Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Originally posted by: K1052
Don't confuse an unwillingness to make choices with an inability to do so.
Nor confuse crappy choices with good ones.
If all the choices available to one are less than desirable, then an unwillingness to choose from that field cannot be faulted, no matter how imperitive it be that a choice be made. A bad choice is a bad choice regardless of the range.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
The possibility that the exact choice that you may desire isn't available every time is a reality that has to be faced.
Utopia's don't exist. Every system of government or society that has attempted to establish one has failed, usually at enormous costs to human lives.
This line of reasoning entirely disregards the influence of the
Hegelian Dialectic* and it's pervasive use by people in power in order to retain that power.
Until people realize this and use it as the filter through which all things pass prior to choices being made or decsions rendered, poor choices and bad decsions will continue to be pawned off as good ones, and thus it shall ever be. This is evidenced in the constant call for "either / or" choices instead of the rarely considered "
AND" option.
No one in power
really wants an educated public. They are easier to confuse and misdirect when kept at a level less than those in power. Thus power never shifts below the status quo.
Unfortunately, what they eventually do is fail to remember those same people become furious to an extreme when they realize they've been duped or otherwise relegated to "inferipor" status. Marie Antoinette = GOP 2006 /2008
This country runs best when the middle expands faster than the top, not the other way around.
Without an expanding middle class, there are no consumers with disposable income to buy products made anywhere.
* linked due to it's concise explantion of referenced passage.
Facebook
Twitter