father of 3, and Person B drives a full size SUV 100 miles a day, throws their paper and aluminum cans in the trash, votes for industry rather than sustainability, but is vegetarian and has just one kid; Person B ironically still has a smaller environmental impact and by a huge margin (as much as 2000% smaller by some research).
Sacrifice where it matters, not where it feels good.
But Guy,
Who decides what matters?
For example, Africa south of the Sahara has more natural resources than north America.
Yet poverty is immense.
Why?
Lack of basic morality leading to bad decisions.
War lords have made the decisions, not free-enterprise based on "do unto others"--our original scheme. Consequently, the resources remain untapped leading to poverty--and death--for the masses.
Morality is self-government; sacrificing where it matters is always at odds with our fellow humans.
What is needed is an outside source to be our guide in such matters.
That was the founding idea of our America but it is not now accepted. WE are being conquered from within.
Just my 2-cents.
the fisch
Larry, you may be surprised to learn how much I agree with some of what you say, especially in your last sentence. Still, the question to me is not so much who decides but how the decisions are made. We have an incredible array of scientific knowledge, independently-verifiable facts, and amazing tools to identify those things that DO need attention and DO have the potential to make a meaningful difference. Unfortunately when these objective truths conflict with political correctness or require some degree of lifestyle change, politicians avoid them like the plague.
Brian, I said I would review the concept of Federalist No. 10.
I will present a scantlily edited portion from which I drew my deduction.
You can measure the logic.
From Federalist No. 10:
"Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction…
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community….
"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by REMOVING ITS CAUSES; the other, by CONTROLLING ITS EFFECTS.
" There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by DESTROYING LIBERTY which is essential to its existence; the other, by GIVING TO EVERY CITIZEN THE SAME OPINIONS, THE SAME PASSIONS, AND THE SAME INTERESTS.
"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires…
"The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connections subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.
" The diversity in the faculties of men, FROM WHICH THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY ORIGINATE, is not less an insuperable [something which cannot be passed over] obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties [the power of the mind or skills] is the FIRST OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."
Conclusion: Property is linked to the power of mind or skills and helps reduce the total effect of factions or special interests.
To continue:
1. "Faction" is a group who share common ideas and values. People have different values and ideas. People will always be at odds with each other when another does not agree. These are "factions".
2. Factions are desirable because of the animating constest, exchange of ideas, that exists between groups--it is the gift of LIBERTY.
3. But Factions must be controlled before they control government.
4. "The diversity in the faculties of men, FROM WHICH THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY ORIGINATE..., " ..." The protection of these faculties is the FIRST OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. FROM THE PROTECTION OF DIFFERENT AND UNEQUAL FACULTIES OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY, THE POSSESSION OF DIFFERENT DEGREES AND KINDS OF PROPERTY IMMDIATELY RESULTS..."
5. Since "Causes of faction cannot be removed, and... relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects" one must allow the power of property is the means of control.
6. But "A pure democracy... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction."
7. A Republic is the answer according to Madison. Besides the power of property, we add:
a.) rule of law under a written constitution,
b.) government by representation,
c.) enumerated powers of government beyond which it has no jurisdiction.
*Quoted material to this point from Federalist No. 10.
My conclusion is that liberty is augmented and faction reduced by a Republic-type government which allows private property to fluorish. Property is the power from which factions can present themselves against other factions as a means of control. The ability to own private property is then a bedrock principle of DIVERSE POWER throughout a Republic. IT MUST EXIST TO ALLOW THE ANIMATING CONSTEST OF FACTIONS AND TO PRESERVE ORDER BY CONTROLLING THE EFFECTS OF FACTIONS. PROPERTY IS IMPORTANT.
Now, on to MODERN FACTIONS:
One modern faction is the EPA which owns no property but is vested in all property through taxation, really and unequal battle.
"In December 2009, the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhous gases are pollutants dangerous to pubic health because they are alleged to cause global warming. This finding gave the agency the immense power to regulated CO2 emissions... For the ruling, the EPA relied primarily on data from a United Nations global warming report. E-mails leaked in 2009 in the Climatgate scandal showed that some of the world's prominent climatologists manipulated data to overstate the effects of CO2... Renowned climate researcher Judith Curry of Georgia Tech... admitted recently that there is no question that data in the U.N. report was misleading... and buried deep in the report, the EPA's own models show that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperatures increases by less that 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit."
Yet the costs to every American household would be projected to increase $3,000 per year because of the labyrinth of costs associated with the EPA movement. "[W]hen science gets tainted by politics and money, and facts are set aside in the name of advancing a political agenda, it is no longer science.... We also have to recognize that economic growth underwrites environmental protection. Wealthy countries pay for enviornmental improvement... The only places on earth that have strived for a clean environment share two key characteristics: free people and free markets... Yet we are gradually suffocating our free market economy with command-and-control regulations from our federal government." [Quoted material from: Reasserting Federalism in Defense of Liberty by Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia as presented in Imprimis, April 2011, Volume 40, Number 4]
I'm merely on the other side of the Greek Bow mentioned earlier, without which EPA would run even more amuck. That's the advantage of having liberty and consequent 'FACTIONS'.
Africa south of the Sahara has more natural resources than north America.
Yet poverty is immense.
Why?
Lack of basic morality leading to bad decisions.
Wow - you really nailed that. It's so clear now. Poor people are basically immoral, while wealth is a function of "basic morality and good decisions". Does that hold true worldwide, or only in sub-Saharan Africa? Is it a sliding scale; the wealthier the more moral and the poorer the less moral? I wonder how that worldview aligns itself with Christ's views towards the poor.
Morality is self-government; sacrificing where it matters is always at odds with our fellow humans.
What is needed is an outside source to be our guide in such matters.
This statement completely contradicts itself. "self-government" and an "outside source" aren't congruent with one another. At all.
People, however, differ from the bulk of NATURE because they exist by and through relaltionships. Big difference.
This is completely false. "Nature" is nothing BUT relationships.
and my favorite ....
Morality always implies interaction between humans.
"Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relatlion to each other, and with reference to righ and wrong... and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is determined..." American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828.
Ethics:
From the same source: "1. The doctrines of morlaity or social manners; the science of moral philosophy, which teachs men their duty and reason of it. 2. A system of moral principles; a system of rules for regulating the actions and manners of men in society."
It is the LEADERSHIP in most S. African countries, "warlords" who are immoral according to God's precepts. It is THEIR greed, their pride, their lack of the concept of liberty that is killing the masses. Multinational outside provisions seldom reach the poor and needy because they are robbed by the leadership of those countries. That is IMMORAL--a wrong relationship by most people's standards--and it certainly does NOT make the POOR immoral. I hope I've made that clear. Poor and rich alike can be moral or immoral--you know that.
Pretty simple really. Warlords represent totalitarianism--centralized control--with loss of liberty. It does NOT work. Yet our ship-of-state is listing heavily in that direction. It is the gradualism of it all that is misleading.
Those who wish to sequester 1000-year-old Sequoias into "government" control may be right or wrong. I just want to know the "standard" by which they measure their action.
At the same time I foresee unintended consequences in bequeathing sequential bits of power to central control. Eventually the liberty cup runs dry. Living in Alaska you should appreciate "liberty". That has been the course of history as I read it.
Morality is manifest in interaction between humans by definition. Humans "learn" values by the application of ethics.
Values are always inserted in relations between humans. Values are most meaningful and stable when they reflect "truth" [hard concept] and are outside of human control, usually the realm of religion. That's why the early dictionary uses the reference to God.
This outside source, if applied in a culture, will yield the most congruent inter-realationship possible--not perfect, but workable. When values are not shared, factions become fractious.
Nature is a series of relationships but those relations are not MORAL by virtue of the interactions. Nature is cruel in our minds but that does not make it immoral.
That is the unique postion of humans in our relatiionship with nature--the concept of a moral code. Our attempt to help Nature is an ETHICAL effort of moral application--also using scientific data. At least that's how I view the words and their concepts and our current position in America.
Carl, I've presented definitions. I think they are fairly accurate. I've followed with a brief explanation of how this applies to Sequoias, our lives, our country and our world.
I certainly do not know everything and the tit-for-tat on this thread has made me do even more research into what and why I believe as I do. I don't expect everyone to agree. That would eliminate "factions" which, by their mere existence, indicates we still have liberty. According to the founding of America that's a good thing!!
Sorry you think my ideas are "poppycock". Perhaps this has cleared it up somewhat--hope so.
Could see this one coming a mile away. Larry, I knew you wouldn't be happy where you were headed. I am in Carl's camp. The developed nations got that way by exploiting 3rd world resources. Human and natural. I don't think we get to take the moral high-ground. As heart-wrenching as the situation is for some African nations, their nations tend to be more viable than the endemic nations of the new world. Anyway, I would rather talk about photography and Coastal Redwoods.
Really? 1828? Wow. Can you scroll thru that dictionary and tell me where you find "three fifths of a person"? Or, what's the definition of "fabulous"?
Try Merriams, 2011.
"Definition of MORAL
1
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2
: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>
3
: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>"
No mention of "interaction between humans", and no mention of god, because neither are intrinsically pertinent to morality. However, if you DO choose to reference a "god", particularly the Judeo-Christian one, then you rule out the exclusive definition of "interaction between humans", because god explicitly instructs behaviors not exclusive to "interactions between humans". See Commandments # 1-5, and Commandments #9 & 10, Exodus, ch20, many centuries earlier than 1828.
Or view the Oxford Dictionary (which does have one out of 6 variations mentioning the "the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society"). Or Encarta.
Morals aren't at all bound only to interaction between humans. Prof. Chris Stone's still-seminal essay "Should Trees Have Legal Standing" makes a strong case for moral behavior toward Nature.
There are myriad reasons for poverty in myriad different regions of the world, including here in the US. There are similarly a multitude of different factors that contribute to wealth. To pretend that current political structures alone define such things, anywhere, is simply absurdly reductive, and insulting to many people and cultures. One of the primary reasons for problems in many of the countries you're pointing at is the colonization and exploitation by folks of your own political persuasion. And I'm not talking about in the days of 1828, but here, today, now. So be careful where you tread.
Living in Alaska you should appreciate "liberty". That has been the course of history as I read it.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do appreciate liberty.
Values are most meaningful and stable when they reflect "truth" [hard concept] and are outside of human control,
I don't agree with this at all. Why would I want to use a value outside of my control? I think value is essentially very humanistic. Isn't the "free market" that you like to advocate for a classic illustration of this? The (financial) value of a good or service is defined by people, not some outside source, and certainly not from a deity. 2 people value some thing very differently, which is as it should be.
Further, I don't like the conflation of "meaningful" with "stable". Values, like everything else in existence, should be in flux over time. That is where stability comes from - diversity is strength. We're a culture of ideas; if those ideas don't change things like values, then I'd suggest those ideas aren't too important at all. As an artist, I'd push to explore and learn new ideas, new values and new memes that move us along. Sometimes going through those transitions can be hard - look at the Civil Rights movement, but aren't we, as both a culture and as individuals, truly more meaningful and stable because of that movement? I'd argue we are.
To push for "stable" implies the status quo is where we should be, i.e., humanity's evolution is complete. I sure hope this is not the case.
This outside source, if applied in a culture, will yield the most congruent inter-relationship possible--not perfect, but workable.
Well, unless you happen to have been a Caananite, eh? Didn't turn out to be quite so workable for them. Your "outside source" is quite possibly the source of the most on-going (and apparently unresolvable) INcongruent inter-relationships the world has seen.
When values are not shared, factions become fractious.
This isn't true at all - but can often be, particularly when folks of one fervent "belief" system refuse to allow others the freedom to pursue their own lives. History is replete with examples.
Nature is a series of relationships but those relations are not MORAL by virtue of the interactions
Or, to the contrary - "Nature" is perhaps far "more moral", in many different ways, than we are. Nature doesn't build nuclear bombs and fly planes into buildings, eh?
Should my "values" include sustaining the existence of tree species, or even a single ancient tree? Who decides that I ought to care enough about redwoods to make a personal sacrifice of whatever size, and then who decides what size sacrifice? I fully realize that what many in this thread have planned to say is only that you would give up photography. But why would you do that unless you thought you should (assuming you derive great joy from making and sharing photographs)? And if you should, how is anyone else off the hook?
What are we trying to say here? Do we know what right and wrong is? Do we know the truth? Or are truth and values destined for perpetual change?
Questions are easier to share here than answers. If anyone thinks they have it all figured out, they should remember that there are plenty of people out there who have found themselves holding the opposite view without abandoning reason (not that reason is of primary importance to ascertaining truth).
Wow, this is a great discussion, something sorely lacking in most Americans lives--it makes us think and review. Photographers are great people.
To RL Potts: I agree, we cannot NOW take the high moral ground--------- but that was the original design, and on a personal level which would feed in to elected officials who would maintain a moral government.
Do we need to return to that design? Absolutely. But the design incorporates a currently very unpopular religion in today's multiculturalism. We dare not use Alah as a curse word in movies but we can use other dieties as such[see, I'm even being politically correct!]
We basically are at a crossroads. CONSERVATIVES by definition [I'm using Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind] is:
1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems...
3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes as against the notion of a ‘classless society.’ With reason, conservatives often have been called ‘the party of order.’ If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum. Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.
4. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Economic leveling… is not economic progress.
5. Faith in prescription and distrust of ‘sophisters (sic), calculators, and economists’ who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.
6. Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent changes is the means of social preservation, and a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a statesman’s chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence.
by contrast, the modern defition of LIBERAL [same source] is:
(Liberalism) since 1790 has tended to attack the prescriptive arrangements of society on the following grounds:
1. The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society: meliorism. Radicals believe that education, positive (laws), and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.
2. Contempt for tradition. Reason, impulse, and materialistic determinism are severally preferred as guides to social welfare, trustier than the wisdom of our ancestors. Formal religion is rejected and various ideologies are presented as substitutes.
3. Political leveling. Order and privilege are condemned; total democracy, as direct as practicable, is the professed radical ideal. Allied with this spirit, generally, is a dislike of old parliamentary arrangements and an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.
4. Economic leveling. The ancient rights of property, especially property in land, are suspect to almost all radicals; and collectivistic reformers hack at the institution of private property root and branch.
5. As a fifth point... one can only remark that radicals unite in detesting Burke’s (the conservative) description of the state as ordained of God, and (the) concept of society as joined in perpetuity by a moral bond among the dead, the living, and those yet to be born--the community of souls.
pg. 8, 9, 10.
Accept or reject these but they can serve as a working starting point. Review them and see what YOU think.
I for one do NOT believe in the perfectabiltiy of humankind.... for the record.
We do have a PERPETUITY OF HUMAN SOULS which relates to the environment so proper direction here is VERY important. We need to make sure Sequorias are still present for our grandchildren and their grandchildren--if possible.
I'm just saying that a mid-point between anarchy and totalitarianism must be found and maintained.
It all starts with properly governning one's passions measuring a tried and true touchstone [traditionally that has been religion and in American the design was Judeo-Christianity]. The main issue for me is that those who profess Christianity don't really live up to the tenets. So we are adrift in a sea of with no compass to point the way. Sad times--and it will get worse.
The Sequoias are ONLY A FOCAL POINT in this discussion which points out the immense issues facing modern humankind.
CARL, I used the Dictionary of 1828 because it contained the definition more closely fitting the time of the creation of our fundamental laws. Your dictionary has morphed just as we have morphed. We need to use their definitions to understand their intent. Agreed?
Greater minds than your or mine have repeatedly said that if we don't occasionally return to the fundamentals we will lose our form of government. [see quote at the end]
And BARBARA, I agree with you. I've alread echoed that in my response to RL.
KENT M. touched indirectly on the concept of "liberty" which was so VERY IMPORTANT in the minds of those early Americans. And he pointed out opposing views do not have to abandon reason. Opposing views are "factions" and they too were VERY IMPORTANT in Founder's minds. Faction is the biblical equivalent of "iron sharpening iron". Reasonable ideas passed between opposing views are honed to a sharper edge when compared to only a one-sided dictate.
But one point KENT, TRUTH never changes or it is not TRUTH. The problem is we only approach TRUTH--as finite creatures we only see dimly. According to Socrates we KNOW there is a "form" which is absolute truth because we make comparisons between something being more true that something else. The mere aspect of the comparison indicates a hierarchy which logically would end in an ultimate. That ultimate is beyond humans. The same goes for "beauty", "justice" and other "forms". Read Phaedo, The Death of Socrates. Interesting.
Thank you all for your thoughts and to Stan for stepping out. Yes Sequoias are important. Other things and concepts are too. But, I'll keep my camera for a while longer....
I think I've said enough.
A few parting thoughts, and remember that BUREAUCRACY is the strong arm of government policy.... National Park Service???
‘Government, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad…But if men be bad, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn.’ William Penn, Original Intent by David Barton, pg. 341
Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature… (I)f the next centennial does not find us a great nation… it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.—President James A. Garfield as quoted by David Barton, AFA Journal, October, 2000, pg. 13.
“Different forms of government [are] assigned to each its characteristic principle: thus despotism depends upon fear; monarchy upon honor; aristocracy upon moderation; and democracy upon virtue… The really vicious situation is when institutions which are fitted for one principle of government are forced to work although that principle has been replaced by another.”
Montesquieu, Eprit des Lois, as quoted in A Concise History of the Common Law by Theodore F.T. Plucknett, pg. 70.
Democracy in America, Appendix I , Y, Vol 2.
Men place the greatness of their idea of unity of the means, (whereas) God in the ends; hence this idea of greatness, as men conceive it, leads us to infinite littleness. To compel all men to follow the same course towards the same object is a human conception; to introduce infinite variety of action, but so combined that all these acts lead in a thousand different ways to the accomplishment of one great design, is a divine conception. The human idea of unity is almost always barren; the divine idea is infinitely fruitful. Men think they manifest their greatness by simplifying the means they use; but it is the purpose of God which is simple; his means are infinitely varied.
Reason in politics leads to the inhumanity of bureaucracy. pg. 150.—Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.
All human constitutions are subject to corruption, and must perish, unless they are timely renewed, and reduced to their first principles. p. 150, Discourses Concerning Government by Algernon Sidney [Sidney was beheaded by the King of England for ideas such as these]
Larry, you are really going to use The Conservative Mind for your definitions? My head is spinning. If this conversation hasn't been closed before then (because I thought we weren't supposed to be political), I'll be back.
Yup, I'm using quotes from The Conservative Mind, and I've even brought in the "religion" word.
