Progressive Rock Music Forum : Calling all old hippies

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Slartibartfast By...

Tue, 29 May 2012 15:55:53 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 29 2012 at 15:55

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

By the way I was born in '65 and my parents definitely weren't hippies and I came of age in the aftermath.

For you younger folks who are curious, this documentary came out 20 years after the summer of love. I think it's pretty good:

8 parts i see, but pretty sure i haven't seen it so will pour myself out a beer sometime and watch it. Thanks.

Edited by froggyted - May 29 2012 at 15:56

Calling all old hippies : By the way I was born in '65...

Tue, 29 May 2012 13:57:37 +0000

Author: Slartibartfast
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 29 2012 at 13:57

By the way I was born in '65 and my parents definitely weren't hippies and I came of age in the aftermath.

For you younger folks who are curious, this documentary came out 20 years after the summer of love. I think it's pretty good:
[TUBE]HWriMsTALF4[/TUBE]

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted...

Tue, 29 May 2012 13:31:11 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 29 2012 at 13:31

Originally posted by Dean

Well, it's a while since I've had the door so resolutely slammed in my face, but you need to build up your website/forum and my time is more than adequately occupied here.

You say 'cynic' like it's a bad thing - though I would regard myself as a sceptic and a pragmatic long before I drown in despair and cast myself as a misanthropic cynic - if an honest appraisal of idealism in relation to what is achievable is now regarded as being cynical then so be it. Personally I have no great expectations for mankind as a collective whole, but that does not make me a misanthrope, just some one who has seen greed and selfishness triumph over altruism and simple humanitarianism just a tad too often for me to ever view the world with wide-eyed na�vety ever again. That is not to say I do not hold out hope, nor do I disregard the efforts of those trying to make a difference as hopeless, but (and this is the pragmatic bit) it has to be effectual and it has to be practical and it has to be viable and it has to be done for the right reasons and for the right goal and in the right way.

Believe me, my own wide-eyed naivety disappeared many years ago, Dean. But not the hope. If people hadn't had hope for the future we probably wouldn't have inherited a lot of the good things we have from previous generations. The concept of democracy is probably one of the greatest (although of course a cynic might argue that it was merely a pragmatic solution to the problems of the time). And yes, sceptic would probably have been a more apt term in your case, and please don't think it was being levelled as an insult.

Btw, as a great fan of Red Dwarf i believe that anything is possible!!

This Prog Archives site is an excellent resource, btw. I discovered it several years ago, and even have a shortcut down on my taskbar, but rarely visit. I have made a mental note to come back more often, and in fact must read that Kevin Ayers review shortly, having recently become a fan.

Anyway, to misquote a phrase inspired by Slarti's username, for the moment at least, to everyone who has contributed to this thread: So long, and, er, thanks for all the hits.

Edited by froggyted - May 29 2012 at 15:52

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by froggyted Originally...

Tue, 29 May 2012 12:42:27 +0000

Author: Dean
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 29 2012 at 12:42

Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Dean

You've obviously given a lot of thought to this subject long before I posted and I haven't, so excuse me if I gloss over some of your points... /

Dean, there's no doubting that you're an excellent and knowledgeable debater, but i get the impression that we're not going to agree, and that everything i propose you're going to shoot down in flames, so, seeing as its late and i've had a crap evening (personal issues) i'm not going to attempt to answer every point that you make, particularly as i need to put a lot of my available time into further imrpoving my website and promoting the forum there. You come across to me as a cynic who seems to think that no change that we (the human race) can bring about is going to fundamentally improve the society we already have, and maybe you're right, but i guess that if we all believe this then we might as well just let the system tick along merrily as it is and consign millions more of the human race to premature death at the hands of uncaring corporate monoliths, despots, lunatics and gun-wielding egotists ( i guess the latter three are more or less the same thing).

I will, however, make a few brief points, but forgive me for not directly referencing your comments due to time constraints:

Social change has imo been hard-fought by the masses, though undoubtedly inspired by the enlightened visionaries. Strikes, marches and sit-ins have resulted in governments, certainly in the UK and no doubt elsewhere too, conceding increasing degrees of power to the masses. That's how the universal vote was won in Britain, and how shipyards on the Clyde were reprieved from closure, to name two examples. Even when strikes and similar protest action had no immediate positive effect (e.g. Jarrow) they helped shift the mindset amongst the ruling elite which resulted in reform further along the line. Obviously, in countiries like Britain and the US most of these concessions were bequeathed by, rather than wrested from, the ruling elite because these countries are relatively democratic; that's not to say that there wouldn't have been bloody revolution if the need had arisen. I'm sure you would probably put forward a convincing argument why the masses didn't help bring about the closure of America's military engagemment in Vietnam, but i guess that many of those who protested would disagree.
The system patently doesn't self-regulate effectively; that's why people march and protest.
Of course there has been massive deforestation over the last millennium, no doubt about it. During most of that time, however, the world's population was much smaller, and there was far less man-made pollution to add to the equation. I'm sure you're not suggesting that the climate experts who warn against global warming have somehow overlooked these factors (or perhaps they are covertly employed by vested interests who wish to purvey some myth about climate change to profiteer from it?.....)

