Thank you, professor, for clarifying the economic/political situation of the U.S. and its global servants. Between wars and climate disasters, it almost seems like karma.
Unfortunately for The People, the wealthy can build their secure hideaways with the profits from their war machine dividends while the war-displaced huddle at unwelcoming borders.
Nowhere is the division of wealth more evident than here in New York City. Nowhere the pain of oppression more apparent than Gaza. Yet still no Revolution. But of course, without real leadership, nothing will change for the better.
Biden alone admires his profile, while Trump screams in the wings for his chance at vengeance.
Hold your hat, bro, here we go. Empire in decline…
What is so troubling is that those who rise to roles of leadership in almost every society continue to pursue the age-old imperialist strategies of territorial expansion and resource monopoly. These have always led to war, massive killing and destruction. We do need measures to allow for an equitable distribution of income and wealth. One has to wonder whether an even more fundamental problem is how the planet has been carved up into sovereign-claiming nation-states.
Thanks for your comment, Ed. I've certainly heard the "no borders" discussed literally my entire life. To date I can't say that I have any enthusiasm for it AT THIS TIME. Humans don't seem to be ready for it ... perhaps never will be, I don't know. People naturally group by various identities, tribes, languages, geography, etc. When I was younger ... a lot younger, the vision of the great light-brown, one language, one-world, no borders vision had a lot of appeal. Now I VALUE diversity in language, culture, geography, etc. I hate to see the homogenization of mankind. If it ever happens, I think we'll be sorry. I understand your point completely and have some sympathy with it, but I think that the "answer" to our predicament is economic. The economy is a machine of mankind's creation. Now we are slaves to the machine when it should be OUR slave. If we can turn that around, I think the great majority of our problems would disappear. Thanks again for speaking up.
The philosopher Leopold Kohr (in "Breakdown of Nations") made the insightful point that if all nation-states were limited in size, then no nation would have the resources to make war on neighbors and the neighbors could come together to defend against any attack. That seems logical. However, we would still need an active and well-funded international entity to coordinate responses to our ecological and environmental challenges.
The states' rights people and Neo-Confederates would LOVE this. LOL !!! Sorry, couldn't resist !! But truthfully, that is SOMETHING like. the US gov was supposed to provide. One of our big problems, it seems to me, is that apportionment ought to be randomized or regularized in some way. In this sense, the state legislatures have TOO MUCH power. Some years back there was a fellow with a movement to apportion based on Section, range, and township -- the old Jeffersonian model -- was it 50,000 population per representative ? As soon as I quit typing the name of the organization will pop back in my head. The idea of course was to rid us of gerrymandering; a worthy goal. Thanks as always for your thoughts, Ed.
Thank you, professor, for clarifying the economic/political situation of the U.S. and its global servants. Between wars and climate disasters, it almost seems like karma.
Unfortunately for The People, the wealthy can build their secure hideaways with the profits from their war machine dividends while the war-displaced huddle at unwelcoming borders.
Nowhere is the division of wealth more evident than here in New York City. Nowhere the pain of oppression more apparent than Gaza. Yet still no Revolution. But of course, without real leadership, nothing will change for the better.
Biden alone admires his profile, while Trump screams in the wings for his chance at vengeance.
Hold your hat, bro, here we go. Empire in decline…
Thanks, brother. I agree 100% and thank you for taking the time to contribute.
What is so troubling is that those who rise to roles of leadership in almost every society continue to pursue the age-old imperialist strategies of territorial expansion and resource monopoly. These have always led to war, massive killing and destruction. We do need measures to allow for an equitable distribution of income and wealth. One has to wonder whether an even more fundamental problem is how the planet has been carved up into sovereign-claiming nation-states.
Thanks for your comment, Ed. I've certainly heard the "no borders" discussed literally my entire life. To date I can't say that I have any enthusiasm for it AT THIS TIME. Humans don't seem to be ready for it ... perhaps never will be, I don't know. People naturally group by various identities, tribes, languages, geography, etc. When I was younger ... a lot younger, the vision of the great light-brown, one language, one-world, no borders vision had a lot of appeal. Now I VALUE diversity in language, culture, geography, etc. I hate to see the homogenization of mankind. If it ever happens, I think we'll be sorry. I understand your point completely and have some sympathy with it, but I think that the "answer" to our predicament is economic. The economy is a machine of mankind's creation. Now we are slaves to the machine when it should be OUR slave. If we can turn that around, I think the great majority of our problems would disappear. Thanks again for speaking up.
The philosopher Leopold Kohr (in "Breakdown of Nations") made the insightful point that if all nation-states were limited in size, then no nation would have the resources to make war on neighbors and the neighbors could come together to defend against any attack. That seems logical. However, we would still need an active and well-funded international entity to coordinate responses to our ecological and environmental challenges.
The states' rights people and Neo-Confederates would LOVE this. LOL !!! Sorry, couldn't resist !! But truthfully, that is SOMETHING like. the US gov was supposed to provide. One of our big problems, it seems to me, is that apportionment ought to be randomized or regularized in some way. In this sense, the state legislatures have TOO MUCH power. Some years back there was a fellow with a movement to apportion based on Section, range, and township -- the old Jeffersonian model -- was it 50,000 population per representative ? As soon as I quit typing the name of the organization will pop back in my head. The idea of course was to rid us of gerrymandering; a worthy goal. Thanks as always for your thoughts, Ed.