They may close this thread, but first moderators need to know that photography WILL somehow be affected by RULES.
Heck, photographers were even forbidden until recently, in the United States, of taking photographs of Federal Buildlings. Not a form of pure "nature" but it is the camel's nose under the tent.
I even posted on NPN the court case which dismissed that ruling. Look it up. The bureaucracy lost. Factions in action.
So, I used the book The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk because that's the most succinct difinition I've seen of both Liberal and Conservative, the two main "factions" in America. And I basically agree with Kirk has put down within the aura of my personal experience. You can, of course, disagree with Kirk's thoughts.
Can you relate what you don't like about the definitions, or is that this Sequoia discussion involves politics and human values?
Bottom line, many of the actions of photographers impinge upon "political" boundaries.
Larry, I will relate what I don't like about the definitions, but I can't until later today because of work. I'll just give you this one alternative mini-definition for now. Conservatives long for the good old days. Liberals realize the good old days were only good for certain people and were very bad for everybody else.
Barb, will really look forward to your "updated" definitions.
Your intial remark sound like socialism. The historically large middle American class goes against your premise that conservatism is good only for a few--the rich.
The free enterprise system has help more people than any other system.
Controlled greed, being able to profit from new ideas or methods, has generated more "stuff" than any other form of rule.
And I would go so far as to say Stalin would have used the all Sequoia's in a heartbeat.
Realize redistribution has reduced "liberty" and killed about 120 million people between 1920 and 1990. Why? Redistdribution is usually done through an increasingly authoritarian central power. Bad news for liberty and factions.
And the poor in America are much better off than anyplace else, but at the same time they are in danger of being complacent about their position. Tocqueville stated a 3-class system, rich-middle-poor, was the best represenation for government. Why? Because a large middle class is better grounded than either of the other two. Is that true? We'll soon find out because we are destroying in the middle even now.
"Pay a person to do nothing and they will do nothing", according the Pulitzer Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman.
Awaiting your " stuff ".
I admire your spunk. And your personal'morality' and 'ethics' won't let you spend time at work responding because you owe dedication to your job--good American thinking and example !!!!
I'm self-employed and can respond during the day. But this afternoon taking wife to the doctor for checkup.
I love the idea Stan, but living in an area surrounded by active logging I've come to realize that unless we are planning to step backwards, logging must continue and some old trees must be cut. I would give up my camera if we all could agree on a way to harvest forests that would be sustainable for the forseeable future and have minimal impact on the local and global environment. How about giving up your camera to stop off-shore drilling or the total cessation of oil drilling or fossil fuel use?
Larry, I'm self-employed, too, but with deadlines and no work/no pay, and I work a lot, so I guard my non-work time pretty carefully. I'm back but not with definitions. This is a link
to an article called "Conservatives are Liberal, and Liberals are Conservative -- on the Environment." I don't love his definitions, either, nor do I completely agree with everything he says, but this somewhat brings the conservative/liberal part of the conversation back to the environment.
P.S. I don't know if I have this link right, so if it's not right I'll work to fix it.
One from the Pew Research Center, released May 4, 2011, on Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology, containing within Section 8: Domestic Issues and Social Policy a discussion of views of energy policy and global warming.
I think, while Stan references an argument against government control of land from a separate thread in his opening post, we have severely departed from the intent of this thread when we're concerning ourselves with the definition of "liberal" and "conservative". I'm afraid we missed an opportunity here.
Larry - For what it's worth, my initial questions, especially the ones you answered, were not actually directed at you. Of course you had no way of knowing that without me stating so in the post.
Hank, Kent, et al., conversations take at least two people, and I sincerely apologize for being one of them. Hank, I can say I didn't realize it was a pattern. Kent, maybe the opportunity isn't completely lost? Maybe we can get back on track? Jim Erhardt, I apologize to you, also.
Barbara - I in no way meant to point an accusatory finger at either you or Larry, only to state my desire for the redirection of this particular thread.
CARL, I used the Dictionary of 1828 because it contained the definition more closely fitting the time of the creation of our fundamental laws. Your dictionary has morphed just as we have morphed. We need to use their definitions to understand their intent. Agreed?
Hey Larry
"morphed"?? Try "evolved". Our definitions of many things (and many people) today are critically different than they were 200 years ago. Why guess at the definitions to understand "their intent"; some are spelled out clearly in the U.S. const;
See Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Now, I don't know about you, Larry, but to me, this is a perfect example of why we don't look at definitions from 1828 to make our case; unless you simply want to pick and choose which ones you deem relevant. This would seem to put the credibility of your argument on somewhat shaky ground, IMO. I'd be wary of looking to definitions from those folks for my moral compass, but maybe that's just me. YMMV.
And it's not just color. The morality of something like allowing women to be prevented from voting is just one "fundamental" I'd NOT be inclined to return to. Property qualifications to restrict the franchise? Those are the definitions you're harkening toward. Manifest destiny is not a moral guidebook I care to review.
This also touches on Barb's point about historical viewpoints; what might've been just so wonderful for SOME people was pretty abominable for many, many others.
The historically large middle American class goes against your premise that conservatism is good only for a few--the rich.
The historically disenfranchised Irish, chinese, women, black folks, native Americans, Appalachian folks, factory workers, children, and so on would largely disagree with you. So do I.
And I would go so far as to say Stalin would have used the all Sequoia's in a heartbeat.
Well, if you care to make that argument, you'll similarly acknowledge how the political and economic landscape you're such an advocate of rid the planet of one BILLION passenger pigeons, nearly 100 million bison, eastern elk, etc, as well as virtually the entire old growth forests of the eastern seaboard in said heartbeat, and then some. It could reasonably be argued that nowhere in the history of humanity have extinctions and ecological denudation been as rampant as under this free-er enterprise system you tout. Nowhere.
FWIW, I see no harm in discussing political viewpoint and perspective in a discussion Re conservation.
Sorry the thread, in the opinion of some, is boring.
I believe these types of discussions are what a free country is all about.
This is really HOW trees saved and other issues are addressed.
Methods may be different; we may not all agree; we may make some errors and we may hit some home runs. But without discourse, we flounder. And it is the citizens who should be doing this--not central planners.
I suspect most of your ARE citizens...??? Then enter into constructive discourse and don't become exaspirated. Only a child believes things should always be "their" way.
When people cannot take an issue, like Sequoias, and begin from fundamentals and discourse about different concepts and ideas, search the depths for ALL ramifications, we are in big trouble.
We, in general, are a shallow people. Hobbes goes further stating that every man is at war with another.
The American mind has been lulled to sleep. MP3's, cell phone, cameras and hobbies of all sorts, a dumbing down of America in general [see The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom -- a liberal, no less, but I read him and agree with some of his thoughts] is making us that way.
The father of modern education, John Dewey, a Fabian Socialist, is winning. His method of education was not learning facts, science or math and learning how to connect information by thought, but it was aimed at "self-esteem". Younger people don't know much about facts or what came before them in the "community of souls"---but they feel good about that.
Arguments test our knowledge base and reasoning and hopefully the most congent will rise to the top. I believe that's what liberty does as opposed to the stinted approach of central planning and control.
Hank and Carl, things do change. Go back and read Kirk's definition about change and see list that with which you don't agree. But from you response I guess you would still want the prairies of Kansas to be covered with buffalo--is that what I understand? And you can pick out all the ethnic groups and they ALL were abused at one time, usually by strong central governments, NOT free enterprise. Slavery was/is wrong but 125 million people DIED at the hands of central planners. And rest assured that at some point, "liberty" will be lost by central control; and if you don't agree you will be killed. Won't happen you say. Read history.
Both liberals and conservatives are "labels". Abuse lies within both. Pride, of which greed is a portion, plays a strong roll in those who proclaim certain tenets, and then violate those beliefs for excess personal gain. What is excess? I don't really know but at some point it can be somewhat known... Like George Soros. But he would probably afford protect the Sequoias but I don't see him offering to buy the area and protect it. He's more interested in changing the whole world. Dangersous guy.
I firmly believe "labels" can lead to problems; truth be known we probably all have both "labeled" tendencies within us. Our passions govern our minds when it should be the other way around. Passions don't let us look under the water's surface and that is an error. There is usually a bucket with deep water.
Sorry you are all tired. Still, saving the Sequoias will not go away with motion. So, how tired are you?
WE will each go into our own worlds to help save the Sequoias and the approach will/would be different; we all need to be careful not to throw the baby out with that bathwater. In my opinion that requires that which Dewey has taken from most of the younger generation.
And, if you have time: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1551
Synopsis: EPA is prosecuting a farm family over wetland management.
Put yourselves in this families position. Over time, power will grow if not checked. That's the baby with the bathwater.
I like trees, too.... and if anyone wants my reading list, contact me via my e-mail and I'll send it.
I honestly didnt intend to provoke a steel cage match between Carl and Larry--I swear!
While I disagree strongly with some of Larry's politics and points, I strongly agree with his sense of urgency and desire to talk things out to hopefully find common ground--and hopefully act rather than argue.
The American mind has been lulled to sleep. MP3's, cell phone, cameras and hobbies of all sorts, a dumbing down of America in general
Agreed! Which is exactly the point i was making in my original post. My hobby is worthless compared to the threat our envrionment sees. Which is why id give it up in a heartbeat if I thought that were practical (and I admire Guy's practicality, but as a hopeless romantic I also prize heroism )
from you response I guess you would still want the prairies of Kansas to be covered with buffalo--is that what I understand?
Most definitely! I just returned from a lengthy drive (adding to that CO2... ) that circumnavigated a good portion of CO, SD, NE plains. It really struck me how virtually not one acre of my entire trip passed through undisturbed environment. The entire landscape had been disfigured (my word) by human "progress" I passed by countless dead coyotes, racoons, skunks, rattlers, antelope, etc all lying smashed in the road by less-than-attentive or outright cruel drivers, all discarded and ignored by the masses as they scurry to their destinations. And the views on the side of the road were dominated by trash and ugly consequences of our obsessant consumerism (see the Enviro Journalism post i am about to make) It worries me about our direction as a nation and people. Dean--I dont see it as a step backwards. It may be impossible to put the Genie back in the Bottle, but we have to find a better way because our current way is not working, IMO.
It was really a simple question I posed, the ensuing discussion has been interesting but all I wanted was a gut response. No time to ask questions or divert the topic. We often have to chose between the lesser of two evils, but we have the freedom to chose, which is a good thing.
But from you response I guess you would still want the prairies of Kansas to be covered with buffalo--is that what I understand?
An absurd extrapolation. The population was reduced, by the late 19th century, to less than one thousand animals. Estimates put the # in the 17th century anywhere from 60-100 million. What I pointed out is that the free-er enterprise system you think is so wonderful is every bit as responsible, if not more, for environmental rape, than any other political structure; but you don't seem to understand that.
Slavery was/is wrong but 125 million people DIED at the hands of central planners.
Which simply reiterates a point I've made many times before; no political structure inherently works. Nor is there any "black and white" system, which is how you like to portray things. When someone suggests flaws in the American structures, you leap to, I don't know, oh, say Stalin? That kind of diminution is ridiculous.
So we can agree that morality is not restricted to interaction between humans, but similarly exists within a single human? And, according to your own beliefs, between an individual and his/her god? I would suggest in that case it's a sketchy assertion to make that our interaction with god's creation doesn't hold some moral cause.
Certainly all gov (and non-gov) institutions can be guilty of egregious malfeasance. But posting a link twice doesn't make it any more meaningful eh? :)
On topic, I can't imagine why anyone would NOT hand in their camera if somehow doing so would mean " that not one more ancient (for the sake of this hypothetical--anything over 500 yrs old) tree would be cut down". Of course, the problem with hypothetical situations is they're most often too ridiculous as to have any meaning; such as this one.
I like someone who really fights and you are good.
OK,
Buffalo issue.
Not sure if this is similar to the Sequoia issue but let us examine.
If we now had tried to maintain 60-100 million buffalo on the great plains we would be starving. They could not be used for food if they were "protected", and the farming which ensued later would not have occured--the breadbasket of the world. I guess we could have eaten a few but have you ever tried to artifically insemminate a
cow-buffalo? [grins]
Unfortuantely for the buffalo most of their terrain became farmland and cattle range. So, do we save the buffalo and starve the people? That does not seem to be the proper answer here.
People are more important than animals, correct? If so, it was not environmental rape. And interested individuals have seen that their genetic pool still exists.
The sad decision was the reduction of the herds to conquer the Indian through destruction of their food supply. Probably a bad decision but the herd would have had to be reduced regardless if everyone was to "enjoy" a better standard of living. The farmland issue, again. Realize no culture has ever risen without a stable food supply.
Speaking of cultural rises, now that's a hot potato--at what level do we live? Like the primitive indians with buffalo---or with all the accrutrements of modern society? My answer is somewhere in between. But while no one misses that which they never had the return to that scenario is an impossibility. We possibly have too much.
And no, morality exists only between people. One person cannot act in a moral manner without another human with which to interact. So I disagree.
And Stan, I agree Americans are slobs when it come to trash. They've lost their self-government which I keep talking about.
Most foreign countries are much cleaner than we are. I think we have become a degenerate people---again without personal self-government.
Without first a government from within we will be governed from without by a heavy hand; we will be,or should be, governing ourselves, and if we don't we will eventually be governed by the bayonet. [concep borrowed from one of the Founders of America]--a concept which must be re-established in the Sequoias and other issues within our land are to survive.
I have no hope that a dictator would share our values, benevolent or not. Author and historian Paul Johnson taught me that. When you read of the atrocities humans perform on other humans it makes buffalo decimation seem shallow.
We are indeed need of help. We each have an idea from whence it might come but few of us practice our belief as an example to others--conservative or liberal. The fine people at NPN might be an exception, eh???
Larry, there's far too much out here to respond to, so I'll go back to your first post and what may be the crux of the issue. You state:
The siren-call of private property is so strong that it elicits "risk taking" beyond anything else.
This is the one thing you've said that I agree with profoundly. But I think we may view that risk-taking rather differently. To me, it is that for-profit risk-taking that brought us BP/TransOcean/Haliburton, the economic meltdown, lots of dead mine workers, children with asthma from polluted air, and enough travesties that we could go on listing them without end.
Personally, I'm ok with government (as long as it's elected by people, not corporations, but that's a whole 'nother story) placing some regulations on that risk-taking to protect those same "permanent and aggregate interests of the community" that we mentioned earlier.
If we now had trien to maintain 60-100 million buffalon on the great plains we would be starving.
It's always all-or-nothing, eh? But you're deliberately avoiding the point, again. The free-er enterprise system you dearly love, as represented in the historical context of the United State, has a record no better than any other when it comes to environmental destruction. The problem here is that you'll continue to ignore this fact, and then later, in another thread, propose exactly the same false premise to tout your position.
How many bison there are, or should be, on the Plains now, is a secondary discussion. But, in response to this post, don't you think, just for a minute, that some kind of medium might exist, some figure between, say, 1000 and 70-100 MILLION? I'd propose that's EXACTLY the same as the Sequoia issue.
Unfortuantely for the buffalo most of their terrain became farmland and cattle range. So, save the buffalo and starve the people does not seem to be the proper answer here.
Well, you said it. It was more a matter of "destroy the bison in order to starve the people". Semantics, eh?
But the idea that the current US population couldn't exist, perfectly comfortably, with a few million bison wandering around the Plains is simply absurd.
People are more important than animals, correct? If so, it was not environmental rape
People are no more important than anything else. To propose otherwise is an article of faith, and completely insupportable.
Maybe to you or I, people are "important" - but in the grand scheme of things, not at all. I'm not sure the construct of "important" exists other than in our own minds. That's an entirely anthropocentric viewpoint.
But - if you hold it, then we need to establish what else is important, and what is the true cost of our behaviors. Again, your premise here is that this was/is an "us or them" situation, and that's simply ludicrous. The extermination of the bison, or the Auks, or the sea cows, or the wolverine, or the eastern elk, or the Pacific Salmon, or the Passenger Pigeon, or the bald eagles, or Grey wolves, or the Chestnut trees, or the Sequoia, or the Great whales, ad infinitum, wasn't ever critical to our survival or even to our comfort. You know that, yet your argument here holds otherwise. Rape doesn't hinge on "need", and nor does it hinge upon priorities. That statement above implies both; this idea is simply insane.
If you think the destruction of the great bison herds was not "environmental rape", I'm not sure what to say. It was a rape of the animals themselves, of the environment, of the people who subsisted with them, of the other species they shared the Plains with, of the Plains themselves. It was a rape of our own morality.
Now that's a hot potato--what level do we live. Like the primitive indians with buffalo or with all the accrutrements of modern society? My answer is somewhere in between. But while no one misses that which they never had the return to that scenario is an impossibility.
First and foremost here is the dismissive premise and perjorative use of the term 'primitive'; an all-too common worldview. Given how valiantly and persistently those people fought and died for their way of life, I'd suggest they certainly disagree with you. And given how few (none) indigenous people in any region of the world simply 'walked out of the woods to attain these accoutrements', it could just be that we, in our modern society, are indeed missing something.
But the question of how to live? Carefully and consciously is what springs to mind. That being the case, I simply can't see any argument at all for unregulated financial economies and removal of environmental regulations and regulatory institutions.
And no, morality exists only between people. One person cannot act in a moral manner without another human to interact. So I disagree.
You're free to believe and argue this position, of course, but it's completely untenable. And, as I've illustrated, directly in conflict with your own Judeo-Christian belief system.
"The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: the world and they that dwell therein" (Ps. 24:1)
I'd wager destroying something that so explicitly belongs to someone else is not moral behavior. And this is repeated: "the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me" (Lev. 25:23)
One question; does the 1828 definition you referenced only state that definition which you quoted? I don't have the text, of course, but I'm curious if there's no further reference than the single definition you quoted. I'd be highly surprised if not.
Further, given the text is simply a xian version of a real dictionary, from 200 years ago, I think we need to reconsider morality with a little bit wider (and more current) scope.
Most foreign countries are much cleaner than we are. I think we have become a degenerate people---without personal self-government. Without government from within we will be governed from without by a heavy hand; we will be,or should be, governing ourselves, and if we don't we will eventually be governed by the bayonet
Interesting. Larry, next time you come to Alaska, let's go take a look around the landscape where there is no gov body restricting trash. And this isn't anything recent, we'll look around the woods at trash that's been there a long, long time - like, 100 years long. You spoke above with an anti-NPS sentiment; perfect. Come visit Wrangell - St. Elias NP, and look at the difference. The folks who live (and lived) in the area, with no gov restriction on what they did with their trash are a great example of this "Self-govt". The NPS' work there is a great example of this 'strong arm bureaucracy' you referenced already. I have no doubt in my mind which I prefer.