As i say, your a great debater, but you have basically put a wall up against almost every point i've argued and therefore i doubt we're ever going to agree on much. We're on opposite sides of a divide. I guess you could argue that there's not much hope for improving the world given the diversity of opinion that this thread exemplifies, but i live in hope. Thanks very much though, for all the time and trouble you've taken to debate this, and the interest you've taken, i genuinely appreciate it. I hope to have similar in-depth discussions on my own forum in time, but given that i only posted on this forum in the hope of getting a few people genuinely interested in participating in my own website i think that at this point i must say that my energies are best spent elsewhere. I would happily continue such a debate on the Globalfightback forum, but this isn't the place for me. I'm a great fan of prog music, amongst other genres, but don't get much time to debate music anymore; however, i'll probably drop by from time to time on other threads and will look forward to talking music with you.

Well, it's a while since I've had the door so resolutely slammed in my face, but you need to build up your website/forum and my time is more than adequately occupied here.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Slartibartfast Originally...

Tue, 29 May 2012 11:12:13 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 29 2012 at 11:12

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Originally posted by geneyesontle

Well, I call this topic: The Eternal Fight That Will Never End.

Anyone agree?

The big question then: Is love all you need?

(bonus question pre-hippie question: Does she really love you yeah yeah yeah?)

Yeah, maybe it is. The trouble is, it's in very short supply.....

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by geneyesontle Well,...

Tue, 29 May 2012 08:00:35 +0000

Author: Slartibartfast
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 29 2012 at 08:00

Originally posted by geneyesontle

Well, I call this topic: The Eternal Fight That Will Never End.

Anyone agree?

The big question then: Is love all you need?

(bonus question pre-hippie question: Does she really love you yeah yeah yeah?)

Edited by Slartibartfast - May 29 2012 at 08:15

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by DeanYou've...

Mon, 28 May 2012 19:18:25 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 19:18

Originally posted by Dean

You've obviously given a lot of thought to this subject long before I posted and I haven't, so excuse me if I gloss over some of your points... /

I will, however, make a few brief points, but forgive me for not directly referencing your comments due to time constraints:

Social change has imo been hard-fought by the masses, though undoubtedly inspired by the enlightened visionaries. Strikes, marches and sit-ins have resulted in governments, certainly in the UK and no doubt elsewhere too, conceding increasing degrees of power to the masses. That's how the universal vote was won in Britain, and how shipyards on the Clyde were reprieved from closure, to name two examples. Even when strikes and similar protest action had no immediate positive effect (e.g. Jarrow) they helped shift the mindset amongst the ruling elite which resulted in reform further along the line. Obviously, in countiries like Britain and the US most of these concessions were bequeathed by, rather than wrested from, the ruling elite because these countries are relatively democratic; that's not to say that there wouldn't have been bloody revolution if the need had arisen. I'm sure you would probably put forward a convincing argument why the masses didn't help bring about the closure of America's military engagemment in Vietnam, but i guess that many of those who protested would disagree.
The system patently doesn't self-regulate effectively; that's why people march and protest.
Of course there has been massive deforestation over the last millennium, no doubt about it. During most of that time, however, the world's population was much smaller, and there was far less man-made pollution to add to the equation. I'm sure you're not suggesting that the climate experts who warn against global warming have somehow overlooked these factors (or perhaps they are covertly employed by vested interests who wish to purvey some myth about climate change to profiteer from it?.....)

Edited by froggyted - May 28 2012 at 19:20

Calling all old hippies : This seems like a thread I should...

Mon, 28 May 2012 15:17:30 +0000

Author: manofmystery
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 15:17

This seems like a thread I should be involved in but I'd do feel like catching up on the reading .

By the way Epig, when Slarti says this:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Anti-liberals are the most closed minded people I have ever encountered. They seem to take great glee in accusing us of practicing that while doing ti themselves...

I think we all know he's referring to me. Of course, he is an extremely close minded person when it comes to politics and problem solving. Also, I'm a classical liberal so Slarti is the anti-liberal, anyway (just to get into the proper use of terms debate again ) .

Edited by manofmystery - May 28 2012 at 15:18

Calling all old hippies : ....oh really? cant we all just...

Mon, 28 May 2012 14:58:19 +0000

Author: stacyj
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 14:58

....oh really?

cant we all just get-along?

...as in down the road?

Calling all old hippies : You've obviously given a...

Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:32 +0000

Author: Dean
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 14:47

You've obviously given a lot of thought to this subject long before I posted and I haven't, so excuse me if I gloss over some of your points...

Originally posted by froggyted

Apologies for the late reply, but for some reason i was not informed of updates to this thread despite still being subscribed.

That's a measure to reduce server overhead - you will receive one update notification following each visit you make, not for every post made since your last visit - if you do not revisit the thread then your inbox will not fill with a series of redundant emails.

Originally posted by froggyted

Ok, that's an extremely well reasoned and well worded argument you've put forward, Dean, and is the sort of calibre of debate i'm hoping to get going on the site forum, so if you ever want to drop in you're welcome. I must stress though that i didn't personally use the term 'liberal' in either that article or responses to this thread (although this is a label i am comfortable with).

