Synthetic Politics

2006-9-18 13:57:00

SH writes:

"I see the government as a means for a society to do much good for its members, but a government bureaucracy cannot possibly exercise good case-by-case judgment. My preference is to err on the side of helping people in need too much rather than not enough even if that costs me and others come tax day.

"That's not why I'm writing, though. I'm writing because people ... run the risk of getting outraged at JJ over his political views and voting with our feet. If you're not already doing so, let me suggest that you put JJ's political views into a separate filing cabinet. He has so much to offer in other areas. I have come to see his politics as an opportunity for me to exercise my tolerance muscles."

JJ:

This is a good example of the synthetic thinking we need as we move into the New Age. If we write anyone off because of our own black-and-white thinking then we are reverting back to Piscean thinking and not Aquarian.

Actually, I do not think anyone on the list on either side of the spectrum completely understands my political views. I say I am Libertarian because it best describes me, but I am not a typical Libertarian either. Both conservatives and liberals are uneasy about me when I write about politics.

What I see as the ideal government is not even practical to implement today because of the limitations of consciousness. Liberals would probably be happy with these views, but an ideal implemented before its time must be constructed by the use of force, which turns that which is good into a great evil. This was demonstrated in the old Communist Soviet Empire as well as modern Cuba and North Korea today.

When positive change is implemented through free will then the change will be adapted to the consciousness of the people and will have a chance of moving society forward.

One of the future treatises I will write will be called "The Economic Order of the New Age." In it I will make clear my political thinking in a plan adapted to the capacity of the current generation. Here are a few of the ingredients.

No one who is willing to work (if able) will go without the basic needs of life.
It takes as much as two dollars for the present governments to give away one dollar's worth of assistance. I think all will agree this is ridiculous and no one has a solution. The solutions presented so far just create more waste. There needs to be a revolutionary plan presented to eliminate waste. It should cost no more than 10 cents to give away a dollar. Why can the Salvation Army accomplish this, but not the government? This needs contemplation.
Maximum free will must be preserved. This does not mean I support anarchy. Free will in a lesser area must be limited to insure free will in the more important areas. For instance the free will of the burglar to enter your house must be limited so you can enjoy your maximum freedom.

The problem is that most people are like the slaveholders in the Old South. They think that enslaving others with high taxes is fine if they have more freedom in their own little isolated world. The good of the whole must always be examined.

Much of what now costs us many tax dollars can be accomplished through volunteer work and free enterprise.
The general public needs to be educated in basic economical principles, alternatives available and benefits of possible solutions.

This is one area where the press is a big obstacle as Djwhal Khul [DK] indicates. Nine times out of ten the media defends what does not work rather than what does work. This drowns out the voice of true innovators.

The media is a major obstacle to positive change, but it can be overcome. Most of the press in both the North and South were against Lincoln, but in the end he made them look like Neanderthals.

"My husband gave me a necklace. It's fake. I requested fake. Maybe I'm paranoid, but in this day and age, I don't want something around my neck that's worth more than my head."
-- Rita Rudner