After reading most of this, I think Larry and Carl are much closer to being on the same page then they may realize (but I will leave it to them to figure that out).
Thanks for keeping it civil and thought-provoking!
You are very astute and I think you are whipping me to death.
You do make some good points.
It would appear that we are indeed coming from different viewpoints. I do believe in the Judeo-Christian concepts. That said I don't think many who say they do also practice what they say. I often find my self wanting in this respect.
You do follow Russell Kirks definition of LIBERAL in that you profer:
1. The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society: meliorism. Radicals believe that education, positive (laws), and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.
2. Contempt for tradition. Reason, impulse, and materialistic determinism are severally preferred as guides to social welfare, trustier than the wisdom of our ancestors. Formal religion is rejected and various ideologies are presented as substitutes.
3. Political leveling. Order and privilege are condemned; total democracy, as direct as practicable, is the professed radical ideal. Allied with this spirit, generally, is a dislike of old parliamentary arrangements and an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.
4. Economic leveling. The ancient rights of property, especially property in land, are suspect to almost all radicals; and collectivistic reformers hack at the institution of private property root and branch.
For the record, I believe in NONE of these.
So that's the crux of our presentations and it represents "faction". Through intelligent discourse between factions a median is struck which provideds the advantage of stopping abrupt and huge swings in culture. It becomes an averaging so to speak. Is that good? A matter of opinion. I think abrupt changes are often not good. People need time to adjust.
Your profound arguments present, to me at least, the huge complexity of issues of culture, not the least of which is the environment and specifically on this thread the Sequoias.
I would urge all NPN members not to become distraught with arguments but to do research in the community of souls [to use conservative terminology]. Study history, study current conditions, study science as directed towards issues and then be active for what you believe is near the truth. Do it based on information, not emotion.
About all I can say except for the complete definition of MORAL from MY facsimile copy of The American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828-----AS CARL REQUESTED:
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character are determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.
'Keep at the least within the compass of moral actions, which have in them vice or virtue'.--Hooker.
'Mankind is broken loose from moral bands.'--Dryden.
2. Subject to the moral law and capable of moral actions; bound to perform social duties; as a moral agent or being.
3. Supported by the evidence of reason or probability; founded on experience of the ordinary course of things; as moral certanty, distinguished from physical or mathematical certainty or demonstration.
'Physical and mathematical certainty may be stiled infallible, and moral certainty may be properly stiled indubitable.'--Wilkins
'Things of a moral nature may be proved by moral arguments'--Tilltson
4. Conformed to rules of right, or to the divine law respecting social duties; virtuous; just; as when we say, a particular action is not moral.
5. Conformed to law and right in exterior deportment; as, he leads a good moral life.
6. Reasoning or instructing with regard to vice and virtue.
'Whilst thou, a moral fool, sitt'st still and cri'st.'--Shakspeare
7. In general, moral denotes something which respects the conduct of men and their relations as social beings whose action have a bearing on each other's rights and happiness, and are therefore right or wrong, virtuous or viscious; as moral character; moral views; moral knowldege; moral sentiments; moral maxims; moral approbation; moral doubts; moral justice; moral virtue; moral obligations, &c. Or moral denotes domething which respects the intellectual powers of man, as distinct from his physical powers. Thus we speak of moral evidence, moral arguments, moral persuasion, moral certainty, moral force; which operate on the mind.
Moral law, the law of God which prescribes the moral or social duties, and prohibits the trangression of them.
Moral sense, an innate or natural sense of right and wrong; an instinctive peception of what is right or wrong in moral conduct, which approves some actions and disapproves others, independent of education or the knowledge of any positive rule or law. But the existence of any such moral sense is verymuch doubted. Paley. Encyc.
Moral philiosophy, the science of manners and duty; the science which treats of the nature and condition of man as a social being, of the duties which reslut from his social relations, and the reasons on which they are founded.
And one more item for those who do venture into discourse--definitions are important:
"And therefore, when the Discourse is put into Speech and begins with the Definintions of Words, and proceeds by Connexion of the same into generall Affirmations, and of these again into Syllogismes; the End... is called the Conclusion; and the thought of the mind by it signified, is that conditionall Knowledge, or Knowledge of the consequences of words, which is commonly called science. But if the first ground of such Discourse, be not Definitons; or if the Definitions be not rightly joyned together into Syllogismes, thent the End or Conclusion, is again Opinion."--From "The Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes in old English spelling
Those who don't read are no better off than those who can't....
Wow--im amazed Jim let the train keep running--cause im getting real close to shutting it down (unless we rename the topic "Carl and Larry discuss Things")
My original hypo may have been "ridiculous" (thanks, Carl ) but it has provoked an important discussion.
Larry, Im afraid you did lose me with your unintentional defense of genocide and extinction. As Carl says, It's not all or nothing here. And while I grew up Catholic and went to Sunday School etc, I would argue that we have much to learn from those "inferior" beasts that, as Carl puts it, do not fly planes into buildings. It's not a 'contempt' of tradition, its learning to cull the wheat from the chaff. I am neither a Liberal nor Conservative. Labels divide. I learned way more from the example of my (Christian) mother than I did from ancient text recitals. Reading is important and good. Transforming words into deeds is better. So, I would suggest that rather than spending an extra hour this weekend disecting Socrates, perhaps we all could spend an hour this weekend planting a tree, or walking an elderly person cross the street??
Why not plant a tree, help the elderly..... AND read Socrates???
Close the thread because basically only two people are in discourse??? Give me a better reason...
My take on this thread: The initial issue was to save the Sequoias from being harvested. The main reason was their age. It was somewhere established the National Park Service should enforce such a move.
My spinoff was don't be to hasty to constantly empower central control regardless of the reason. The sirens call with a bitter end.
Our relationship with "nature" as photographers must still be balanced. The end seldom justifies the means and our emotions usually must be checked against a knowledge base.
We talked about differing knoweldge bases and beliefs and called the "factions". We found that such dichotomy is found only in a free society and tempers rapid change to a more measured level.
Central control is a whole issue of itself and history shows it has usually been garnered initially by a series of unpersceptable motions of men using various reasons.
Along that line I'm ending with a quote:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. James Madison, Federalist #47
and I promise not to write more than once a week if that will help the thread continue.
The initial issue was to save the Sequoias from being harvested
That's where you got off track, Larry. The initial issue (aka raison d'etre of this post) was about personal sacrifice and whether we as people are willing to do so for the greater good. Perhaps that sidetracks into whether there is 'original sin' but really im just making the point that some if not all of us would sacrifice for a just cause, giving up our creature comforts.
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not" -Dr Seuss, The Lorax (hope youve read that one, Larry )
Stan, with regard to the Great Smoky Mountains and the Florida Everglades, or actually any of Florida that isn't already far from "the real Florida" (a Florida State Parks motto), I'd be happy to sacrifice. I'd prefer a guarantee of some sort that my sacrifice would mean something.
Stan this thread has gone so many different directions, that without returning to your original question (which I did answer! ), I'll pick up on another question you asked that hasn't drawn an answer (or if it has I missed it). You posted:
i just came across an artist-in-residences bio for one of the parks, and he mentioned that the aboriginal people, Sherpas, Navajo etc: "have a tremendous connection to the land, living in harmony with it rather than striving to control, or exploit it. I believe we have much to learn from these ancient cultures."
What do you think of that statement?
I agree with the last part. I think we do have much to learn from every other culture. Each is an important way of seeing the world and taken in sum, reflect the various toolbox of ways we've come up with for dealing with the world and each other. And I won't deny that native cultures have a strong connection to the land, but I think that any culture that draws its living from the land around that will have much the same connection. E.g., I suspect any family that has farmed in the same place for generations has a pretty strong connection to the land. Today, our living comes from all around the world, and on a personal level, mostly from the grocery store, on nicely processed and wrapped pieces of styrofoam and in boxes in bags of completely indeterminate origin. No wonder we don't have a connection to the land.
Where I take exception is with the idea that these people live in harmony with the land without exploiting it. Some may. Some certainly don't. But I think that the general idea is part of the romanticization that is typical of our view of other "less developed cultures" and goes all the way back to Rousseau and his "noble savage." While it's an uplifting view, I don't think it's always grounded in fact, and I likewise think it is rooted in stereotype, which while we may see it as a "positive" stereotype, is no less confining and dehumanizing than any other stereotype. When I drive across the spectacularly overgrazed Navajo reservation, I have a hard time seeing them as any more "in harmony" with the landscape than anyone else.
I suspect that any culture which does appear to live in balance and harmony with the land around them does so not simply from some deep sense of closeness to the earth, but out of lessons hard-learned from the land. One could make a case for the Pueblos living in a sustainable way in the SW for a very long time. But that lifestyle and those values are no doubt shaped by events centuries earlier (esp the late 1200s) when what we can now see as overpopulation, overexploitation of resources, and climate change led to crop failures, famine, pervasive warfare, social upheaval, mass abandonments, and a huge contraction of their overall range. If we ever achieve a culture of balance in harmony in the SW today, I suspect we'll only do it via hard lessons that we learn ourselves (not being perceptive enough to learn them from others who already have).
Anyway, unless this thread is still alive in 2 weeks, that's it for me--I'm going on the river!
Excellent points, Brian--that's exactly the kind of feedback i was looking for (still waiting to hear from Larry). I read that statement only moments before driving through the (heavily littered) Pine Ridge Reservation and it was somewhat ironic and surreal to me--of course the Reservation is a whole other issue and perhaps divorced from the issue of how aboriginal people respect their environment. I think you make a tremendously insightful point about how we get our 'goods' wrapped up and created in China or South America etc...i think that goes a long way towards explaining the kind of apathy that people have towards their environment, regardless of the political rhetoric that goes on.
I think Larry and Carl are much closer to being on the same page then they may realize
Oh my - Shoot me now!
Stan Rose said:
perhaps we all could spend an hour this weekend planting a tree, or walking an elderly person cross the street??
That's a wide street.
My original hypo may have been "ridiculous" (thanks, Carl )
Hey Stan - it's kind of like a child asking who would win a fight between a lion with no claws and a tiger with no teeth. A hypothetical like you've posed here serves no purpose if it's not discussed in a greater context, IMO. You can't outline every possible variable, so the question only bears meaning if we consider the premise, not the parameters. Does everyone have to hand in their camera, or just me? :)
Larry said:
You do follow Russell Kirks definition of LIBERAL in that you profer:
1. The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society:
Larry, don't you think that's simply absurd? The "perfectibility of man"? What does that even mean? I don't know ANYONE who fits that definition, nor can I guess who gets to define "perfect", which, IMO, makes it as ridiculous as the hypothetical in the OP.
"radicals", "men like gods", "contempt for tradition" … etc, etc? That kind of loaded language isn't really something to take seriously, particularly if it's used to define such a large group of people as "liberal". 50% of the population think that way?
That entire section of the discussion is simply meaningless spin, IMO.
the complete definition of MORAL from MY facsimile copy of The American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 …… snip .. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character are determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.
There you have it right there. As I pointed out above, more than HALF the core ideologies of this "god" construct (see commandments) have nothing to do with social beings in relation to each other", but are solely focused on relations with one's god and/or one's self. To pretend that morality does not extend beyond one's relations to other human beings is confounding.
Further, I'd argue that as social creatures, everything we do involves our relations with each other. How does clear-cutting a grove of Sequoia NOT involve men as social beings in relation to each other? We all live on the same planet, no? Sometimes I wonder.
The initial issue was to save the Sequoias from being harvested. The main reason was their age. It was somewhere established the National Park Service should enforce such a move.
My spinoff was don't be to hasty to constantly empower central control regardless of the reason. The sirens call with a bitter end.
My take on your spinoff:
The initial issue was to save the Sequoias from being harvested. The main reason was their age. It was somewhere established the National Park Service should enforce such a move.
You somehow swung that to Stalin's Soviet Union and the murder of 120 million human beings.
We found that such dichotomy is found only in a free society
Well, I don' know who this "we" is - I never found any such thing, nor do I agree with the finding in even the tiniest of manners.
Our relationship with "nature" as photographers must still be balanced.
Our relationship with ourselves, and our relationship with each other, must similarly be balanced. And that is precisely the point of regulation; to balance those relationships. You seem to think there was some mystical point in history when thru some kind of fabricated higher moral grounding people balanced those relationships themselves. I can't think of any time in our culture's history where that has actually been the case. Little House on the Prairie was a TV show, Larry; it's not real.
I don't have "contempt for tradition" - I try not to ignore reality and build some fantastical narrative that denies large portions of the real history of the culture. You seem to gloss over any criticism of the treatment of people under this "Free-er enterprise" structure, or ignore it completely, and then define those who would wish to offer a more thorough examination as having 'contempt for tradition'.
Here's an example of how you build this false narrative; in a response to Barb earlier, you said "I admire your spunk. And your personal 'morality' and 'ethics' won't let you spend time at work responding because you owe dedication to your job--good American thinking and example"
There is nothing "American" about what Barb described. Nothing at all. There are people all over the world who might adhere to a strong "work ethic", and that has nothing to do with the founding fathers of the United States. But you keep telling that story, and for some reason, believe in it.
But - for me to point that out isn't to say it's not an admirable quality, or that America is bad, or that Stalin was good.
Brian Gatlin wrote:
Where I take exception is with the idea that these people live in harmony with the land without exploiting it. Some may. Some certainly don't. But I think that the general idea is part of the romanticization that is typical of our view of other "less developed cultures" and goes all the way back to Rousseau and his "noble savage." While it's an uplifting view, I don't think it's always grounded in fact, and I likewise think it is rooted in stereotype, which while we may see it as a "positive" stereotype, is no less confining and dehumanizing than any other stereotype. When I drive across the spectacularly overgrazed Navajo reservation, I have a hard time seeing them as any more "in harmony" with the landscape than anyone else.
Hey Brian
I think the "romantic savage" view is grounded in fact (see "The Savage Mind", Levi-Strauss) but like all generalizations, it can never apply equally across the board. But to examine a "spectacularly overgrazed Navajo reservation" in considering what might be an aboriginal connection to the land is somewhat disingenuous.
Do I have to hand in both DSLRs? How about a P&S? Can I borrow someone else's camera? Does this allow all Sequoia under 500 years to be cut? etc etc etc ...
Feel free to take up Larry's side of the argument if you want to - though I'm not exactly sure what that actually is.
Thanks for the offer Stan--I mean "the ast word"!!!
Gosh,goooolllleee... Be sure to engrave this important epithet on some monolith in Garden of the Gods... OK??? [grins]
I was trying to live up to my promise to write only once weekly.
You said I was outnumbered--I'm not so sure. There is sometimes strength in "silent evidence". Perhaps those who might be on my side [whatever that is?] just don't care to comment. For those not familiar with silent evidence the example I saw went like this:
Cicero viewed a painting in ancient Rome featuring survivors of a shipwreck "who prayed" that they would be saved. Cicero astutley asked, "Where is the painting of those who prayed and weren't saved". Along that "track", less vocal NPN members may be content to read and think... Enough said.
But here's what I've accumulated.
Once a week reply.
for 16May11
Stan said I got off "track" on the issue of giving up cameras to save Sequoias.
My take is "tracks" come from someplace and go someplace.
I tried to start from a fundamental, perhaps from the initial thread started by Floris, to NEVER empower a government agency to do that which can be done by private people. Sequoias, in my meager opinion, CAN BE SAVED BY PRIVATE PERSONS. I'm fearful that once power is granted to "bureaucracy" it never comes back to its original source--the people. That's where the "track" eventually goes. And looking backwards down the tracks there is ample evidence that power, in its many forms, is eventually abused.
I asserted that once a central power controls Sequoias it will be another "teat" in society's mouth reinforcing the concept of "let government do it". I believe history shows abuse on both sides of the pendulum, PEOPLE [esp. corporations] AND GOVERNMENT, but the most extreme have been, in terms of destruction in all forms, the empowerment of centralized power.
I note a tidbit in the Wall Street Journal today, 17May11, front page, that a subheading read: "Federal Plan to Limit Potatoes on School Menus Whips Up Supporters". Why do those who have power now think they can mandate what we feed our kids?
It will get worse. And it is/was not the design.
The Federal Government has 19 "enumerated" powers among which is nothing to do with the school system. Eisenhower implemented federal power into our "education" after sputnik. Was that good? NO !!!! And neither is giving the NPS more and more reign in controlling trees. And government encroachment into education is a violation of the concept of Federalist No. 45 which says that state governments will have control over the ordinary course of daily lives of citizens. Does anyone think the original 13 colonies would have empowered a central government to say their children could not eat potatoes??? A resounding NO! That's how far we crept in the stealth and siren call of "let government do it".
Realize legally corporations are "fictionalized" people and suffer the same shortcomings when their leaders fail, too.
And the camera issue is more complex than just throwing the item away to save a tree. It is a touchstone especially meaningful for those at NPN which shows technology and the numerous inputs into production that affect our environment. And we've become addicted. Is it wrong to like technology and give up more primitive methods/items? I really don't know. What is---is.
I don' pretend to know all phases of production of cameras but consider these:
The manufacturing of glass lenses requires mining of a sorts, energy to melt and refine, and rare earth coatings for color control. The body of my camera is magnesium, also requiring mining and refining and casting, etc. The electronics are similar in their demand for energy to be produced and probably some "raping of the earth" too. So, giving up a camera is really environmentally sound. One camera really makes not that much difference on the environment but the sum total does.
Add to that all the camera out there add all the other "stuff" we use and the 'abuse' and the insult in varied forms to the natural environment grows exponentially.
But humans simply will not return to that which is inferior, in their minds, andyway, from what they now have. Technology requires a price. So everyone, not just corporations, not just bureaucracy, must make choices.
I just think eventually the pendulum, present in all endeavors of private interests and government, has the best choice of returning to the center over time in a free-enterprise system. I may be wrong but I see the potential of great damage from historical central power. Yes, it may be remote now but it is always there and always encroaching.
To Stan's point: He would, or so he says, give up his camera to save a Sequoia.
I reply, knowing full well I can't really speak for Stan, and want to say, "nah--you wouldn't."
Just as the aboriginals in America would not give up their new Winchester and go back to a bow and arrow, you would not give up your camera. We are simply too technologically oriented as humans, having too much fun with our leisure time to revert back to bows and arrows. That's also why we don't study history--reading is more boring than the excitement of our "interests".