The point of the global government article, and the other one, was to stimulate debate. I do not propose to be an expert, but needed some content on the site quickly; the quality of the articles will improve as time allows. In my own personal view, we do need some form of global government as a means of co-ordinating all human actions which affect the globe as a whole. Industrial pollution, food production, forest clearances etc. have an effect far beyond national boundaries. Obviously this is only a point of view. Opinions will vary on every subject under the sun: that's why democracy is such a noble concept, because we can only ever pool the mass of opinions and come up with some pragmatic solution that reflects the (hopefully well-informed) view of the majority. We are of course talking of some future scenario here: old tribal loyalties are ingrained into the human race probably from prehistoric times, and will die hard. However, i am an optimist, and i like to think a lot of the great prog musicians are too, and believe that the human race is evolving for the better; moreover, this seems to be accelerating in recent times with the greater accesibility to knowledge and exposure to the diverse cultures of the world. If you look at Britain as an example, and indeed most of the Western world, there is greater social equality than there was a few centuries ago - although this was hard-fought by the masses and certainly wasn't, for the most part, bequeathed them by the privileged echelons of society; the reactionary, conservative christian Church has a diminishing influence; we have a far more enlightened view towards other cultures (viz. the abolition of slavery). These are of course but three examples of many.

Social changes over the past 150 years have not been hard-fought by the masses, quite the reverse - practically everything achieved has been through the ideology of a select few (Keir Hardy, William Wilberforce,etc) through the support of a slightly broader but still select number of influencial supporters - not really "by the masses". You could argue that capitalism and monetarism follow the same profile and were hard-fought by the masses because they were implemeted by the ruling party as voted for by "the masses". Democracy tends to be like that when almost two thirds of a population voted against the elected ruling party.

Originally posted by froggyted

I expect it to be too unwieldy to implement because "of the people" means that the people have a direct say in every policy, which either means continuous referendums or pages of pre-prepared questionnaires answered by every person on the planet - this is never going to happen, as always it will be the most motivated that will act, not the most informed or the most affected. As the size of government increases the bureaucracy to support it increases and the detachment from "the people" increases. In a small society with small government the proportion of "for the people" politicians are more representative "of the people" - once the number people to each elected official goes beyond those that personally know the person elected then there is a seperation of interest between the elected official and those they represent.

Originally posted by froggyted

Regardless of your views on climate change i would be very surpised if you were to argue that actions such as the mass deforestation in the Amazon jungle won't have a destructive effect on global climate if left unchecked.

I like a challenge - will this surprise you? :

The truthful answer is we don't know... The traditional "global warming" argument of deforestation has given way to "climate change" and what was considered to be the prime cause (carbon cycle) is now ranked third behind water-cycle and heat-management, the reason behind this is that while trees are good at sequestering carbon and good at releasing oxygen, so is every plant on the planet including all those planted in the cleared forests... What we don't seem to consider is that deforestation on a massive global scale has been going on for the past 25,000 years, both naturally through forest fires and "unnaturally" through the direct action of man. In the past the whole of the UK and Europe was forest - those were cleared by men armed with stone axes and wood was the main construction material for literally thousands of years for shelter, tools, transport and fuel - what we call the stone-age, bronze-age, iron-age and industrial-age were all in reality variants on the wood-age. The one thing forests do not provide is food.

Originally posted by froggyted

You simply can't rely on nation states and capitalist (profit first) vested interests to police such things.

In principle you can (or so the libertarians will argue) as the system should self-regulate. Whether that is true or not (or whether you have the courage to find out because if they are wrong then we're all stuffed), the alternative is even less palitable - how do you police without the threat of retribution?

Originally posted by froggyted

Whilst still studying, more years ago than i now care to remember, i came across an excellent exposition of freedom. I don't have it to hand at present, but basically it suggested that everybody should be given the maximum amount of freedom to do what they wished, so long as it didn't impact on other peoples' freedom. An example of this in the real world would be to play your music as loud as you wished as long as it didn't annoy anybody else, which in effect would mean either playing it at a fairly low volume or reducing your proximity to others, thereby providing us with a definition of freedom that maximises everybody's freedom, and not just those of some at the expense of others.This is a definition of freedom i subscribe to, one which i don't think sits very well with capitalism, and if you applied that to a global government it would be a government that minimised interference in peoples' lives except where absolutely necessary (as defined by the people themselves democratically). Thus you could, for example, have regional and local communes and self-help groups flourishing, and pursuing their own chosen lifestyle, within a larger whole, rather than wielding a one-size-fits-all mallet to the masses as the old communist and military dictatorships have done. As i said earlier, this is some futuristic vision, but perhaps one we should and could start moving towards.

no answer

Originally posted by froggyted

Do we really want the human race to continue the endless in-fighting over ideals and resources that has ravaged the world, since recorded history at least, and which could utimately devastate it? We already have the technology to apply a system of direct electronic voting where every citizen could vote on individual issues rather than having some quasi parliament of so-called 'representatives' do it for us. Obviously, both the will and the infrastructure are a long way off, but i'm sure a lot of prog fans will also be readers of science-fiction and will have the imagination to accept that such future scenarios are not totally unfeasible.

o...kay. What you are describing is wholly impractical as it requires every citizen on the planet to be in the upper portions of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and thus have the inclination and time to participate in global government to the degree required... and once we have achieve that for all citizens of planet Earth we won't need a global government.

Originally posted by froggyted

With regard to your views on climate change, i agree with a lot of what you say, and concede that opinion is divided on whether or not there is yet definitive proof that man-made climate change is currently underway. It has to be noted, however, that many scientists do feel they have conclusive proof of this. There was a guy on BBC News 24's Hardtalk programme a couple of years ago, an environmental scientist of some sort, who actually thought that it was already too late: that we had already passed over the tipping point and that, ultimately, the only way what he saw as inevitable global food shortage would be resolved would be by a drastic culling of the world's population by global war. Whether or not this comes to be, even though i agree with you that we should be very wary of tampering with things we're not sure about, i still believe we can still implement policies that reduce deforestation and protect our global food production capabilities. Given that there is a limited supply of global resources, e.g. fossil fuels, i don't think it would do any harm to reduce the consumption of them either, even in the unlikely event that their consumption is not contributing to global warming.

What I rally against is ineffectual appeasement, and that's what we have at the moment - CFL light bulbs and unplugging phone chargers piss me off greatly - as do so-called "Eco" solutions such as electric and hybrid cars powered by lithium batteries and the stupid supermarket carrier bags nonsense... Do people truly honestly believe that any of that actually achieves anything? It's homoeopathic consumerism - a whopping great green placebo sugar-pill to make you feel better that does absolutely nothing. IF (and that's a stonking great big IF) mankind can affect climate in a positive way by design and action (as opposed to in a negative way by accident and inaction) then to achieve any predictable effect the input stimulus has to be massive - chaos theory and butter-fly wings do not apply - and that is horrendously dangerous and woefully irresponsible. Every well-meaning positive change that the human race has attempted on the environment has been either totally ineffectual or stupendously disastrous.

The policing, regulation and control we need is not just on the those who are doing harm to the environment, but also on the eco-warriors who through ineptitude and ill-conceived idealism think they are doing good.

Originally posted by froggyted

The debate could go on and on, and that's partly the point of the website and associated forum: to enhance understanding of such issues by discussion. We certainly can't rely on the vested interests of superpowers and corporate giants to inform us of the truth, or to point us in the right direction.

What we are slowly learning is we cannot rely on anybody to point us in the right direction - vested interest affects all concerned.

Calling all old hippies : Why the hell do liberal people...

Mon, 28 May 2012 14:10:27 +0000

Author: Smurph
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 14:10

Why the hell do liberal people agree with actual liberals? I think an actual "liberal" would be a person that liberally thinks on their own and detests the government.

At this point I'm fed up with all of it and realize that I have no control over the evils that hold this world together. I'd rather just try to live through it and treat individuals with love and respect.

This might be a dangerous attitude to have, but if you think that you're really going to fix anything, you are mistaken. More freedom means capitalism will take advantage of the weak, but more government intervention means the government will take advantage of their power, the weak, and promote specialized interests.

Nothing will ever be ok. Neither side brings peace and true equality to the table. Everything stinks. Poop. Diahrea.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by froggyted Originally...

Mon, 28 May 2012 09:49:32 +0000

Author: Epignosis
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 09:49

Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Epignosis

You're still dancing with the word that lacks meaning. Libertarianism doesn't "work;" it doesn't try to. It is an ethical ideal. It doesn't seek to solve any problems. In fact, libertarians will accept that in a libertarian society, there will still be poor people, that unfortunate things will happen, that some people will fail in their pursuit of happiness and therefore be unhappy, etc. It posits that any system that would try to solve such issues through use of force is evil.

Well yes, i guess that the use of all force is evil. Except when you need to defend your own well-being against those who would threaten it with their own use of force. Imo, WW2 was one war that had to be fought, to stop a dictatorship that threated both the wellbeing and lives of many others. I would also endorse those that are standng up to the regimes in the likes of Syria who are using force against what began as peaceful demostrators trying to exert some democratic right.

Taxes are an example of force.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by dreadpirateroberts ^...

Mon, 28 May 2012 09:05:25 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 09:05

Originally posted by dreadpirateroberts

^ yep, cut and paste is easiest :)

Thanks. Have just noticed my own forum doesn't have multiquote either. A pity, it makes life much easier.

Calling all old hippies : ^ yep, cut and paste is easiest...

Mon, 28 May 2012 08:59:36 +0000

Author: dreadpirateroberts
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:59

^ yep, cut and paste is easiest :)

Edited by dreadpirateroberts - May 28 2012 at 09:00

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by aginorim...

Mon, 28 May 2012 08:53:32 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:53

Originally posted by aginor

im more of a hippo then a hippi

.....er, maybe that's a start.....

BTW, how do you multiquote on this forum, or do you just have to cut and paste?

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by ExittheLemming^...

Mon, 28 May 2012 08:44:52 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:44

Originally posted by ExittheLemming

^ Sorry for going off topic but yes, agreed, there's word for what you describe.....Italy

Watch out for the mafia, man!

Calling all old hippies : im more of a hippo then a hippi ...