------------
Now Brain G. nailed a good point in his reply on this day. It really makes little difference where people's roots lie if they don't practice that which was/is deemed "good"; respect for each other and the environment is an INDIVIDUAL issue of some measure, for each generation, or it will never happen.
Force from the top seldom works. The ultimate questions are these: from whence does that respect find it source? and how much is shared by a culture? The more varied each of these two items the more difficult for agreement.
Again, I would only ask: From whence does respect come?
Traditional values are shaped, or at lest best studied, by historical events. They do change over time. Those deemed worthy should be followed. Those deemed unworthy should not be maintained. There is a whole list and they usually lie on the "tracks" that go backwards in time.
I assert then this is one "track" we need to re-visit and then take it forward. It is a long train.... The community of souls, dead, living and those of the future are all involved.
Compared to the realities of life I think we are following Rome's example: Luxuria principi gravis, paupertas vix a privato toleranda. ---- Luxury, more savage than arms, has oppressed (Rome), and avenges a conquered world.—Juvenal, Satires, 6, li. 292. Pg. 165, Discourses Concerning Government by Algernon Sidney.
That's why cameras will never be surrendered for trees--they are really luxuries compared to bare bone, perhaps even aboriginal existence; and I apologize because it isn't really a good comparison, and I used it only because of the people on NPN could/would/might relate to some connection between the two.
17May11
Carl said:
-----------
"You [Larry] seem to gloss over any criticism of the treatment of people under this "Free-er enterprise" structure, or ignore it completely, and then define those who would wish to offer a more thorough examination as having 'contempt for tradition'.
--------------
Well, I certainly left you, and perhaps others, with the wrong impression.
Free-enterprise is never better than those who practice it.
That goes backwards to "values" and those are the precursor to "morals". Immoral people will at once lead to immoral free enterprise and also to immoral government and also to an immoral [greedy,lying,cheating,Viagra-oriented and fixated] society (grins).
I got off "track" on the issue of giving up cameras to save Sequoias.
My take is "tracks" come from someplace and go someplace.
Hey Larry
I do agree with that sentiment.
a fundamental … to NEVER empower a government agency to do that which can be done by private people
How about "never say never" as a fundamental? "private people" (whatever those are) can fight wars, educate children, build roads, send emergency aid and disaster relief, police neighborhoods, adjudicate court decisions, fight fires, etc, etc, etc, as well - but I think a public process has its own value on many, many things. And you forget, or dismiss, the fact that the NPS itself is a product of "private people" - Gaia bless those folks; without them and the work they did, what do you suppose Yosemite or Yellowstone or Denali et al, might look like today?
Some might argue that private private education is 'better' than public education, and it's clearly an arguable position. But environmental protection, on a large scale? Give me any example at all that comes close to something like the NPS. Just one.
I'm fearful that once power is granted to "bureaucracy" it never comes back to its original source--the people.
If you really believe in this American experiment, then you ought first acknowledge that the "bureaucracy" IS "the people". If not, then the whole idea is a sham to the core.
I asserted that once a central power controls Sequoias it will be another "teat" in society's mouth reinforcing the concept of "let government do it". I believe history shows abuse on both sides of the pendulum, PEOPLE [esp. corporations] AND GOVERNMENT, but the most extreme have been, in terms of destruction in all forms, the empowerment of centralized power.
And the most powerful and lasting forms of environmental (and human) protections have similarly been via the empowerment of public power. But - really, isn't that WHY we suggest the Sequoias be granted NPS protections? We, as a community, say 'we value these forests, and we want them to remain here'; it's because of the power of gov't that delegating management of some thing so valuable is a good idea - the gov't is a communal response to some thing.
I may be wrong but I see the potential of great damage from historical central power. Yes, it may be remote now but it is always there and always encroaching.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh? You're arguing the tired "slippery slope" line, and I just don't see that as sound rationale. That's WHY we have elections, and we choose administrations that we feel might most safely be able to traverse that slippery slope (though we often differ on who those might be). Your argument is that we should turn around and go home because of this possible future encroachment; I don't buy that at all. Shouldn't it be our job to monitor this encroachment and tighten the reigns in when Sinister Stalinhood is near? You seem to advocate turning to flee at every turn simply because way off in the distance lie the Russian Red; and yes, contrary to what you see on a popular "news" network, we're nowhere near the Lair of Leninism.
Slippery slopes also slide the other direction, and our own history is replete with examples of what free-er enterprise can lead to ('history', of course, including the financial disaster of 2008, the gulf oil disaster in 2010, etc, etc).
Secondly, there's great danger in ANY form of power, is there not? Would you rather live within a powerless nation? Too often those who advocate for a smaller gov't are the very first ones who demand their gov't be big enough to annihilate any other gov't on the planet. We don't need more or less governance, we need careful governance, whether it be at the local, state or federal level. The argument that local and state government is somehow less corrupt and more closely aligned to a healthy living is simply untenable; though I understand you're not concerned with how valid a position might be, but only that you repeat it ad infinitum.
Just as the aboriginals in America would not give up their new Winchester and go back to a bow and arrow, you would not give up your camera. We are simply too technologically oriented as humans, having too much fun with our leisure time to revert back to bows and arrows. That's also why we don't study history--reading is more boring than the excitement of our "interests".
That's simply not true. There are many, many aboriginal peoples across the world who still fight for the freedom to avoid the world we embrace. Remember those photos after the S-Pacific tsunami a few years ago of tribesman in the hills shooting arrows at the helicopters of pilots flying in to "check up on them"? There are countless examples of aboriginal people all cross the world (including the Americas) who fought and died in order to say 'no' to the world you're claiming they couldn't do without.
We've already discussed this above, and yet you ignore it, only to later repeat it. Repeating a falsehood, blindly ignoring reality, doesn't make a thing true.
respect for each other and the environment is an INDIVIDUAL issue of some measure, for each generation, or it will never happen.
This is similarly not true. Anyone who grew up in Australia in the 70's remembers the "Do The Right Thing" campaign, a national gov't funded campaign against littering. The change wrought in the collective conscience is immeasurable.
Respect for each other? Perhaps you need to remember the Civil Rights Act and review the change that measure enacted. Or countless other pieces of legislation for human rights that led to real social change and respect for one another.
Traditional values are shaped, or at lest best studied, by historical events. They do change over time. Those deemed worthy should be followed. Those deemed unworthy should not be maintained. There is a whole list and they usually lie on the "tracks" that go backwards in time.
Well, you've not given a single instance that supports this, in the face of how many examples that contradict it? Let's talk environmental value, as that's the focus of the thread. Exactly which point back in time would you advise we head for?
Free-enterprise is never better than those who practice it.
That goes backwards to "values" and those are the precursor to "morals". Immoral people will at once lead to immoral free enterprise and also to immoral government and also to an immoral [greedy,lying,cheating,Viagra-oriented and fixated] society (grins).
So enlighten us. When exactly did these so wonderfully moral people exist, that were not greedy, didn't lie or cheat, were apparently asexual, and had a sort of wonderful harmony with the environment. We should probably make an effort to focus on that last one, just for the OT. Dates and examples, please.
We have too many issues going. Not sure how to solve that if it can be solved. Cameras, Sequoias, liberty, factions, politics, bureaucracy, individuals, groups, environment, etc. However, they may all be inter-related.
And actually I am quite impressed in your defense. I'm glad you are well grounded.
I do disagree with your comment about who/what bureaucracy is.
I guess to sum up what I've tried to say could best be studied by reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek.
It is the backward looking track [originally published in 1944] and coming forward to today. It holds what I beleive to be some valid data [for your review and critique] concerning my stance.
The problem is, according to Hayek and writers in the modern First Things periodical**, the trending towards National Socialism is real, hidden, and has dire consequences for us and for the Sequoias.
Without cluttering this intereresting thread with a bunch of words [exception is the excerpts below] I'll just issue this challenge: You read this book and you give me ONE book to read, we'll both accomplish that, and then revisit each other here at a later date.
Up to the challenge? I bet you are.
Hayek wrote on National Socialism commonly known as Fascism.
"Contemporary events differ from history in that we do not know the results they will produce...
"It is necessary now to state the unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate we are in some danger of repeating. The danger is not immediate... and the condition in England and the United States are still so remote as to make it difficult to believer that we are mving in the same direction."
"There are few signs yet that we have the intellectual courage to admit to ourselves that we may have been wrong. Few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and naziism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tenencies... [wow]
"As a result, many who think themselves infinitely superior to the aberrations of naziism, and sincerely hate all it manifefstations, work at the same time for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny.
"... But the socialism of which we speak is not a party matter... It does NOT affect our problem that some groups may want less socialism than others; that some want socialism mainly in the interest of one group and others in that of another. The important point is that, if we take the people whose views influence developments, they are now in the democracies in some measure socialists... It is because nearly everybody wants it that we are moving in this direction... The main question is where this movement will lead us...
"Where these common beliefs of our generation will lead us is a problem not for one party but for every one of us--a problem of the most momentous significance. Is there a greater tragedy imagninable in that, in our endeavor consciously to shape our future in acordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?
"... It was the prevalence of socialist views and not Prussianism that Germany had in common with Italy and Russia--it was from the masses and not from the classes steeped in the Prussian tradition... that National Socialism arose."
Hayek is a Noble laureate in economics.
"It is seldom that libery of any kind is lost all at once"---David Hume
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas"--Lord Acton
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has gtried to make it his heaven."--F. Hoelderlin
"The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely differn and perhaps contradictory: freedom and organization."--Elie Halevy
** "... America is not and, please God, will never becme Nazi Germany, but it is only blind hubris that denies it can happen here and, in peculiarly American ways, may be happening here..." pg. 19, The End of Democracy, The Judicial Usurpation of Politics, First Things, November 1996, the editors, Richard John Neuhaus and James Neuchterlein.
on and on.
Apologies to everyone for a logical fallacy of falling back into quotes and other's ideas for strength of my arguments. Carl has backed me into a corner and I'm not smart enough to wiggle out.
the fisch
Posted by Lorna Taylor on May 19, 2011 at 11:38 AM
I would also like to add to Carl's comments .
Larry you said , You said I was outnumbered--I'm not so sure. There is sometimes strength in "silent evidence". Perhaps those who might be on my side [whatever that is?] just don't care to comment. For those not familiar with silent evidence the example I saw went like this:
Larry don't take silence as compliance to your issues, I think many are silent because they don't wish to be caught up in an argument with you . You have strongly stated your views and thank you Carl for having the strength to take Larry on, as Larry I feel as I am sure many do you are set in your opinion and are inflexible to anyone else view if it does not match yours. I know I don't have the energy to try , or the will to waste my time on it !
You have both made this an interesting read either way but sorry Larry I am and I 'm sure many others are in Carl's camp when it comes to choosing between your debate ! Keep up the good fight boys ,you have enlighten many of us !Cheers
So I withdraw my unnecessary apology ;) and say that Lorna has stated my thoughts also regarding the discussion.
Regarding a good work ethic, thank you for that compliment, Larry, and I understand that many people have appropriated that as an American characteristic, but I believe there are millions of very hard-working people all over the world who'd beg to differ. I'm sure that if you think about it you have to realize that. As long as it is "us" and "them" instead of all "us" there will be no winners. I know that being a citizen of the world is counter to American conservatism, but nevertheless that's what we all are. And yet, and still, hearing the Star Spangled Banner gives me chills (the good kind) every time. It's just not, as almost nothing is, all or none.
Well Lorna and Barabara, it would seem to me the "inflexability" can be looked upon from 2-directions.
I'm not sure from whence Carl is coming. He does not like labels.
I would say, based on the definitions I presented, he is "liberal" and "socialistic". Those are not necessarily bad unless the "track" goes back and shows those mind sets sometimes lead us to places we really don't want to go.
I would also ask you do what I've asked Carl to do: READ and consider: The Road to Serfdom.
As a fair exchagne, give me a book to read and I'll read it.
Then we can legitimately "argue" through constructive discourse.
This stuff won't go away. It comes up everytime we face the reality of a declining morality in America, the trend towards socialism, and insults to our environment. It comes up everytime we go to the ballot box.
Cheers to you, too...
My hopes is that by exchange of ideas we can see the possibity of our best ideas fueling a nightmare through the imperceptible motion of political minds. Democracy is dangerous because it is "mob rule". That's why we do NOT live in a democracy. History shows that to be the case.
"In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot ge said too often--at any rate it is not being said nearly often enough--that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish inquisition never dreamt of." -- Comment by George Orwell.
That's the baby out with the bathwater. Protect our environment but don't empower central power. Afterall, they won't even let your kids eat potatoes at school.
The danger is not immediate... and the condition in England and the United States are still so remote as to make it difficult to believer that we are mving in the same direction."
Hey Larry
And if I walk across the road to pick up some trash (as I just did), I'm moving in a westerly direction, directly toward Moscow; but I've no doubt at all that I'm not in danger of somehow morphing into Joseph Stalin.
That's what being an adult is all about.
Larry, you didn't respond to a single comment I've made. You ignored it, and merely regurgitated the same rhetoric yet again. You're so adamant that we've wandered astray and that we need to return to the glory days of yore, yet when I ask a simple question
".. you've not given a single instance that supports this, in the face of how many examples that contradict it? Let's talk environmental value, as that's the focus of the thread. Exactly which point back in time would you advise we head for? "
you completely ignore it. I don' know what kind of morality you come from, but my mother taught me that to ignore some asking you a question is simply rude. It's certainly not a discussion or conversation.
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." Winston Churchill, 'My early Life', Ch 9.
Edited: I see you've just posted again now; I'll get back a little later.
You said I don't respond to your statements. Well, here is No. 1 in a long list to come--if the thread remains open.
And one at at time for brevity.
------------------
You said:
"If you really believe in this American experiment, then you ought first acknowledge that the "bureaucracy" IS "the people". If not, then the whole idea is a sham to the core."
------------------
BUREAUCRACY is NOT the people.
The bureacracy are those few people who have power employed by "governments" at all levels. They are not the "people" of the constitution. They are part of the questionable "4th" branch of government created by fiat and called "Administrative Law". It is not constitutional but, like many other aspects of our lives, has been inserted and maintained by displaced power.
My source:
“Throughout the modern era of administrative regulation, agencies have been delegated sweeping powers... What makes the delegations more dramatic is that these agencies typically wield powers that are characteristic of each of the three principal branches of government...
"Such delegations raise fundamental questions concerning the constitutional distribution of authority in our system of government... That Congress [state legislatures] cannot delegate legislative power is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution...
"Furthermore, it is argued, delegation makes it all too easy for Congress [ or a state legislature] to enact, or allow continuation of, regulatory schemes that work against the public interest. This theory notes the tendency of much economic regulation to transfer wealth from one private interest group to another.. without the glare of publicity... [D]elagative authority.. has been relaxed since the 1930’s...”
Source: Administrative Law and Process, Nutshell Series, West Publishing.
Now, an example:
When I opened my clinic I was told that I could not get a business license until I had a low table for wheelchair patients to sign checks. Being a veterinary clinic I told him that we have very few such clients and that I would wheel them to a low table. He said that would be demeaning. I next said I did NOT want such a shelf because children's heads were at that height and injuries were likely. On and on.
Anyway, he won simply by saying no business license for the building would be issued . After investing a decent sum I capitulated.
13 years later the fold-down shelf we had built has NEVER been used----never.
Now, I've already related the NPS employee calling us liars and being overbearing in Montana in a previous post. NPS is also Administrative Law.
The bureacracy has the power of "REGULATIONS", not law, behind it. One bureaucrat can shut you down; you cannot shutdown the bureaucracy--even by voting.
Where would that go with respect to protecting Sequoias or cameras I have no idea. But, neither did the people in pre-WW2 Germany. They, according the Hayek, [mentioned previously] had no idea the "socialism" the wanted would empower nefarious characters.
I would rather be able to attempt to negotiate with a private landowner than any bureaucrat. I think you would too because there is simply no negotiation with a bureaucrat.
Discussion
73 repliesAdmittedly Contrived hypothetical: If it were gauranteed by all involved, public and private, that not one more ancient (for the sake of this hypothetical--anything over 500 yrs old) tree would be cut down, if you agreed to turn in your camera and not take a single nature photo for the rest of your life--would you do it? Further assume that you would get no special recognitition or monetary reward for your agreement.
Id do it in a heartbeat. Any ancient tree left is worth the sum of all my photos. A real tree will always beat a photo. Any joy that my photos might bring is far less than the joy of standing under a redwood on a foggy day.
But i wont force my philosophy on anyone. Would you give up your camera?
I'm sorry my argument is foreign to you.
I will try to clarify, but it will be philosophical and possibly religious... if that's allowed...?
I have no doubt you would sacrifice your camera for trees. Would everyone do it? Probably not.
Would you sacrifice it for people? That is the ultimate question...
I deem sacrifice or "proper" [whole other topic] action to THINGS as being "ethical". Ethics can invole people, things or situations.
I deem sacrifice or "proper" action to PEOPLE as being "moral". Morality always implies interaction between humans.
So with sequoias we are dealing with ethics.
I think many problems occur when people do ethical things but not moral things; conversely I think many problems occur when people do moral things but do not practice ethics.
Both of these concepts have a source. The source is the ideas that WORDS convey.
Here are some words.
Thomas Hobbes defined NATURE in his work, The Leviathan: "Nature, the Art whereby God hath made and governes the World."
He continued by saying that NATURE is BY "the Art of man, imitated," and becomes "an Artificial Animal".
So photography, according to Hobbes, is artificial at best. People, however, differ from the bulk of NATURE because they exist by and through relaltionships. Big difference.
Now if Hobbes definition of NATURE is true, [and humans will never all agree that it is and that's part of the probelem, of course] then according to my belief system the items of NATURE are for us to use "wisely".
My belief system also says that a rich man, or even one who seeks extreme wealth, is in danger of suffering from greed, an offshoot of pride. That leads to "unwise" decisons and use.
So I would say that trees can and should be used but wisely. It would seem that those trees which take much longer to propagate should be used sparingly and for purposes that are extraordinary. The more plentiful trees are those which reproduce more rapidly and become the primary resource. They can and should be used for more common needs [not wants].
The issue with probably all societies is those who are often leaders of governments, bureaucracies or corporations are those who suffer the malady of pride/greed. They simply want the power that money brings to feed a greatly altered ego.
So, in sum, we need an agreed upon belief system for such things.
But that will NOT happen.