Mon, 28 May 2012 08:23:02 +0000

Author: aginor
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:23

im more of a hippo then a hippi

Calling all old hippies : ^ Sorry for going off topic but...

Mon, 28 May 2012 08:01:39 +0000

Author: ExittheLemming
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:01

^ Sorry for going off topic but yes, agreed, there's word for what you describe.....Italy

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by ExittheLemmingI...

Mon, 28 May 2012 07:55:04 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 07:55

Originally posted by ExittheLemming

I have a horrible feeling that a global government would suffer a similar fate to that of the world football governing body FIFA: A small failed Swiss footballer would suggest that racism can be solved with a handshake, women should wear tighter shorts and low cut shirts to combat sexism and that the introduction of goal-line technology is about as likely as any official coming up squeaky clean in an independent and external corruption inquiry.

I agree that there aren't many encouraging precedents and FIFA certainly isn't one of them! If i was to put my cynical hat on i would suggest that maybe the reason officials at the top have resisted goal-line technology is that the game is actually bent at the highest levels, to the point where maybe some matches are actually fixed by buying match officials. Goal-line technology would certainly cause problems in such a scenario.

Calling all old hippies : I have a horrible feeling that...

Mon, 28 May 2012 06:49:15 +0000

Author: ExittheLemming
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 06:49

I have a horrible feeling that a global government would suffer a similar fate to that of the world football governing body FIFA: A small failed Swiss footballer would suggest that racism can be solved with a handshake, women should wear tighter shorts and low cut shirts to combat sexism and that the introduction of goal-line technology is about as likely as any official coming up squeaky clean in an independent and external corruption inquiry.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by tamijoIn...

Mon, 28 May 2012 05:41:26 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:41

Originally posted by tamijo

In any case i dont think the world will ever change, the Hippies (my generation) proved it ourself, as soon as we grew up to become in power ourself, we turned out to be just as greedy as the generation before.

The only thing You can do, is to be in balance with your own conscience, but you cant stop every bad , trying to make profit from other peoples stupidity.

And you cant change the fact that the one with the money, is the one with the biggest gun, and the one with the biggest gun is the one who decides what is the truth. (be aware western world, your gun is about to scrink)

I don't believe that the hippie cause was a completely wasted one: i believe it helped set a precedent for what is happening around the world today. Still, i very much like your view that we need to be in balance with our own conscience, but imo we also need to believe that we really can make the world a better place (in the long term). I don't think the masses are as accepting anymore that the one with the biggest gun decides what is true.....

Edited by froggyted - May 28 2012 at 05:45

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Epignosis You're...

Mon, 28 May 2012 05:34:48 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:34

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by frippism Originally...

Mon, 28 May 2012 05:29:08 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:29

Originally posted by frippism

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Ifit'sReal - we believein it!

Hm how about the church of apathy.

"If it's real... eh who cares why does it matter?"

Hey, man, maybe you've been listening to too much prog!

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by King...

Mon, 28 May 2012 05:26:49 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:26

Originally posted by King of Loss

What about the ideal of cultural marxism that preaches "liberating tolerance" from the left and not anything from the right?

Interesting. I need to look into this further.

Calling all old hippies : My problem is the use of the word...

Mon, 28 May 2012 05:25:44 +0000

Author: Snow Dog
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:25

My problem is the use of the word hippy has totally put me off reading anything you post...or being even a little bit interested in your web site.

Actually......I have no interest anyway.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Epignosis Originally...

Mon, 28 May 2012 05:25:16 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:25

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Dean

Every system that has ever been tried works, some of them worked for a short while and some a little longer - whether you liked the Roman and Norman systems or not - they worked, but ultimately they all fail. World Government will work for a while then it will fail, just as communism worked for a while then it failed, just as libertarianism will work for a while then it will fail. All these schemes and ideologies fail because they are attempting a single solution to a multi-variable set of problems.

This observation lacks meaning though, doesn't it? The key word here is "work." Different ideologies all have different ends: Socialism will not result in what libertarianism will result in, because they're not designed to reach the same end. Likewise, whether a system has "failed" or not is contingent only on what the definition of "worked" is.

When someone like or frog friend here tells us that our systems of government aren't working, my essential question is, "Well, what is your vision of how things should be?" I went to the website, and I quickly knew that his sociopolitical concept of "working" would be my sociopolitical concept of "failure."

I would add that libertarianism is distinct from the other schemes in that libertarianism doesn't really try to accomplish anything other than maintaining an individual's right to his own life and his own property, allowing him no innate claim over the life or property of another. That is the heart of it.

Perhaps you jumped to conclusions too quickly then, because if you read my response to Dean, and in particular my views on 'freedom', you will see that we have common ground.

Edited by froggyted - May 28 2012 at 05:47

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by...

Mon, 28 May 2012 05:17:59 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:17

Originally posted by Dean

Hmm.

I've been described by one of my colleagues here as a terminally fluffy hippy (though born 5 years too late to have ever been a hippy), and I am a liberal, albeit with socialist tendencies, but your website and the ideas you have seem to me to be at odds with hippy idealism and liberalism. (I think we need to be less liberal with our use of the word "liberal" at times). Where our resident libertarians will decry government in any form and you seem to be proposing a restrained and accountable world government with no real idea of how that can be achieved. Every system that has ever been tried works, some of them worked for a short while and some a little longer - whether you liked the Roman and Norman systems or not - they worked, but ultimately they all fail. World Government will work for a while then it will fail, just as communism worked for a while then it failed, just as libertarianism will work for a while then it will fail. All these schemes and ideologies fail because they are attempting a single solution to a multi-variable set of problems.

As wacky as it sounds we do not need a global solution to global problems - we need to accept that global problems exist that's for sure, but we also need to sort out the real problems from the perceived problems and those that really are global from those that only look like they are global because they affect everyone... [okay, that's not well explained, let's have another go: if all men suffer from hair-loss as they grow older then that is not a global problem, it's just a problem that affects all men; if a viral fungus wipes out all cereal production across the planet that is a global problem because rice, wheat, millet, and maize are staple crops].

We do not know whether climate change is a real problem (global or otherwise) - we do not have enough data and we have not been studying it long enough to be able to make reliable predictions. Over long time periods climate fluctuates, this we can observe in the historical data and we can determine that some of this is cyclic and can be attributed to a wide variety of sources and some of it is random due to cataclysmic events of some kind (meteor, volcanic,etc.). The climate changes we have observed are within the limits seen in fluctuations present in the historical, because this "up-kick" has only been observed over a geologically tiny timeperiod we are in no position to determine its cause or make any prediction from it. The single most dramatic observation we can make from current climate study is there is an awful lot of it. And that's a problem, because prior to the 20th Century there wasn't any. In other words we have nothing to reference this vast amount of data we've accumulated back to so we cannot know precisely what it means (if anything). That's not to say it is all a load of nonsense and climate change is not happening, but we must be extremely careful about any conclusions we draw from this, and more importantly be very careful about everything we attempt on a global scale to counter the perceived effect we are having, because if we get it wrong (and given human nature and human history that's about the only thing you can rely on), then we'll just make it worse.

Apologies for the late reply, but for some reason i was not informed of updates to this thread despite still being subscribed.

Imo, a global government doesn't have to equate to a Big Brother scenario: in an enlightened society it could simply be a vehicle of the people (rather than 'for' the people) that co-ordinates those aspects of policy that do need to be co-ordinated on a global scale. Regardless of your views on climate change i would be very surpised if you were to argue that actions such as the mass deforestation in the Amazon jungle won't have a destructive effect on global climate if left unchecked. You simply can't rely on nation states and capitalist (profit first) vested interests to police such things. Whilst still studying, more years ago than i now care to remember, i came across an excellent exposition of freedom. I don't have it to hand at present, but basically it suggested that everybody should be given the maximum amount of freedom to do what they wished, so long as it didn't impact on other peoples' freedom. An example of this in the real world would be to play your music as loud as you wished as long as it didn't annoy anybody else, which in effect would mean either playing it at a fairly low volume or reducing your proximity to others, thereby providing us with a definition of freedom that maximises everybody's freedom, and not just those of some at the expense of others.This is a definition of freedom i subscribe to, one which i don't think sits very well with capitalism, and if you applied that to a global government it would be a government that minimised interference in peoples' lives except where absolutely necessary (as defined by the people themselves democratically). Thus you could, for example, have regional and local communes and self-help groups flourishing, and pursuing their own chosen lifestyle, within a larger whole, rather than wielding a one-size-fits-all mallet to the masses as the old communist and military dictatorships have done. As i said earlier, this is some futuristic vision, but perhaps one we should and could start moving towards. Do we really want the human race to continue the endless in-fighting over ideals and resources that has ravaged the world, since recorded history at least, and which could utimately devastate it? We already have the technology to apply a system of direct electronic voting where every citizen could vote on individual issues rather than having some quasi parliament of so-called 'representatives' do it for us. Obviously, both the will and the infrastructure are a long way off, but i'm sure a lot of prog fans will also be readers of science-fiction and will have the imagination to accept that such future scenarios are not totally unfeasible.

Edited by froggyted - May 28 2012 at 10:04

Calling all old hippies : In any case i dont think the world...

Sun, 27 May 2012 14:32:05 +0000

Author: tamijo
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 14:32

In any case i dont think the world will ever change, the Hippies (my generation) proved it ourself, as soon as we grew up to become in power ourself, we turned out to be just as greedy as the generation before.

The only thing You can do, is to be in balance with your own conscience, but you cant stop every bad , trying to make profit from other peoples stupidity.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Dean Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 14:07:00 +0000

Author: lazland
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 14:07

Originally posted by Dean

I don't dance. Either words have meaning or the whole of language is just a series of amusing sounds. Words like "work" and "failure" have meaning - what we are lacking is a context where we can agree the interpretation of those words for any given concept, rationale or ideology. We are both saying the same thing but from opposite directions, the only difference being you expect that having no system is better than having multiuple systems that pick and chooses the "good bits" from all possible systems. I don't accept that poor people need to be poor but I do accept that some people will be unhappy - anybody who thinks a sociopolitical system can ever make people happy is fooling only themselves (and are not all political systems, even Libertarianism, merely Ponzi-schemes anyway - selling people something they can never have).