I believe this to be factual: our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but we've lost those.
The result is where we are in the Greek Bow scenario whereupon the bow and string are in constant battle trying to maintain equilibirum at a certain point. It is no longer a matter of law based upon principles but upon laws that can wax and wane based on the use of the concept of "democracy" [we live in a Republic and we pledge to that Republic]. The power of the majority whether right or wrong--mob rule. This begs the question will "multi-culuralism" really lead to peace?
So, the battle will rage over trees and other items fragmenting our society into factions.
Factions is what the founders of this country feared most because it destroys nations. All of Federalist No. 10 is devoted to how they foresaw the solution. That solution was the ability to own "private property" and it became the fundamental force for the settling of America.
The siren-call of private property is so strong that it elicits "risk taking" beyond anything else.
That's why the settler's risked everything for 160 acre farms or moved from the east to the extreme west--where they found huge old trees.
Ethics, morality, pride, greed, ambition, charity, discernemnt, etc. should be measured in all our decisions. But we have become shallow in recent time nurtured by a degrading agreement on basic values. We don't reflect--we react.
It won't get any better. It will eventually end up that decisions will be made by those in power and those who disagree will be eliminated--so says history.
We think we know a lot. Most "nice" people really don't understand how the mases can be manipulated.
Read "Necessary Illusions" by Noam Chomsky--a series of speeches and not difficult. It is about the media in a democracy. We are mere plastic in hands of the powerful.
In closing, The "tree" issues is sibsidiary to "relationships" between people. An agreed upon unchangeable ethic/moral standard would lead to the appropriate tree decision. Discernment and reliance upon lofty principles, not greed and pride, is the engine for resoving issues.
Again,this philosophy if practiced as it should be, would be based on unchangeable concepts acting as arbiter, provided the rules are outside human control. That is the "religious" part of our existence. Realize if/when there is nothing for guidance outside the box of humanity there simply no chance for agreement.
As you can see, really an UNSOLVABLE issue for humans. And we are supposed to be a PART of NATURE. I wonder if we really have arrived, or if we ever will.
Bottom line: advocating for wise use of the sequoias is closer to being part of nature and a good photographer and a good human being. That's how I read the Christian Bible--wise use of God's ART.
the fisch
I work for a local municipality and one of my job duties is to enforce clearing restrictions and investigate tree clearing complaints. I would say that 9 out of 10 people who call and complain state that the alleged offender is taking down trees that are "at least 100 years old". And I can tell you that 9 out of 9 people are wrong - because Long Island has VERY few areas with trees that are that old due to development, farming, fires and hurricanes. But to the person complaining, they put some extra value on the arbitrary age of 100 years. What if it's a tree that lives routinely to 1000 years? 100 years doesn't seem all that impressive now does it?
Thanks for starting a good discussion, Stan.
Bill Brennan
Luke and David: I agree with everything you've said--im just making up a simple hypothetical, that's all. I could have just as easily said "would you give up your camera if it could be gauranteed that Long Island Sound could be returned to the state it was in 200 years ago"--the point would be the same. I just arbitrarily chose 500 years since thats before 1492! So, can i assume your answer would be no, guys? I wouldnt fault you for it--but its really a simple hypothetical and rationalization will just unecessarily complicate things IMO
Larry--This is Hot Topics and everything goes til Jim shuts us down
Seriously, I hear and respect your view--i admire that you're drawing on literary works--Hobbes is fine but Dr. Seuss is more on my level.
Some interesting thoughts for sure. Coincidentally, while looking at national park info for a trip im going on, i just came across an artist-in-residences bio for one of the parks, and he mentioned that the aboriginal people, Sherpas, Navajo etc: "have a tremendous connection to the land, living in harmony with it rather than striving to control, or exploit it. I believe we have much to learn from these ancient cultures."
What do you think of that statement?
There's a lot of other ideas afloat here, but I should probably ruminate a bit more before responding.
First of all, I think you're using "factions" in a way different than what Madison had in mind when he argued that they were a great threat to a nation. You appear to define multi-culturalism and debates over environmental and political issues as creating 'factions,' whereas in paragraph 2 of Federalist 10, Madison defines it quite differently
And while you appear to view a loss of Judeo-Christian principles as a cause for the 'factions' dividing our country, Madison even then (paragraph 7) identifies "a zeal for different opinions concerning religion" as one of the basic causes of factions. So perhaps things were not as homogeneous religiously, even then, as you might imply.
Further, you state that Federalist 10 identifies private property as the solution to factions, when in fact, Madison appears to consider unequal distribution of wealth and property as a predominant CAUSE OF (not solution to) faction. However, he sees such inequity as inevitable (and no doubt desirable given his own position). Whatever the cause of faction, the important role of the republic, of representative government and separation of powers, is to guard against one becoming a tyranny of the majority.
If you accept Madison's definition that a faction acts in a manner adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community., then I think one could argue strongly that the corporations that are damaging our clean air, clean water, and public lands that we OWN, that these corporations are in fact the factions acting against the aggregate community interests and the entities we should be most worried about.
Anyway, that's my opinion. It's an awfully long time since I read any of this stuff, so thanks for sending me to the bookshelf.
I tend to think that most on here would do that, but most in our society would not. Then of course, the real problem is that if society did decide to give all that up for nature's sake, where would we all work? There would be precious few jobs left and most people would not be able to earn a living.
It is a most complicated situation we've gotten ourselves into and I don't have the answer, but I really do appreciate the opportunity to hear (see) discussion on it. Thanks for starting the thread Stan.
I will stick to the basic question that Stan posses that of "Give up your camera to save the Trees"? Firstly, it is very evident in this day and age that the environment is a hot topic. Many make claims that they would do "anything" to save for example, a sequoia. Some don't go that far but claim they would be willing to never photograph again to save a tree. I find this to be somewhat pretentious and this is why. It is easy to pretend, to fantasize about what ifs knowing that they will never come to be. These are not goals I am talking about, giving up your camera to save the great sequoias is not a goal it is fantasy so an answer is easy because you will never have to live out the reality. I realize you all understand this and am not trying to be pretentious in my own right, it is a completely valid question Stan posses for evaluation of ones opinion of themselves and asked purely as a hypothetical. No one knows what they would do or how they would react to any situation until they are actually faced with having to make that decision based on the current events and conditions of the situation.
So based on that, and attempting to give a completely honest answer as I understand the details at this moment I would say no I would not give up my camera to save any tree, and this is why. As of now my camera, your camera or anyone's camera is not the reason we are losing old growth forest. I believe that to be the truth and my answer to be an honest reflection of how I feel now. I also realize that I am and can be somewhat selfish, and that's about as honest as I'm going to get here.
Now if someone had a magic wand and could actually save all the trees over 500 years old if I never photographed anything again would I? And what would be the effects of never cutting any tree over 500 years old?
I would answer this but looks like I need to be reading the Federalist Papers, gezz thanks alot guys.
And Stan- I put in two degrees worth of Arcata time, so I bet we have more in common than differences.
But as to your hypthetical question? No I wouldn't give up my camera to save a tree. I'd use the camera to save a tree. Been there done that, as a matter of fact. A more direct approach to saving the tree is to stop buying and using any product made from redwood, and to encourage the same in all friends and venues. Been there done that, too.
I find the hypothetical flawed, in that it's kind of like asking folks whether they'd rather lose a daughter or a son. Sad to say, we lost a daughter too, and in no way did it make us wish we had lost her sibling instead.
Stan, in answer to your question, if it is the right tree, yes.
I seldom find people like yourself who take the time to read the more difficult "stuff" in which the Federalist Papers are certainly included. At least hard for me.
I'll go back to my notes and the original Federalist No. 10.
If memory serves I had to paraphrase what I thought Madison said. Sentences that are a paragraph long on hard to digest for moderns. I reduced it to ... the protection of private property if foremost in preventing factions and therefore must be the first object of governemnt...
That merges well with the Soviet idea that they, the people, really wanted private property restored before the fall of the USSR. It was thier foremost desire.
Thanks for the reply on such a high level. I do note that Dawkins is an atheist. I'm not.
the fisch
Hank and Brad: Excellent points guys! IMO, you are overthinking my question. I probably could have posed a less 'flawed' hypothetical (Maybe, would you sit in a tree for a year to save it? Many would answer 'yes' but how many have really been on the 'front lines'?) but it would lose the dramatic effect
it's kind of like asking folks whether they'd rather lose a daughter or a son
Maybe, but my hypothetical does not use the word "rather"--im asking for a decision, not a preference. And i specifically stated that human lives trump sequoias.
Create a public opinion poll that asks to choose between say, gas guzzling cars and walking 20 miles a day round trip to work, and most respondents will pick the gas hog. Then the folks that hired the pollsters are free to say that Americans really do in fact prefer big cars without regard to gas mileage. While that is a strict presentation of the results, the original choice eliminated a huge portion of the true views and forced responses in line with the views of the contractors.
This is a very standard practice in polling. In fact I was taught how to do it in classes there in Arcata, lo so many years ago.
One writer in answering Stan's question said she was "guilty of my own carbon footprint".
I'm may need correcting but what is there that is bad about "carbon"? Espeically if we want seedling Sequoias to grow.
Is not carbon and essential "nutrient" for plant life?
Is not the by product of that nutrient in plants the production of oxygen?
It would appear to me that what is good for plants may be bad for polar bears.
Now which do we choose??
the fisch
We are being made to believe that we are destroying the planet.
Mt. Pinatabo put more "carbon" and other stuff into the atmosphere that all the history of human "carbon footprint" creation. And that occurred within 2 years--the duration of the eruption.
Things need to be evaluated, not overstated as I feel carbon footprinting has been.
Again, follow the "money-trail"--who will profit from this propaganda about carbon??? Right now it is the "government subsidized" windfarms and ethanol and other stuff. I suspect 'carbon footprinting' contains elements of truth but not the full story.
Heck, we've had one of the coldest winters in 20 years. Why? I don't know but I would suspect the result of the century-class sunspot minimum from which we are now exiting.
FYI the longest sunspot minimum [called the Maunder Minimum] lasted an unprecedented 70 years and coincided with the "mini-ice-age" in Europe during the mid-1700's. We easily forget the sun's power when its output changes but a fraction--as it does routinely over long periods.
Always measure what "experts" tell you and don't feel guilty too soon.
We ALL have a little pride and greed within us. I would advocate first measuring our individual "self-government" and avoid many of the pitfalls individually and socially that we claim others are doing. Clean conscience and cleaner environment--double win.
I think you have measured yourself Lorna--nothing wrong with that. Just measure against accurate parameters.
Remember----"Those who are unaware, are unaware, that they are unaware".... OR, as Socrates said of the same topic, "He who knows not that he knows not, knows not; he who knows that he knows not, knows".
the fisch
What this thread illustrates more than anything else is that such decisions are made based on emotional and subjective factors rather than hard facts. In turn, this leads to a collective outcome that is not based on objective rationalization and ultimately does not really solve anything.
Would I give up my camera to save a specific group of trees? absolutely not. Will I do so to secure the future of all trees? certainly.
The difference is in the extent and effectiveness of the sacrifice. A sacrifice for altruistic reasons which yields no real change, while possibly heroic, is ultimately unnecessary.
The factors that may "save" humanity (not the planet, which doesn't really need saving) are population size, consumption and dietary habits, sustainable farming practices, etc. If one is looking to sacrifice anything, they should be willing to sacrifice something that truly counts.
If Person A commutes by bicycle, recycles everything possible, votes for representatives supporting environmental goals, enjoys barbecues on weekends, and is a father of 3, and Person B drives a full size SUV 100 miles a day, throws their paper and aluminum cans in the trash, votes for industry rather than sustainability, but is vegetarian and has just one kid; Person B ironically still has a smaller environmental impact and by a huge margin (as much as 2000% smaller by some research).
Sacrifice where it matters, not where it feels good.
Guy
Who decides what matters?
For example, Africa south of the Sahara has more natural resources than north America.
Yet poverty is immense.
Why?
Lack of basic morality leading to bad decisions.
War lords have made the decisions, not free-enterprise based on "do unto others"--our original scheme. Consequently, the resources remain untapped leading to poverty--and death--for the masses.
Morality is self-government; sacrificing where it matters is always at odds with our fellow humans.
What is needed is an outside source to be our guide in such matters.
That was the founding idea of our America but it is not now accepted. WE are being conquered from within.
Just my 2-cents.
the fisch
Guy
Brian, I said I would review the concept of Federalist No. 10.
I will present a scantlily edited portion from which I drew my deduction.
You can measure the logic.
From Federalist No. 10:
"Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction…
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community….
"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by REMOVING ITS CAUSES; the other, by CONTROLLING ITS EFFECTS.
" There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by DESTROYING LIBERTY which is essential to its existence; the other, by GIVING TO EVERY CITIZEN THE SAME OPINIONS, THE SAME PASSIONS, AND THE SAME INTERESTS.
"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires…
"The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connections subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.
" The diversity in the faculties of men, FROM WHICH THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY ORIGINATE, is not less an insuperable [something which cannot be passed over] obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties [the power of the mind or skills] is the FIRST OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."
Conclusion: Property is linked to the power of mind or skills and helps reduce the total effect of factions or special interests.
To continue:
1. "Faction" is a group who share common ideas and values. People have different values and ideas. People will always be at odds with each other when another does not agree. These are "factions".
2. Factions are desirable because of the animating constest, exchange of ideas, that exists between groups--it is the gift of LIBERTY.
3. But Factions must be controlled before they control government.
4. "The diversity in the faculties of men, FROM WHICH THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY ORIGINATE..., " ..." The protection of these faculties is the FIRST OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. FROM THE PROTECTION OF DIFFERENT AND UNEQUAL FACULTIES OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY, THE POSSESSION OF DIFFERENT DEGREES AND KINDS OF PROPERTY IMMDIATELY RESULTS..."
5. Since "Causes of faction cannot be removed, and... relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects" one must allow the power of property is the means of control.
6. But "A pure democracy... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction."
7. A Republic is the answer according to Madison. Besides the power of property, we add:
a.) rule of law under a written constitution,
b.) government by representation,
c.) enumerated powers of government beyond which it has no jurisdiction.
*Quoted material to this point from Federalist No. 10.
My conclusion is that liberty is augmented and faction reduced by a Republic-type government which allows private property to fluorish. Property is the power from which factions can present themselves against other factions as a means of control. The ability to own private property is then a bedrock principle of DIVERSE POWER throughout a Republic. IT MUST EXIST TO ALLOW THE ANIMATING CONSTEST OF FACTIONS AND TO PRESERVE ORDER BY CONTROLLING THE EFFECTS OF FACTIONS. PROPERTY IS IMPORTANT.
Now, on to MODERN FACTIONS:
One modern faction is the EPA which owns no property but is vested in all property through taxation, really and unequal battle.
"In December 2009, the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhous gases are pollutants dangerous to pubic health because they are alleged to cause global warming. This finding gave the agency the immense power to regulated CO2 emissions... For the ruling, the EPA relied primarily on data from a United Nations global warming report. E-mails leaked in 2009 in the Climatgate scandal showed that some of the world's prominent climatologists manipulated data to overstate the effects of CO2... Renowned climate researcher Judith Curry of Georgia Tech... admitted recently that there is no question that data in the U.N. report was misleading... and buried deep in the report, the EPA's own models show that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperatures increases by less that 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit."
Yet the costs to every American household would be projected to increase $3,000 per year because of the labyrinth of costs associated with the EPA movement. "[W]hen science gets tainted by politics and money, and facts are set aside in the name of advancing a political agenda, it is no longer science.... We also have to recognize that economic growth underwrites environmental protection. Wealthy countries pay for enviornmental improvement... The only places on earth that have strived for a clean environment share two key characteristics: free people and free markets... Yet we are gradually suffocating our free market economy with command-and-control regulations from our federal government." [Quoted material from: Reasserting Federalism in Defense of Liberty by Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia as presented in Imprimis, April 2011, Volume 40, Number 4]
I'm merely on the other side of the Greek Bow mentioned earlier, without which EPA would run even more amuck. That's the advantage of having liberty and consequent 'FACTIONS'.
the fisch
Wow - you really nailed that. It's so clear now. Poor people are basically immoral, while wealth is a function of "basic morality and good decisions". Does that hold true worldwide, or only in sub-Saharan Africa? Is it a sliding scale; the wealthier the more moral and the poorer the less moral? I wonder how that worldview aligns itself with Christ's views towards the poor.
This statement completely contradicts itself. "self-government" and an "outside source" aren't congruent with one another. At all.
This is completely false. "Nature" is nothing BUT relationships.
and my favorite ....
Poppycock.
Cheers
Carl
One at a time.
Morals:
"Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relatlion to each other, and with reference to righ and wrong... and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is determined..." American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828.
Ethics:
From the same source: "1. The doctrines of morlaity or social manners; the science of moral philosophy, which teachs men their duty and reason of it. 2. A system of moral principles; a system of rules for regulating the actions and manners of men in society."
It is the LEADERSHIP in most S. African countries, "warlords" who are immoral according to God's precepts. It is THEIR greed, their pride, their lack of the concept of liberty that is killing the masses. Multinational outside provisions seldom reach the poor and needy because they are robbed by the leadership of those countries. That is IMMORAL--a wrong relationship by most people's standards--and it certainly does NOT make the POOR immoral. I hope I've made that clear. Poor and rich alike can be moral or immoral--you know that.
Pretty simple really. Warlords represent totalitarianism--centralized control--with loss of liberty. It does NOT work. Yet our ship-of-state is listing heavily in that direction. It is the gradualism of it all that is misleading.
Those who wish to sequester 1000-year-old Sequoias into "government" control may be right or wrong. I just want to know the "standard" by which they measure their action.
At the same time I foresee unintended consequences in bequeathing sequential bits of power to central control. Eventually the liberty cup runs dry. Living in Alaska you should appreciate "liberty". That has been the course of history as I read it.
Morality is manifest in interaction between humans by definition. Humans "learn" values by the application of ethics.
Values are always inserted in relations between humans. Values are most meaningful and stable when they reflect "truth" [hard concept] and are outside of human control, usually the realm of religion. That's why the early dictionary uses the reference to God.
This outside source, if applied in a culture, will yield the most congruent inter-realationship possible--not perfect, but workable. When values are not shared, factions become fractious.
Nature is a series of relationships but those relations are not MORAL by virtue of the interactions. Nature is cruel in our minds but that does not make it immoral.
That is the unique postion of humans in our relatiionship with nature--the concept of a moral code. Our attempt to help Nature is an ETHICAL effort of moral application--also using scientific data. At least that's how I view the words and their concepts and our current position in America.
Carl, I've presented definitions. I think they are fairly accurate. I've followed with a brief explanation of how this applies to Sequoias, our lives, our country and our world.
I certainly do not know everything and the tit-for-tat on this thread has made me do even more research into what and why I believe as I do. I don't expect everyone to agree. That would eliminate "factions" which, by their mere existence, indicates we still have liberty. According to the founding of America that's a good thing!!
Sorry you think my ideas are "poppycock". Perhaps this has cleared it up somewhat--hope so.
Have a grreat day.
the fisch
Really? 1828? Wow. Can you scroll thru that dictionary and tell me where you find "three fifths of a person"? Or, what's the definition of "fabulous"?
Try Merriams, 2011.
"Definition of MORAL
1
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2
: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>
3
: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>"
No mention of "interaction between humans", and no mention of god, because neither are intrinsically pertinent to morality. However, if you DO choose to reference a "god", particularly the Judeo-Christian one, then you rule out the exclusive definition of "interaction between humans", because god explicitly instructs behaviors not exclusive to "interactions between humans". See Commandments # 1-5, and Commandments #9 & 10, Exodus, ch20, many centuries earlier than 1828.
Or view the Oxford Dictionary (which does have one out of 6 variations mentioning the "the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society"). Or Encarta.
Morals aren't at all bound only to interaction between humans. Prof. Chris Stone's still-seminal essay "Should Trees Have Legal Standing" makes a strong case for moral behavior toward Nature.
There are myriad reasons for poverty in myriad different regions of the world, including here in the US. There are similarly a multitude of different factors that contribute to wealth. To pretend that current political structures alone define such things, anywhere, is simply absurdly reductive, and insulting to many people and cultures. One of the primary reasons for problems in many of the countries you're pointing at is the colonization and exploitation by folks of your own political persuasion. And I'm not talking about in the days of 1828, but here, today, now. So be careful where you tread.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do appreciate liberty.
I don't agree with this at all. Why would I want to use a value outside of my control? I think value is essentially very humanistic. Isn't the "free market" that you like to advocate for a classic illustration of this? The (financial) value of a good or service is defined by people, not some outside source, and certainly not from a deity. 2 people value some thing very differently, which is as it should be.
Further, I don't like the conflation of "meaningful" with "stable". Values, like everything else in existence, should be in flux over time. That is where stability comes from - diversity is strength. We're a culture of ideas; if those ideas don't change things like values, then I'd suggest those ideas aren't too important at all. As an artist, I'd push to explore and learn new ideas, new values and new memes that move us along. Sometimes going through those transitions can be hard - look at the Civil Rights movement, but aren't we, as both a culture and as individuals, truly more meaningful and stable because of that movement? I'd argue we are.
To push for "stable" implies the status quo is where we should be, i.e., humanity's evolution is complete. I sure hope this is not the case.
Well, unless you happen to have been a Caananite, eh? Didn't turn out to be quite so workable for them. Your "outside source" is quite possibly the source of the most on-going (and apparently unresolvable) INcongruent inter-relationships the world has seen.
This isn't true at all - but can often be, particularly when folks of one fervent "belief" system refuse to allow others the freedom to pursue their own lives. History is replete with examples.
Or, to the contrary - "Nature" is perhaps far "more moral", in many different ways, than we are. Nature doesn't build nuclear bombs and fly planes into buildings, eh?
Cheers
Carl
What are we trying to say here? Do we know what right and wrong is? Do we know the truth? Or are truth and values destined for perpetual change?
Questions are easier to share here than answers. If anyone thinks they have it all figured out, they should remember that there are plenty of people out there who have found themselves holding the opposite view without abandoning reason (not that reason is of primary importance to ascertaining truth).
To RL Potts: I agree, we cannot NOW take the high moral ground--------- but that was the original design, and on a personal level which would feed in to elected officials who would maintain a moral government.
Do we need to return to that design? Absolutely. But the design incorporates a currently very unpopular religion in today's multiculturalism. We dare not use Alah as a curse word in movies but we can use other dieties as such[see, I'm even being politically correct!]
We basically are at a crossroads. CONSERVATIVES by definition [I'm using Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind] is:
1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems...
3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes as against the notion of a ‘classless society.’ With reason, conservatives often have been called ‘the party of order.’ If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum. Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.
4. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Economic leveling… is not economic progress.
5. Faith in prescription and distrust of ‘sophisters (sic), calculators, and economists’ who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.
6. Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent changes is the means of social preservation, and a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a statesman’s chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence.
by contrast, the modern defition of LIBERAL [same source] is:
(Liberalism) since 1790 has tended to attack the prescriptive arrangements of society on the following grounds:
1. The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society: meliorism. Radicals believe that education, positive (laws), and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.
2. Contempt for tradition. Reason, impulse, and materialistic determinism are severally preferred as guides to social welfare, trustier than the wisdom of our ancestors. Formal religion is rejected and various ideologies are presented as substitutes.
3. Political leveling. Order and privilege are condemned; total democracy, as direct as practicable, is the professed radical ideal. Allied with this spirit, generally, is a dislike of old parliamentary arrangements and an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.
4. Economic leveling. The ancient rights of property, especially property in land, are suspect to almost all radicals; and collectivistic reformers hack at the institution of private property root and branch.
5. As a fifth point... one can only remark that radicals unite in detesting Burke’s (the conservative) description of the state as ordained of God, and (the) concept of society as joined in perpetuity by a moral bond among the dead, the living, and those yet to be born--the community of souls.
pg. 8, 9, 10.
Accept or reject these but they can serve as a working starting point. Review them and see what YOU think.
I for one do NOT believe in the perfectabiltiy of humankind.... for the record.
We do have a PERPETUITY OF HUMAN SOULS which relates to the environment so proper direction here is VERY important. We need to make sure Sequorias are still present for our grandchildren and their grandchildren--if possible.
I'm just saying that a mid-point between anarchy and totalitarianism must be found and maintained.
It all starts with properly governning one's passions measuring a tried and true touchstone [traditionally that has been religion and in American the design was Judeo-Christianity]. The main issue for me is that those who profess Christianity don't really live up to the tenets. So we are adrift in a sea of with no compass to point the way. Sad times--and it will get worse.
The Sequoias are ONLY A FOCAL POINT in this discussion which points out the immense issues facing modern humankind.
CARL, I used the Dictionary of 1828 because it contained the definition more closely fitting the time of the creation of our fundamental laws. Your dictionary has morphed just as we have morphed. We need to use their definitions to understand their intent. Agreed?
Greater minds than your or mine have repeatedly said that if we don't occasionally return to the fundamentals we will lose our form of government. [see quote at the end]
And BARBARA, I agree with you. I've alread echoed that in my response to RL.
KENT M. touched indirectly on the concept of "liberty" which was so VERY IMPORTANT in the minds of those early Americans. And he pointed out opposing views do not have to abandon reason. Opposing views are "factions" and they too were VERY IMPORTANT in Founder's minds. Faction is the biblical equivalent of "iron sharpening iron". Reasonable ideas passed between opposing views are honed to a sharper edge when compared to only a one-sided dictate.
But one point KENT, TRUTH never changes or it is not TRUTH. The problem is we only approach TRUTH--as finite creatures we only see dimly. According to Socrates we KNOW there is a "form" which is absolute truth because we make comparisons between something being more true that something else. The mere aspect of the comparison indicates a hierarchy which logically would end in an ultimate. That ultimate is beyond humans. The same goes for "beauty", "justice" and other "forms". Read Phaedo, The Death of Socrates. Interesting.
Thank you all for your thoughts and to Stan for stepping out. Yes Sequoias are important. Other things and concepts are too. But, I'll keep my camera for a while longer....
I think I've said enough.
A few parting thoughts, and remember that BUREAUCRACY is the strong arm of government policy.... National Park Service???
‘Government, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad…But if men be bad, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn.’ William Penn, Original Intent by David Barton, pg. 341
Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature… (I)f the next centennial does not find us a great nation… it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.—President James A. Garfield as quoted by David Barton, AFA Journal, October, 2000, pg. 13.
“Different forms of government [are] assigned to each its characteristic principle: thus despotism depends upon fear; monarchy upon honor; aristocracy upon moderation; and democracy upon virtue… The really vicious situation is when institutions which are fitted for one principle of government are forced to work although that principle has been replaced by another.”
Montesquieu, Eprit des Lois, as quoted in A Concise History of the Common Law by Theodore F.T. Plucknett, pg. 70.
Democracy in America, Appendix I , Y, Vol 2.
Men place the greatness of their idea of unity of the means, (whereas) God in the ends; hence this idea of greatness, as men conceive it, leads us to infinite littleness. To compel all men to follow the same course towards the same object is a human conception; to introduce infinite variety of action, but so combined that all these acts lead in a thousand different ways to the accomplishment of one great design, is a divine conception. The human idea of unity is almost always barren; the divine idea is infinitely fruitful. Men think they manifest their greatness by simplifying the means they use; but it is the purpose of God which is simple; his means are infinitely varied.
Reason in politics leads to the inhumanity of bureaucracy. pg. 150.—Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.
All human constitutions are subject to corruption, and must perish, unless they are timely renewed, and reduced to their first principles. p. 150, Discourses Concerning Government by Algernon Sidney [Sidney was beheaded by the King of England for ideas such as these]
Yup, I'm using quotes from The Conservative Mind, and I've even brought in the "religion" word.
They may close this thread, but first moderators need to know that photography WILL somehow be affected by RULES.
Heck, photographers were even forbidden until recently, in the United States, of taking photographs of Federal Buildlings. Not a form of pure "nature" but it is the camel's nose under the tent.
I even posted on NPN the court case which dismissed that ruling. Look it up. The bureaucracy lost. Factions in action.
So, I used the book The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk because that's the most succinct difinition I've seen of both Liberal and Conservative, the two main "factions" in America. And I basically agree with Kirk has put down within the aura of my personal experience. You can, of course, disagree with Kirk's thoughts.
Can you relate what you don't like about the definitions, or is that this Sequoia discussion involves politics and human values?
Bottom line, many of the actions of photographers impinge upon "political" boundaries.
We should not hide our heads in the sand.
My 10-cents [inflation]....
Your intial remark sound like socialism. The historically large middle American class goes against your premise that conservatism is good only for a few--the rich.
The free enterprise system has help more people than any other system.
Controlled greed, being able to profit from new ideas or methods, has generated more "stuff" than any other form of rule.
And I would go so far as to say Stalin would have used the all Sequoia's in a heartbeat.
Realize redistribution has reduced "liberty" and killed about 120 million people between 1920 and 1990. Why? Redistdribution is usually done through an increasingly authoritarian central power. Bad news for liberty and factions.
And the poor in America are much better off than anyplace else, but at the same time they are in danger of being complacent about their position. Tocqueville stated a 3-class system, rich-middle-poor, was the best represenation for government. Why? Because a large middle class is better grounded than either of the other two. Is that true? We'll soon find out because we are destroying in the middle even now.
"Pay a person to do nothing and they will do nothing", according the Pulitzer Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman.
Awaiting your " stuff ".
I admire your spunk. And your personal'morality' and 'ethics' won't let you spend time at work responding because you owe dedication to your job--good American thinking and example !!!!
I'm self-employed and can respond during the day. But this afternoon taking wife to the doctor for checkup.
Got to keep her and the Sequoias viable.
Thanks for the reply... the fisch
to an article called "Conservatives are Liberal, and Liberals are Conservative -- on the Environment." I don't love his definitions, either, nor do I completely agree with everything he says, but this somewhat brings the conservative/liberal part of the conversation back to the environment.
P.S. I don't know if I have this link right, so if it's not right I'll work to fix it.
http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology
Every time an environmental question is raised, the discussion is pointedly diverted to a presentation of conservative political views.
I ain't playing. I refuse to watch either Fox news or MSNBC. They're much alike and in the same business as the political parties: Spinning.
And when I was a kid long ago my mom taught me not to spin. Washed my mouth out with soap every time I did it, as a matter of fact.
Rant over. But I'm certainly not coming back for responses. The issues are certainly more important to me than the spin.
Larry - For what it's worth, my initial questions, especially the ones you answered, were not actually directed at you. Of course you had no way of knowing that without me stating so in the post.
Hey Larry
"morphed"?? Try "evolved". Our definitions of many things (and many people) today are critically different than they were 200 years ago. Why guess at the definitions to understand "their intent"; some are spelled out clearly in the U.S. const;
See Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Now, I don't know about you, Larry, but to me, this is a perfect example of why we don't look at definitions from 1828 to make our case; unless you simply want to pick and choose which ones you deem relevant. This would seem to put the credibility of your argument on somewhat shaky ground, IMO. I'd be wary of looking to definitions from those folks for my moral compass, but maybe that's just me. YMMV.
And it's not just color. The morality of something like allowing women to be prevented from voting is just one "fundamental" I'd NOT be inclined to return to. Property qualifications to restrict the franchise? Those are the definitions you're harkening toward. Manifest destiny is not a moral guidebook I care to review.
This also touches on Barb's point about historical viewpoints; what might've been just so wonderful for SOME people was pretty abominable for many, many others.
The historically disenfranchised Irish, chinese, women, black folks, native Americans, Appalachian folks, factory workers, children, and so on would largely disagree with you. So do I.
Well, if you care to make that argument, you'll similarly acknowledge how the political and economic landscape you're such an advocate of rid the planet of one BILLION passenger pigeons, nearly 100 million bison, eastern elk, etc, as well as virtually the entire old growth forests of the eastern seaboard in said heartbeat, and then some. It could reasonably be argued that nowhere in the history of humanity have extinctions and ecological denudation been as rampant as under this free-er enterprise system you tout. Nowhere.
FWIW, I see no harm in discussing political viewpoint and perspective in a discussion Re conservation.
PS - I too see a pattern Hank.
Cheers
Carl
I believe these types of discussions are what a free country is all about.
This is really HOW trees saved and other issues are addressed.
Methods may be different; we may not all agree; we may make some errors and we may hit some home runs. But without discourse, we flounder. And it is the citizens who should be doing this--not central planners.
I suspect most of your ARE citizens...??? Then enter into constructive discourse and don't become exaspirated. Only a child believes things should always be "their" way.
When people cannot take an issue, like Sequoias, and begin from fundamentals and discourse about different concepts and ideas, search the depths for ALL ramifications, we are in big trouble.
We, in general, are a shallow people. Hobbes goes further stating that every man is at war with another.
The American mind has been lulled to sleep. MP3's, cell phone, cameras and hobbies of all sorts, a dumbing down of America in general [see The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom -- a liberal, no less, but I read him and agree with some of his thoughts] is making us that way.
The father of modern education, John Dewey, a Fabian Socialist, is winning. His method of education was not learning facts, science or math and learning how to connect information by thought, but it was aimed at "self-esteem". Younger people don't know much about facts or what came before them in the "community of souls"---but they feel good about that.
Arguments test our knowledge base and reasoning and hopefully the most congent will rise to the top. I believe that's what liberty does as opposed to the stinted approach of central planning and control.
Hank and Carl, things do change. Go back and read Kirk's definition about change and see list that with which you don't agree. But from you response I guess you would still want the prairies of Kansas to be covered with buffalo--is that what I understand? And you can pick out all the ethnic groups and they ALL were abused at one time, usually by strong central governments, NOT free enterprise. Slavery was/is wrong but 125 million people DIED at the hands of central planners. And rest assured that at some point, "liberty" will be lost by central control; and if you don't agree you will be killed. Won't happen you say. Read history.
Both liberals and conservatives are "labels". Abuse lies within both. Pride, of which greed is a portion, plays a strong roll in those who proclaim certain tenets, and then violate those beliefs for excess personal gain. What is excess? I don't really know but at some point it can be somewhat known... Like George Soros. But he would probably afford protect the Sequoias but I don't see him offering to buy the area and protect it. He's more interested in changing the whole world. Dangersous guy.
I firmly believe "labels" can lead to problems; truth be known we probably all have both "labeled" tendencies within us. Our passions govern our minds when it should be the other way around. Passions don't let us look under the water's surface and that is an error. There is usually a bucket with deep water.
Sorry you are all tired. Still, saving the Sequoias will not go away with motion. So, how tired are you?
WE will each go into our own worlds to help save the Sequoias and the approach will/would be different; we all need to be careful not to throw the baby out with that bathwater. In my opinion that requires that which Dewey has taken from most of the younger generation.
And, if you have time: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1551
Synopsis: EPA is prosecuting a farm family over wetland management.
Put yourselves in this families position. Over time, power will grow if not checked. That's the baby with the bathwater.
I like trees, too.... and if anyone wants my reading list, contact me via my e-mail and I'll send it.
Guess this thread is winding down, eh?
Kindest regards to all,
the fisch
Empowering a strong centrol control has caveats....
Fairly short read:
http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1551
Put yourself in this familie's position.
While I disagree strongly with some of Larry's politics and points, I strongly agree with his sense of urgency and desire to talk things out to hopefully find common ground--and hopefully act rather than argue.
The American mind has been lulled to sleep. MP3's, cell phone, cameras and hobbies of all sorts, a dumbing down of America in general
Agreed! Which is exactly the point i was making in my original post. My hobby is worthless compared to the threat our envrionment sees. Which is why id give it up in a heartbeat if I thought that were practical (and I admire Guy's practicality, but as a hopeless romantic I also prize heroism
from you response I guess you would still want the prairies of Kansas to be covered with buffalo--is that what I understand?
Most definitely! I just returned from a lengthy drive (adding to that CO2...
It was really a simple question I posed, the ensuing discussion has been interesting but all I wanted was a gut response. No time to ask questions or divert the topic. We often have to chose between the lesser of two evils, but we have the freedom to chose, which is a good thing.
An absurd extrapolation. The population was reduced, by the late 19th century, to less than one thousand animals. Estimates put the # in the 17th century anywhere from 60-100 million. What I pointed out is that the free-er enterprise system you think is so wonderful is every bit as responsible, if not more, for environmental rape, than any other political structure; but you don't seem to understand that.
Which simply reiterates a point I've made many times before; no political structure inherently works. Nor is there any "black and white" system, which is how you like to portray things. When someone suggests flaws in the American structures, you leap to, I don't know, oh, say Stalin? That kind of diminution is ridiculous.