Yes, they are, and understanding and accepting that is the most important step that one can take towards political wisdom.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by EpignosisYou're...

Sun, 27 May 2012 13:33:50 +0000

Author: Dean
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 13:33

I don't dance. Either words have meaning or the whole of language is just a series of amusing sounds. Words like "work" and "failure" have meaning - what we are lacking is a context where we can agree the interpretation of those words for any given concept, rationale or ideology. We are both saying the same thing but from opposite directions, the only difference being you expect that having no system is better than having multiuple systems that pick and chooses the "good bits" from all possible systems. I don't accept that poor people need to be poor but I do accept that some people will be unhappy - anybody who thinks a sociopolitical system can ever make people happy is fooling only themselves (and are not all political systems, even Libertarianism, merely Ponzi-schemes anyway - selling people something they can never have).

Calling all old hippies : Well, I call this topic: The...

Sun, 27 May 2012 12:40:55 +0000

Author: geneyesontle
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 12:40

Well, I call this topic: The Eternal Fight That Will Never End.

Anyone agree?

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Dean Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 12:34:27 +0000

Author: Epignosis
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 12:34

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Epignosis

I'm more than happy to posit that if a system only works for a percentage of the population then it is a failing system. If two disparate ideologies will not work for proponents of the opposing system then they are doomed to fail. This is regardless of the desired end result, though I would add that many of the failed systems couldn't even achieve their stated goals. The measure of a system working should be in the results - the resolution of problems - not in whether someones sociopolitical concept is satisfied.

No single system will work for everyone and no single system will solve all the world's problems.

You're still dancing with the word that lacks meaning. Libertarianism doesn't "work;" it doesn't try to. It is an ethical ideal. It doesn't seek to solve any problems. In fact, libertarians will accept that in a libertarian society, there will still be poor people, that unfortunate things will happen, that some people will fail in their pursuit of happiness and therefore be unhappy, etc. It posits that any system that would try to solve such issues through use of force is evil.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Slartibartfast...

Sun, 27 May 2012 12:30:28 +0000

Author: frippism
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 12:30

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Ifit'sReal - we believein it!

Hm how about the church of apathy.

"If it's real... eh who cares why does it matter?"

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Epignosis Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 12:07:01 +0000

Author: Dean
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 12:07

Originally posted by Epignosis

No single system will work for everyone and no single system will solve all the world's problems.

Calling all old hippies : What about the ideal of cultural...

Sun, 27 May 2012 11:37:00 +0000

Author: King of Loss
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 11:37

What about the ideal of cultural marxism that preaches "liberating tolerance" from the left and not anything from the right?

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by DeanEvery...

Sun, 27 May 2012 11:32:38 +0000

Author: Epignosis
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 11:32

Originally posted by Dean

I agree. I think the late Michael Crichton had some great things to say about climate change in his appendix to State of Fear.

Calling all old hippies : Hmm. I've been described...

Sun, 27 May 2012 10:35:56 +0000

Author: Dean
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 10:35

Hmm.

Edited by Dean - May 27 2012 at 10:39

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Epignosis Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 09:58:29 +0000

Author: akamaisondufromage
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 09:58

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by froggyted

Btw, i find it hard to believe (and a bit sad) that there are people out there who are open-minded enough to listen to prog and at the same time are anti-liberal. But i guess the psyche is a complex thing to analyse.....

Listening to prog doesn't make someone open-minded.

Being anti-liberal doesn't make someone closed-minded.

I could subscribe to your first statement, but i'm not so sure of the second.....

Anti-liberals are the most closed minded people I have ever encountered. They seem to take great glee in accusing us of practicing that while doing ti themselves...

I don't believe I have ever once accused anyone in my life of being "closed-minded."

All that phrase does is attempt to automatically discredit one's opponent when one lacks a sound argument. It's a lazy out.

Oh Dear! I think I called someone 'closed minded' only last week. In the 'Help me convert my rapper friend into a prog freak' thread! I hadn't realised what I was doing at the time! But now I see the error of my ways. Damn!

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by SlartibartfastYeah,...

Sun, 27 May 2012 09:09:50 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 09:09

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Yeah, in the end I do have political positions but I'm really just here for the music.

Even there the common ground is often hard to find.

There's just so much music out there. I often think that i'll never actually get to hear what would potentially be my all-time favourite song. Additionally, if you're not receptive when you do hear it it just won't register. Every now and then a song, under the right listening circumstances, just totally blows me away. A good example a couple of years ago was New Age Steppers' Guiding Star (psychedelic dub for want of a better description). Recently a lot of Roy Harper, Peter Hammill and VDGG have been hitting the nerve (but i never would have listened to VDGG about 5 years ago). Roy Harper, now there's an old hippie who stayed true to the cause.....

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Epignosis I...

Sun, 27 May 2012 09:08:13 +0000

Author: Slartibartfast
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 09:08

Originally posted by Epignosis

I don't believe I have ever once accused anyone in my life of being "closed-minded."

All that phrase does is attempt to automatically discredit one's opponent when one lacks a sound argument. It's a lazy out.

If the shoe doesn't fit I don't expect you to wear it.

Calling all old hippies : Yeah, in the end I do have political...