So we can agree that morality is not restricted to interaction between humans, but similarly exists within a single human? And, according to your own beliefs, between an individual and his/her god? I would suggest in that case it's a sketchy assertion to make that our interaction with god's creation doesn't hold some moral cause.
Certainly all gov (and non-gov) institutions can be guilty of egregious malfeasance. But posting a link twice doesn't make it any more meaningful eh? :)
On topic, I can't imagine why anyone would NOT hand in their camera if somehow doing so would mean " that not one more ancient (for the sake of this hypothetical--anything over 500 yrs old) tree would be cut down". Of course, the problem with hypothetical situations is they're most often too ridiculous as to have any meaning; such as this one.
Cheers
Carl
I like someone who really fights and you are good.
OK,
Buffalo issue.
Not sure if this is similar to the Sequoia issue but let us examine.
If we now had tried to maintain 60-100 million buffalo on the great plains we would be starving. They could not be used for food if they were "protected", and the farming which ensued later would not have occured--the breadbasket of the world. I guess we could have eaten a few but have you ever tried to artifically insemminate a
cow-buffalo? [grins]
Unfortuantely for the buffalo most of their terrain became farmland and cattle range. So, do we save the buffalo and starve the people? That does not seem to be the proper answer here.
People are more important than animals, correct? If so, it was not environmental rape. And interested individuals have seen that their genetic pool still exists.
The sad decision was the reduction of the herds to conquer the Indian through destruction of their food supply. Probably a bad decision but the herd would have had to be reduced regardless if everyone was to "enjoy" a better standard of living. The farmland issue, again. Realize no culture has ever risen without a stable food supply.
Speaking of cultural rises, now that's a hot potato--at what level do we live? Like the primitive indians with buffalo---or with all the accrutrements of modern society? My answer is somewhere in between. But while no one misses that which they never had the return to that scenario is an impossibility. We possibly have too much.
And no, morality exists only between people. One person cannot act in a moral manner without another human with which to interact. So I disagree.
And Stan, I agree Americans are slobs when it come to trash. They've lost their self-government which I keep talking about.
Most foreign countries are much cleaner than we are. I think we have become a degenerate people---again without personal self-government.
Without first a government from within we will be governed from without by a heavy hand; we will be,or should be, governing ourselves, and if we don't we will eventually be governed by the bayonet. [concep borrowed from one of the Founders of America]--a concept which must be re-established in the Sequoias and other issues within our land are to survive.
I have no hope that a dictator would share our values, benevolent or not. Author and historian Paul Johnson taught me that. When you read of the atrocities humans perform on other humans it makes buffalo decimation seem shallow.
We are indeed need of help. We each have an idea from whence it might come but few of us practice our belief as an example to others--conservative or liberal. The fine people at NPN might be an exception, eh???
Sleep well.
the fisch
This is the one thing you've said that I agree with profoundly. But I think we may view that risk-taking rather differently. To me, it is that for-profit risk-taking that brought us BP/TransOcean/Haliburton, the economic meltdown, lots of dead mine workers, children with asthma from polluted air, and enough travesties that we could go on listing them without end.
Personally, I'm ok with government (as long as it's elected by people, not corporations, but that's a whole 'nother story) placing some regulations on that risk-taking to protect those same "permanent and aggregate interests of the community" that we mentioned earlier.
It's always all-or-nothing, eh? But you're deliberately avoiding the point, again. The free-er enterprise system you dearly love, as represented in the historical context of the United State, has a record no better than any other when it comes to environmental destruction. The problem here is that you'll continue to ignore this fact, and then later, in another thread, propose exactly the same false premise to tout your position.
How many bison there are, or should be, on the Plains now, is a secondary discussion. But, in response to this post, don't you think, just for a minute, that some kind of medium might exist, some figure between, say, 1000 and 70-100 MILLION? I'd propose that's EXACTLY the same as the Sequoia issue.
Well, you said it. It was more a matter of "destroy the bison in order to starve the people". Semantics, eh?
But the idea that the current US population couldn't exist, perfectly comfortably, with a few million bison wandering around the Plains is simply absurd.
People are no more important than anything else. To propose otherwise is an article of faith, and completely insupportable.
Maybe to you or I, people are "important" - but in the grand scheme of things, not at all. I'm not sure the construct of "important" exists other than in our own minds. That's an entirely anthropocentric viewpoint.
But - if you hold it, then we need to establish what else is important, and what is the true cost of our behaviors. Again, your premise here is that this was/is an "us or them" situation, and that's simply ludicrous. The extermination of the bison, or the Auks, or the sea cows, or the wolverine, or the eastern elk, or the Pacific Salmon, or the Passenger Pigeon, or the bald eagles, or Grey wolves, or the Chestnut trees, or the Sequoia, or the Great whales, ad infinitum, wasn't ever critical to our survival or even to our comfort. You know that, yet your argument here holds otherwise. Rape doesn't hinge on "need", and nor does it hinge upon priorities. That statement above implies both; this idea is simply insane.
If you think the destruction of the great bison herds was not "environmental rape", I'm not sure what to say. It was a rape of the animals themselves, of the environment, of the people who subsisted with them, of the other species they shared the Plains with, of the Plains themselves. It was a rape of our own morality.
First and foremost here is the dismissive premise and perjorative use of the term 'primitive'; an all-too common worldview. Given how valiantly and persistently those people fought and died for their way of life, I'd suggest they certainly disagree with you. And given how few (none) indigenous people in any region of the world simply 'walked out of the woods to attain these accoutrements', it could just be that we, in our modern society, are indeed missing something.
But the question of how to live? Carefully and consciously is what springs to mind. That being the case, I simply can't see any argument at all for unregulated financial economies and removal of environmental regulations and regulatory institutions.
You're free to believe and argue this position, of course, but it's completely untenable. And, as I've illustrated, directly in conflict with your own Judeo-Christian belief system.
"The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: the world and they that dwell therein" (Ps. 24:1)
I'd wager destroying something that so explicitly belongs to someone else is not moral behavior. And this is repeated: "the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me" (Lev. 25:23)
One question; does the 1828 definition you referenced only state that definition which you quoted? I don't have the text, of course, but I'm curious if there's no further reference than the single definition you quoted. I'd be highly surprised if not.
Further, given the text is simply a xian version of a real dictionary, from 200 years ago, I think we need to reconsider morality with a little bit wider (and more current) scope.
Interesting. Larry, next time you come to Alaska, let's go take a look around the landscape where there is no gov body restricting trash. And this isn't anything recent, we'll look around the woods at trash that's been there a long, long time - like, 100 years long. You spoke above with an anti-NPS sentiment; perfect. Come visit Wrangell - St. Elias NP, and look at the difference. The folks who live (and lived) in the area, with no gov restriction on what they did with their trash are a great example of this "Self-govt". The NPS' work there is a great example of this 'strong arm bureaucracy' you referenced already. I have no doubt in my mind which I prefer.
Cheers
Carl
Thanks for keeping it civil and thought-provoking!
and those interested thus far...
You are very astute and I think you are whipping me to death.
You do make some good points.
It would appear that we are indeed coming from different viewpoints. I do believe in the Judeo-Christian concepts. That said I don't think many who say they do also practice what they say. I often find my self wanting in this respect.
You do follow Russell Kirks definition of LIBERAL in that you profer:
1. The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society: meliorism. Radicals believe that education, positive (laws), and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.
2. Contempt for tradition. Reason, impulse, and materialistic determinism are severally preferred as guides to social welfare, trustier than the wisdom of our ancestors. Formal religion is rejected and various ideologies are presented as substitutes.
3. Political leveling. Order and privilege are condemned; total democracy, as direct as practicable, is the professed radical ideal. Allied with this spirit, generally, is a dislike of old parliamentary arrangements and an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.
4. Economic leveling. The ancient rights of property, especially property in land, are suspect to almost all radicals; and collectivistic reformers hack at the institution of private property root and branch.
For the record, I believe in NONE of these.
So that's the crux of our presentations and it represents "faction". Through intelligent discourse between factions a median is struck which provideds the advantage of stopping abrupt and huge swings in culture. It becomes an averaging so to speak. Is that good? A matter of opinion. I think abrupt changes are often not good. People need time to adjust.
Your profound arguments present, to me at least, the huge complexity of issues of culture, not the least of which is the environment and specifically on this thread the Sequoias.
I would urge all NPN members not to become distraught with arguments but to do research in the community of souls [to use conservative terminology]. Study history, study current conditions, study science as directed towards issues and then be active for what you believe is near the truth. Do it based on information, not emotion.
About all I can say except for the complete definition of MORAL from MY facsimile copy of The American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828-----AS CARL REQUESTED:
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character are determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.
'Keep at the least within the compass of moral actions, which have in them vice or virtue'.--Hooker.
'Mankind is broken loose from moral bands.'--Dryden.
2. Subject to the moral law and capable of moral actions; bound to perform social duties; as a moral agent or being.
3. Supported by the evidence of reason or probability; founded on experience of the ordinary course of things; as moral certanty, distinguished from physical or mathematical certainty or demonstration.
'Physical and mathematical certainty may be stiled infallible, and moral certainty may be properly stiled indubitable.'--Wilkins
'Things of a moral nature may be proved by moral arguments'--Tilltson
4. Conformed to rules of right, or to the divine law respecting social duties; virtuous; just; as when we say, a particular action is not moral.
5. Conformed to law and right in exterior deportment; as, he leads a good moral life.
6. Reasoning or instructing with regard to vice and virtue.
'Whilst thou, a moral fool, sitt'st still and cri'st.'--Shakspeare
7. In general, moral denotes something which respects the conduct of men and their relations as social beings whose action have a bearing on each other's rights and happiness, and are therefore right or wrong, virtuous or viscious; as moral character; moral views; moral knowldege; moral sentiments; moral maxims; moral approbation; moral doubts; moral justice; moral virtue; moral obligations, &c. Or moral denotes domething which respects the intellectual powers of man, as distinct from his physical powers. Thus we speak of moral evidence, moral arguments, moral persuasion, moral certainty, moral force; which operate on the mind.
Moral law, the law of God which prescribes the moral or social duties, and prohibits the trangression of them.
Moral sense, an innate or natural sense of right and wrong; an instinctive peception of what is right or wrong in moral conduct, which approves some actions and disapproves others, independent of education or the knowledge of any positive rule or law. But the existence of any such moral sense is verymuch doubted. Paley. Encyc.
Moral philiosophy, the science of manners and duty; the science which treats of the nature and condition of man as a social being, of the duties which reslut from his social relations, and the reasons on which they are founded.
And one more item for those who do venture into discourse--definitions are important:
"And therefore, when the Discourse is put into Speech and begins with the Definintions of Words, and proceeds by Connexion of the same into generall Affirmations, and of these again into Syllogismes; the End... is called the Conclusion; and the thought of the mind by it signified, is that conditionall Knowledge, or Knowledge of the consequences of words, which is commonly called science. But if the first ground of such Discourse, be not Definitons; or if the Definitions be not rightly joyned together into Syllogismes, thent the End or Conclusion, is again Opinion."--From "The Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes in old English spelling
Those who don't read are no better off than those who can't....
the fisch
My original hypo may have been "ridiculous" (thanks, Carl
Larry, Im afraid you did lose me with your unintentional defense of genocide and extinction. As Carl says, It's not all or nothing here. And while I grew up Catholic and went to Sunday School etc, I would argue that we have much to learn from those "inferior" beasts that, as Carl puts it, do not fly planes into buildings. It's not a 'contempt' of tradition, its learning to cull the wheat from the chaff. I am neither a Liberal nor Conservative. Labels divide. I learned way more from the example of my (Christian) mother than I did from ancient text recitals. Reading is important and good. Transforming words into deeds is better. So, I would suggest that rather than spending an extra hour this weekend disecting Socrates, perhaps we all could spend an hour this weekend planting a tree, or walking an elderly person cross the street??
Thanks, guys!
Why not plant a tree, help the elderly..... AND read Socrates???
Close the thread because basically only two people are in discourse??? Give me a better reason...
My take on this thread: The initial issue was to save the Sequoias from being harvested. The main reason was their age. It was somewhere established the National Park Service should enforce such a move.
My spinoff was don't be to hasty to constantly empower central control regardless of the reason. The sirens call with a bitter end.
Our relationship with "nature" as photographers must still be balanced. The end seldom justifies the means and our emotions usually must be checked against a knowledge base.
We talked about differing knoweldge bases and beliefs and called the "factions". We found that such dichotomy is found only in a free society and tempers rapid change to a more measured level.
Central control is a whole issue of itself and history shows it has usually been garnered initially by a series of unpersceptable motions of men using various reasons.
Along that line I'm ending with a quote:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. James Madison, Federalist #47
and I promise not to write more than once a week if that will help the thread continue.
the fisch
That's where you got off track, Larry. The initial issue (aka raison d'etre of this post) was about personal sacrifice and whether we as people are willing to do so for the greater good. Perhaps that sidetracks into whether there is 'original sin' but really im just making the point that some if not all of us would sacrifice for a just cause, giving up our creature comforts.
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not" -Dr Seuss, The Lorax (hope youve read that one, Larry
I agree with the last part. I think we do have much to learn from every other culture. Each is an important way of seeing the world and taken in sum, reflect the various toolbox of ways we've come up with for dealing with the world and each other. And I won't deny that native cultures have a strong connection to the land, but I think that any culture that draws its living from the land around that will have much the same connection. E.g., I suspect any family that has farmed in the same place for generations has a pretty strong connection to the land. Today, our living comes from all around the world, and on a personal level, mostly from the grocery store, on nicely processed and wrapped pieces of styrofoam and in boxes in bags of completely indeterminate origin. No wonder we don't have a connection to the land.
Where I take exception is with the idea that these people live in harmony with the land without exploiting it. Some may. Some certainly don't. But I think that the general idea is part of the romanticization that is typical of our view of other "less developed cultures" and goes all the way back to Rousseau and his "noble savage." While it's an uplifting view, I don't think it's always grounded in fact, and I likewise think it is rooted in stereotype, which while we may see it as a "positive" stereotype, is no less confining and dehumanizing than any other stereotype. When I drive across the spectacularly overgrazed Navajo reservation, I have a hard time seeing them as any more "in harmony" with the landscape than anyone else.
I suspect that any culture which does appear to live in balance and harmony with the land around them does so not simply from some deep sense of closeness to the earth, but out of lessons hard-learned from the land. One could make a case for the Pueblos living in a sustainable way in the SW for a very long time. But that lifestyle and those values are no doubt shaped by events centuries earlier (esp the late 1200s) when what we can now see as overpopulation, overexploitation of resources, and climate change led to crop failures, famine, pervasive warfare, social upheaval, mass abandonments, and a huge contraction of their overall range. If we ever achieve a culture of balance in harmony in the SW today, I suspect we'll only do it via hard lessons that we learn ourselves (not being perceptive enough to learn them from others who already have).
Anyway, unless this thread is still alive in 2 weeks, that's it for me--I'm going on the river!
Oh my - Shoot me now!
Stan Rose said:
That's a wide street.
Hey Stan - it's kind of like a child asking who would win a fight between a lion with no claws and a tiger with no teeth. A hypothetical like you've posed here serves no purpose if it's not discussed in a greater context, IMO. You can't outline every possible variable, so the question only bears meaning if we consider the premise, not the parameters. Does everyone have to hand in their camera, or just me? :)
Larry said:
Larry, don't you think that's simply absurd? The "perfectibility of man"? What does that even mean? I don't know ANYONE who fits that definition, nor can I guess who gets to define "perfect", which, IMO, makes it as ridiculous as the hypothetical in the OP.
"radicals", "men like gods", "contempt for tradition" … etc, etc? That kind of loaded language isn't really something to take seriously, particularly if it's used to define such a large group of people as "liberal". 50% of the population think that way?
That entire section of the discussion is simply meaningless spin, IMO.
There you have it right there. As I pointed out above, more than HALF the core ideologies of this "god" construct (see commandments) have nothing to do with social beings in relation to each other", but are solely focused on relations with one's god and/or one's self. To pretend that morality does not extend beyond one's relations to other human beings is confounding.
Further, I'd argue that as social creatures, everything we do involves our relations with each other. How does clear-cutting a grove of Sequoia NOT involve men as social beings in relation to each other? We all live on the same planet, no? Sometimes I wonder.
My take on your spinoff:
The initial issue was to save the Sequoias from being harvested. The main reason was their age. It was somewhere established the National Park Service should enforce such a move.
You somehow swung that to Stalin's Soviet Union and the murder of 120 million human beings.
Well, I don' know who this "we" is - I never found any such thing, nor do I agree with the finding in even the tiniest of manners.
Our relationship with ourselves, and our relationship with each other, must similarly be balanced. And that is precisely the point of regulation; to balance those relationships. You seem to think there was some mystical point in history when thru some kind of fabricated higher moral grounding people balanced those relationships themselves. I can't think of any time in our culture's history where that has actually been the case. Little House on the Prairie was a TV show, Larry; it's not real.
I don't have "contempt for tradition" - I try not to ignore reality and build some fantastical narrative that denies large portions of the real history of the culture. You seem to gloss over any criticism of the treatment of people under this "Free-er enterprise" structure, or ignore it completely, and then define those who would wish to offer a more thorough examination as having 'contempt for tradition'.
Here's an example of how you build this false narrative; in a response to Barb earlier, you said "I admire your spunk. And your personal 'morality' and 'ethics' won't let you spend time at work responding because you owe dedication to your job--good American thinking and example"
There is nothing "American" about what Barb described. Nothing at all. There are people all over the world who might adhere to a strong "work ethic", and that has nothing to do with the founding fathers of the United States. But you keep telling that story, and for some reason, believe in it.
But - for me to point that out isn't to say it's not an admirable quality, or that America is bad, or that Stalin was good.
Brian Gatlin wrote:
Hey Brian
I think the "romantic savage" view is grounded in fact (see "The Savage Mind", Levi-Strauss) but like all generalizations, it can never apply equally across the board. But to examine a "spectacularly overgrazed Navajo reservation" in considering what might be an aboriginal connection to the land is somewhat disingenuous.
Cheers
Carl
Ill take the lion.
Does everyone have to hand in their camera, or just me? :)
Just you, Carl. So please decide quickly cause im on the phone with the logging industry and they're awaiting a response...
Larry, since you're outnumbered (although Carl is tempting me to take up your side of the argument) ill offer you the last word here...
Do I have to hand in both DSLRs? How about a P&S? Can I borrow someone else's camera? Does this allow all Sequoia under 500 years to be cut? etc etc etc ...