Sun, 27 May 2012 09:01:37 +0000

Author: Slartibartfast
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 09:01

Yeah, in the end I do have political positions but I'm really just here for the music.

Even there the common ground is often hard to find.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Snow...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:59:10 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:59

Originally posted by Snow Dog

I never liked hippies.

Oh yeah, and i like Rush too. Well, early Rush anyway.....

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Slartibartfast Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:57:46 +0000

Author: Epignosis
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:57

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Epignosis

Listening to prog doesn't make someone open-minded.

Being anti-liberal doesn't make someone closed-minded.

I could subscribe to your first statement, but i'm not so sure of the second.....

Anti-liberals are the most closed minded people I have ever encountered. They seem to take great glee in accusing us of practicing that while doing ti themselves...

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by SlartibartfastIf...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:56:37 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:56

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

If I may divert, who do you like musically?

Me? To name a few off the top of my head:

Van Der Graaf Generator; Peter Hammill; Soft Machine; Pink Floyd; Dream Theater; Moody Blues; Genesis; Peter Gabriel; Dave Matthews Band; Roy Harper; Joni Mitchell; Yes; Led Zeppelin; Fairport Convention; Sandy Denny; Richard Thompson; Comus; Vanilla Fudge; Gong; King Crimson; Jethro Tull; Kate Bush; Baaba Maal; Nick Drake; John Martyn; Spocks Beard; Rolling Stones.............. lots more..... an eclectic mix embracing prog, rock, jazz, blues, folk, 'world', and some classical.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by froggyted Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:51:17 +0000

Author: Slartibartfast
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:51

Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Epignosis

Listening to prog doesn't make someone open-minded.

Being anti-liberal doesn't make someone closed-minded.

I could subscribe to your first statement, but i'm not so sure of the second.....

Anti-liberals are the most closed minded people I have ever encountered. They seem to take great glee in accusing us of practicing that while doing ti themselves...

Calling all old hippies : I never liked hippies.

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:49:28 +0000

Author: Snow Dog
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:49

I never liked hippies.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by froggyted Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:48:57 +0000

Author: Epignosis
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:48

Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Epignosis

I'll pass.

http://www.globalfightback.com/globalgovernment.html

Recent events, stepping perilously close to economic (and in places social) meltdown, have proven that Western capitalism can�t be trusted to provide the solution. When the pursuit of profit is the main driving factor the �best solution� won�t necessarily be adopted. Unfortunately, large proportions of the developing world are adopting the capitalist model too, for it provides an attractive material standard of life (for the lucky ones) at the expense of the less fortunate, and also at the expense of long-term balance. Its seems obvious to many experts that the human race is eating up natural resources at an ultimately unsustainable rate, whilst correspondingly adding to the pollutive soup that threatens the world�s ecological balance. In addition to the shortcomings of capitalism there are other factors such as diverse political and religious systems, and diverse political and religious visions, which stand in the way of and ultimately threaten global sustainability.

If weasel words were a natural resource, then this article might help us all out.

If government has failed on the short scale, why would anyone want to believe that an even greater bureaucratic behemoth would succeed (whatever that means)?

So what do you suggest, that we all just sit back and watch it all fall apart? Have you not noticed that all over the world people are finally standing up to authority? The hippies started it (or more accurately, were the culmination of an anti-establisment movement that preceded them) before Thatcher's reactionary Britain pulled us all back into the mire of the old class structure and an obssession with materialism, after which the hippie movement became, for a long time, something to be sneered at by the masses. The world is changing now, and this time it's going to be a difficult momentum to stop.

I implied a suggestion: Little or no government. If we've had government and government interference and the result has been disastrous, why would you want more of it?

And I do think you give the hippies too much credit. They didn't invent rebellion. The United States, for example, was a product of rebellion.

Er, i wasn't saying that the hippies invented rebellion. It's also apparent that a lot of hippies were ultimately hypocrites and became slaves to the system. Global govermnent is a concept that, in its best form, can help rationalise the world's resources and minimise global conflict. It doesn't have to go hand in hand with the interference of an individual's (or a region's) life at a micro scale, especially (in some future scenario) where it is actually a government of the people, rather than present day models which merely pay lip service to being governments for the people but which are, in reality, structures to perpetuate power for the controlling minority at the expense of the masses - you only need to take a look at what's currently going on in Syria and elsewhere.

You only need to take a look at what's going on the US.

But your proposal is, as well-intended as it may be, going about it the wrong way. Not only would it logistically never work, but it would exacerbate the circumstances you describe.

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by Epignosis Originally...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:46:49 +0000

Author: froggyted
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:46

Originally posted by Epignosis

Listening to prog doesn't make someone open-minded.

Being anti-liberal doesn't make someone closed-minded.

I could subscribe to your first statement, but i'm not so sure of the second.....

Calling all old hippies : Originally posted by froggyted Btw,...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:44:16 +0000

Author: Epignosis
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:44

Listening to prog doesn't make someone open-minded.

Being anti-liberal doesn't make someone closed-minded.

Calling all old hippies : If I may divert, who do you like...

Sun, 27 May 2012 08:42:58 +0000

Author: Slartibartfast
Subject: 87158
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:42

If I may divert, who do you like musically?