Feel free to take up Larry's side of the argument if you want to - though I'm not exactly sure what that actually is.
Cheers
Carl
Gosh,goooolllleee... Be sure to engrave this important epithet on some monolith in Garden of the Gods... OK??? [grins]
I was trying to live up to my promise to write only once weekly.
You said I was outnumbered--I'm not so sure. There is sometimes strength in "silent evidence". Perhaps those who might be on my side [whatever that is?] just don't care to comment. For those not familiar with silent evidence the example I saw went like this:
Cicero viewed a painting in ancient Rome featuring survivors of a shipwreck "who prayed" that they would be saved. Cicero astutley asked, "Where is the painting of those who prayed and weren't saved". Along that "track", less vocal NPN members may be content to read and think... Enough said.
But here's what I've accumulated.
Once a week reply.
for 16May11
Stan said I got off "track" on the issue of giving up cameras to save Sequoias.
My take is "tracks" come from someplace and go someplace.
I tried to start from a fundamental, perhaps from the initial thread started by Floris, to NEVER empower a government agency to do that which can be done by private people. Sequoias, in my meager opinion, CAN BE SAVED BY PRIVATE PERSONS. I'm fearful that once power is granted to "bureaucracy" it never comes back to its original source--the people. That's where the "track" eventually goes. And looking backwards down the tracks there is ample evidence that power, in its many forms, is eventually abused.
I asserted that once a central power controls Sequoias it will be another "teat" in society's mouth reinforcing the concept of "let government do it". I believe history shows abuse on both sides of the pendulum, PEOPLE [esp. corporations] AND GOVERNMENT, but the most extreme have been, in terms of destruction in all forms, the empowerment of centralized power.
I note a tidbit in the Wall Street Journal today, 17May11, front page, that a subheading read: "Federal Plan to Limit Potatoes on School Menus Whips Up Supporters". Why do those who have power now think they can mandate what we feed our kids?
It will get worse. And it is/was not the design.
The Federal Government has 19 "enumerated" powers among which is nothing to do with the school system. Eisenhower implemented federal power into our "education" after sputnik. Was that good? NO !!!! And neither is giving the NPS more and more reign in controlling trees. And government encroachment into education is a violation of the concept of Federalist No. 45 which says that state governments will have control over the ordinary course of daily lives of citizens. Does anyone think the original 13 colonies would have empowered a central government to say their children could not eat potatoes??? A resounding NO! That's how far we crept in the stealth and siren call of "let government do it".
Realize legally corporations are "fictionalized" people and suffer the same shortcomings when their leaders fail, too.
And the camera issue is more complex than just throwing the item away to save a tree. It is a touchstone especially meaningful for those at NPN which shows technology and the numerous inputs into production that affect our environment. And we've become addicted. Is it wrong to like technology and give up more primitive methods/items? I really don't know. What is---is.
I don' pretend to know all phases of production of cameras but consider these:
The manufacturing of glass lenses requires mining of a sorts, energy to melt and refine, and rare earth coatings for color control. The body of my camera is magnesium, also requiring mining and refining and casting, etc. The electronics are similar in their demand for energy to be produced and probably some "raping of the earth" too. So, giving up a camera is really environmentally sound. One camera really makes not that much difference on the environment but the sum total does.
Add to that all the camera out there add all the other "stuff" we use and the 'abuse' and the insult in varied forms to the natural environment grows exponentially.
But humans simply will not return to that which is inferior, in their minds, andyway, from what they now have. Technology requires a price. So everyone, not just corporations, not just bureaucracy, must make choices.
I just think eventually the pendulum, present in all endeavors of private interests and government, has the best choice of returning to the center over time in a free-enterprise system. I may be wrong but I see the potential of great damage from historical central power. Yes, it may be remote now but it is always there and always encroaching.
To Stan's point: He would, or so he says, give up his camera to save a Sequoia.
I reply, knowing full well I can't really speak for Stan, and want to say, "nah--you wouldn't."
Just as the aboriginals in America would not give up their new Winchester and go back to a bow and arrow, you would not give up your camera. We are simply too technologically oriented as humans, having too much fun with our leisure time to revert back to bows and arrows. That's also why we don't study history--reading is more boring than the excitement of our "interests".
------------
Now Brain G. nailed a good point in his reply on this day. It really makes little difference where people's roots lie if they don't practice that which was/is deemed "good"; respect for each other and the environment is an INDIVIDUAL issue of some measure, for each generation, or it will never happen.
Force from the top seldom works. The ultimate questions are these: from whence does that respect find it source? and how much is shared by a culture? The more varied each of these two items the more difficult for agreement.
Again, I would only ask: From whence does respect come?
Traditional values are shaped, or at lest best studied, by historical events. They do change over time. Those deemed worthy should be followed. Those deemed unworthy should not be maintained. There is a whole list and they usually lie on the "tracks" that go backwards in time.
I assert then this is one "track" we need to re-visit and then take it forward. It is a long train.... The community of souls, dead, living and those of the future are all involved.
Compared to the realities of life I think we are following Rome's example: Luxuria principi gravis, paupertas vix a privato toleranda. ---- Luxury, more savage than arms, has oppressed (Rome), and avenges a conquered world.—Juvenal, Satires, 6, li. 292. Pg. 165, Discourses Concerning Government by Algernon Sidney.
That's why cameras will never be surrendered for trees--they are really luxuries compared to bare bone, perhaps even aboriginal existence; and I apologize because it isn't really a good comparison, and I used it only because of the people on NPN could/would/might relate to some connection between the two.
17May11
Carl said:
-----------
"You [Larry] seem to gloss over any criticism of the treatment of people under this "Free-er enterprise" structure, or ignore it completely, and then define those who would wish to offer a more thorough examination as having 'contempt for tradition'.
--------------
Well, I certainly left you, and perhaps others, with the wrong impression.
Free-enterprise is never better than those who practice it.
That goes backwards to "values" and those are the precursor to "morals". Immoral people will at once lead to immoral free enterprise and also to immoral government and also to an immoral [greedy,lying,cheating,Viagra-oriented and fixated] society (grins).
Enough.
the fisch
Hey Larry
I do agree with that sentiment.
How about "never say never" as a fundamental? "private people" (whatever those are) can fight wars, educate children, build roads, send emergency aid and disaster relief, police neighborhoods, adjudicate court decisions, fight fires, etc, etc, etc, as well - but I think a public process has its own value on many, many things. And you forget, or dismiss, the fact that the NPS itself is a product of "private people" - Gaia bless those folks; without them and the work they did, what do you suppose Yosemite or Yellowstone or Denali et al, might look like today?
Some might argue that private private education is 'better' than public education, and it's clearly an arguable position. But environmental protection, on a large scale? Give me any example at all that comes close to something like the NPS. Just one.
If you really believe in this American experiment, then you ought first acknowledge that the "bureaucracy" IS "the people". If not, then the whole idea is a sham to the core.
And the most powerful and lasting forms of environmental (and human) protections have similarly been via the empowerment of public power. But - really, isn't that WHY we suggest the Sequoias be granted NPS protections? We, as a community, say 'we value these forests, and we want them to remain here'; it's because of the power of gov't that delegating management of some thing so valuable is a good idea - the gov't is a communal response to some thing.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh? You're arguing the tired "slippery slope" line, and I just don't see that as sound rationale. That's WHY we have elections, and we choose administrations that we feel might most safely be able to traverse that slippery slope (though we often differ on who those might be). Your argument is that we should turn around and go home because of this possible future encroachment; I don't buy that at all. Shouldn't it be our job to monitor this encroachment and tighten the reigns in when Sinister Stalinhood is near? You seem to advocate turning to flee at every turn simply because way off in the distance lie the Russian Red; and yes, contrary to what you see on a popular "news" network, we're nowhere near the Lair of Leninism.
Slippery slopes also slide the other direction, and our own history is replete with examples of what free-er enterprise can lead to ('history', of course, including the financial disaster of 2008, the gulf oil disaster in 2010, etc, etc).
Secondly, there's great danger in ANY form of power, is there not? Would you rather live within a powerless nation? Too often those who advocate for a smaller gov't are the very first ones who demand their gov't be big enough to annihilate any other gov't on the planet. We don't need more or less governance, we need careful governance, whether it be at the local, state or federal level. The argument that local and state government is somehow less corrupt and more closely aligned to a healthy living is simply untenable; though I understand you're not concerned with how valid a position might be, but only that you repeat it ad infinitum.
That's simply not true. There are many, many aboriginal peoples across the world who still fight for the freedom to avoid the world we embrace. Remember those photos after the S-Pacific tsunami a few years ago of tribesman in the hills shooting arrows at the helicopters of pilots flying in to "check up on them"? There are countless examples of aboriginal people all cross the world (including the Americas) who fought and died in order to say 'no' to the world you're claiming they couldn't do without.
We've already discussed this above, and yet you ignore it, only to later repeat it. Repeating a falsehood, blindly ignoring reality, doesn't make a thing true.
This is similarly not true. Anyone who grew up in Australia in the 70's remembers the "Do The Right Thing" campaign, a national gov't funded campaign against littering. The change wrought in the collective conscience is immeasurable.
Respect for each other? Perhaps you need to remember the Civil Rights Act and review the change that measure enacted. Or countless other pieces of legislation for human rights that led to real social change and respect for one another.
Well, you've not given a single instance that supports this, in the face of how many examples that contradict it? Let's talk environmental value, as that's the focus of the thread. Exactly which point back in time would you advise we head for?
So enlighten us. When exactly did these so wonderfully moral people exist, that were not greedy, didn't lie or cheat, were apparently asexual, and had a sort of wonderful harmony with the environment. We should probably make an effort to focus on that last one, just for the OT. Dates and examples, please.
Cheers
Carl
We have too many issues going. Not sure how to solve that if it can be solved. Cameras, Sequoias, liberty, factions, politics, bureaucracy, individuals, groups, environment, etc. However, they may all be inter-related.
And actually I am quite impressed in your defense. I'm glad you are well grounded.
I do disagree with your comment about who/what bureaucracy is.
I guess to sum up what I've tried to say could best be studied by reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek.
It is the backward looking track [originally published in 1944] and coming forward to today. It holds what I beleive to be some valid data [for your review and critique] concerning my stance.
The problem is, according to Hayek and writers in the modern First Things periodical**, the trending towards National Socialism is real, hidden, and has dire consequences for us and for the Sequoias.
Without cluttering this intereresting thread with a bunch of words [exception is the excerpts below] I'll just issue this challenge: You read this book and you give me ONE book to read, we'll both accomplish that, and then revisit each other here at a later date.
Up to the challenge? I bet you are.
Hayek wrote on National Socialism commonly known as Fascism.
"Contemporary events differ from history in that we do not know the results they will produce...
"It is necessary now to state the unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate we are in some danger of repeating. The danger is not immediate... and the condition in England and the United States are still so remote as to make it difficult to believer that we are mving in the same direction."
"There are few signs yet that we have the intellectual courage to admit to ourselves that we may have been wrong. Few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and naziism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tenencies... [wow]
"As a result, many who think themselves infinitely superior to the aberrations of naziism, and sincerely hate all it manifefstations, work at the same time for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny.
"... But the socialism of which we speak is not a party matter... It does NOT affect our problem that some groups may want less socialism than others; that some want socialism mainly in the interest of one group and others in that of another. The important point is that, if we take the people whose views influence developments, they are now in the democracies in some measure socialists... It is because nearly everybody wants it that we are moving in this direction... The main question is where this movement will lead us...
"Where these common beliefs of our generation will lead us is a problem not for one party but for every one of us--a problem of the most momentous significance. Is there a greater tragedy imagninable in that, in our endeavor consciously to shape our future in acordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?
"... It was the prevalence of socialist views and not Prussianism that Germany had in common with Italy and Russia--it was from the masses and not from the classes steeped in the Prussian tradition... that National Socialism arose."
Hayek is a Noble laureate in economics.
"It is seldom that libery of any kind is lost all at once"---David Hume
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas"--Lord Acton
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has gtried to make it his heaven."--F. Hoelderlin
"The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely differn and perhaps contradictory: freedom and organization."--Elie Halevy
** "... America is not and, please God, will never becme Nazi Germany, but it is only blind hubris that denies it can happen here and, in peculiarly American ways, may be happening here..." pg. 19, The End of Democracy, The Judicial Usurpation of Politics, First Things, November 1996, the editors, Richard John Neuhaus and James Neuchterlein.
on and on.
Apologies to everyone for a logical fallacy of falling back into quotes and other's ideas for strength of my arguments. Carl has backed me into a corner and I'm not smart enough to wiggle out.
the fisch
Larry you said , You said I was outnumbered--I'm not so sure. There is sometimes strength in "silent evidence". Perhaps those who might be on my side [whatever that is?] just don't care to comment. For those not familiar with silent evidence the example I saw went like this:
Larry don't take silence as compliance to your issues, I think many are silent because they don't wish to be caught up in an argument with you . You have strongly stated your views and thank you Carl for having the strength to take Larry on, as Larry I feel as I am sure many do you are set in your opinion and are inflexible to anyone else view if it does not match yours. I know I don't have the energy to try , or the will to waste my time on it !
You have both made this an interesting read either way but sorry Larry I am and I 'm sure many others are in Carl's camp when it comes to choosing between your debate ! Keep up the good fight boys ,you have enlighten many of us !Cheers
Regarding a good work ethic, thank you for that compliment, Larry, and I understand that many people have appropriated that as an American characteristic, but I believe there are millions of very hard-working people all over the world who'd beg to differ. I'm sure that if you think about it you have to realize that. As long as it is "us" and "them" instead of all "us" there will be no winners. I know that being a citizen of the world is counter to American conservatism, but nevertheless that's what we all are. And yet, and still, hearing the Star Spangled Banner gives me chills (the good kind) every time. It's just not, as almost nothing is, all or none.
I'm not sure from whence Carl is coming. He does not like labels.
I would say, based on the definitions I presented, he is "liberal" and "socialistic". Those are not necessarily bad unless the "track" goes back and shows those mind sets sometimes lead us to places we really don't want to go.
I would also ask you do what I've asked Carl to do: READ and consider: The Road to Serfdom.
As a fair exchagne, give me a book to read and I'll read it.
Then we can legitimately "argue" through constructive discourse.
This stuff won't go away. It comes up everytime we face the reality of a declining morality in America, the trend towards socialism, and insults to our environment. It comes up everytime we go to the ballot box.
Cheers to you, too...
My hopes is that by exchange of ideas we can see the possibity of our best ideas fueling a nightmare through the imperceptible motion of political minds. Democracy is dangerous because it is "mob rule". That's why we do NOT live in a democracy. History shows that to be the case.
"In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot ge said too often--at any rate it is not being said nearly often enough--that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish inquisition never dreamt of." -- Comment by George Orwell.
That's the baby out with the bathwater. Protect our environment but don't empower central power. Afterall, they won't even let your kids eat potatoes at school.
the fisch
Hey Larry
And if I walk across the road to pick up some trash (as I just did), I'm moving in a westerly direction, directly toward Moscow; but I've no doubt at all that I'm not in danger of somehow morphing into Joseph Stalin.
That's what being an adult is all about.
Larry, you didn't respond to a single comment I've made. You ignored it, and merely regurgitated the same rhetoric yet again. You're so adamant that we've wandered astray and that we need to return to the glory days of yore, yet when I ask a simple question
".. you've not given a single instance that supports this, in the face of how many examples that contradict it? Let's talk environmental value, as that's the focus of the thread. Exactly which point back in time would you advise we head for? "
you completely ignore it. I don' know what kind of morality you come from, but my mother taught me that to ignore some asking you a question is simply rude. It's certainly not a discussion or conversation.
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." Winston Churchill, 'My early Life', Ch 9.
Edited: I see you've just posted again now; I'll get back a little later.
Cheers
Carl
I will revisit your major post and try to answer each specifically.
Ugh.
What's your take on the central government taking potatoes from school lunches???
And I knew you would get me on the quotes. The last bastion of a desperate man, eh?
I heard it was almost 70-degrees in Fairbanks a couple of day ago? True???
the fisch
You said I don't respond to your statements. Well, here is No. 1 in a long list to come--if the thread remains open.
And one at at time for brevity.
------------------
You said:
"If you really believe in this American experiment, then you ought first acknowledge that the "bureaucracy" IS "the people". If not, then the whole idea is a sham to the core."
------------------
BUREAUCRACY is NOT the people.
The bureacracy are those few people who have power employed by "governments" at all levels. They are not the "people" of the constitution. They are part of the questionable "4th" branch of government created by fiat and called "Administrative Law". It is not constitutional but, like many other aspects of our lives, has been inserted and maintained by displaced power.
My source:
“Throughout the modern era of administrative regulation, agencies have been delegated sweeping powers... What makes the delegations more dramatic is that these agencies typically wield powers that are characteristic of each of the three principal branches of government...
"Such delegations raise fundamental questions concerning the constitutional distribution of authority in our system of government... That Congress [state legislatures] cannot delegate legislative power is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution...
"Furthermore, it is argued, delegation makes it all too easy for Congress [ or a state legislature] to enact, or allow continuation of, regulatory schemes that work against the public interest. This theory notes the tendency of much economic regulation to transfer wealth from one private interest group to another.. without the glare of publicity... [D]elagative authority.. has been relaxed since the 1930’s...”
Source: Administrative Law and Process, Nutshell Series, West Publishing.
Now, an example:
When I opened my clinic I was told that I could not get a business license until I had a low table for wheelchair patients to sign checks. Being a veterinary clinic I told him that we have very few such clients and that I would wheel them to a low table. He said that would be demeaning. I next said I did NOT want such a shelf because children's heads were at that height and injuries were likely. On and on.
Anyway, he won simply by saying no business license for the building would be issued . After investing a decent sum I capitulated.
13 years later the fold-down shelf we had built has NEVER been used----never.
Now, I've already related the NPS employee calling us liars and being overbearing in Montana in a previous post. NPS is also Administrative Law.
The bureacracy has the power of "REGULATIONS", not law, behind it. One bureaucrat can shut you down; you cannot shutdown the bureaucracy--even by voting.
Where would that go with respect to protecting Sequoias or cameras I have no idea. But, neither did the people in pre-WW2 Germany. They, according the Hayek, [mentioned previously] had no idea the "socialism" the wanted would empower nefarious characters.
I would rather be able to attempt to negotiate with a private landowner than any bureaucrat. I think you would too because there is simply no negotiation with a bureaucrat.
Most Alaskans are high, wide and free....
the fisch