How We Got Into This Mess

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

gundy....pure poetry. However I have to disagree that source of our current situation is necessarily due to ignorance. We are ignorant,very ignorant, but I think that the real problem is that we as a society have no will to make ourselves more aware or more knowledgeable about the true reality of the world...because we don't have to. It is far easier to keep chomping on our Big Macs and contemplating who the next winner of American Idol or Dancing with the Stars might be. Philosophy takes effort... because there is never a perfect solution and the philosophical process to a given question is never ending. We are spoiled as a society and we have created so much moral hazard within the past seventy years that the damage to rational and philosophical thought ,I fear, might only be corrected if something very very bad were to happen (economic disaster) to put the people in their rightful position in the world.

[Mindflayer]

Why are people ignorant? Immaturity. I still stand by that. Self-centered, what-can-you-do-for-me, I-want-it-now-and have-no-long-term-vision, throw-a-tantrum immaturity.

[gunderwood]

gundy....pure poetry. However I have to disagree that source of our current situation is necessarily due to ignorance. We are ignorant,very ignorant, but I think that the real problem is that we as a society have no will to make ourselves more aware or more knowledgeable about the true reality of the world...because we don't have to. It is far easier to keep chomping on our Big Macs and contemplating who the next winner of American Idol or Dancing with the Stars might be. Philosophy takes effort... because there is never a perfect solution and the philosophical process to a given question is never ending. We are spoiled as a society and we have created so much moral hazard within the past seventy years that the damage to rational and philosophical thought ,I fear, might only be corrected if something very very bad were to happen (economic disaster) to put the people in their rightful position in the world.

I hear you, but I still think it is a symptom. Look at it this way. How much effort do people put into things they like? I would suggest a lot! Even just watching TV, people put in a ton of work to make sure they catch every episode (at least before DVRs). In the pursuit of happiness, even today, people work very hard to accomplish it.

The issue is one of priorities. Pop culture has replaced actual culture. Most people now assume that the current state of "freedom" is naturally occurring or at least is something for the government to protect. Can't really blame them, it is what we teach.

Perhaps you could blame me for relying on the common man like TJ, but children are naturally curious and we must beat it out of them. Our system creates boredom and pushes students to find no pleasure in their studies. It doesn't have to be that way. Here is a story about the product (a farmer) from that "failed" classical education system. I would contend such a simple farmer was better educated than most people today.

Not Yours To Give

Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.


One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and---‘


"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

" ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

" ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

" 'My name is Bunce.'

" 'Not Horatio Bunce?'

" 'Yes.’

" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

" ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

" ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

" ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

" ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

[WRW]

I had been looking for that Crockett story as it is relevant today. I first read it decades ago in, of all places, The West Virginia Hillbilly News Letter. Thanks for the post.

[gunderwood]

Why are people ignorant? Immaturity. I still stand by that. Self-centered, what-can-you-do-for-me, I-want-it-now-and have-no-long-term-vision, throw-a-tantrum immaturity.

I think we are using the word ignorance slightly differently. Most definitions of ignorance would point out the lack of knowledge, awareness and education, the key being "lack of." I simply choose one as an example (formal education with the public school system) and ran with it. These are not separate issues when raising a child, but it is possible for a human being to be very ignorant in one or more areas and be extremely proficient in another.

To reduce one's ignorance requires training and and discipline which was historically provided by parents, the individual and to a lesser extend the community. This implies that ignorance is a natural condition of human existence upon birth. Immaturity is just one aspect of ignorance, just as a lack of formal education is also one aspect of ignorance. Immaturity generally describes an individuals particular inability to handle or interact properly with society as it is structured. A mature adult is a relative term to each society.

See the difference? Ignorance is a natural human condition that we overcome. Immaturity is merely one measuring stick by which we gauge an individuals level of ignorance as pertaining to social expectations. To label someone immature is to measure them against a standard of maturity and claim them deficient. Your very claim that they are immature implies you have a gold standard by which to measure them. What is it?

You could argue that simply not being ignorant of something does not make one mature. Certainly, knowledge, awareness and education do not imply a moral, ethical or mature person. However, I would point out that maturity with ignorance is incompatible with a free society. Certainly, if a societies measure of maturity is following orders (doing what the rules tell you to do), you can create individuals that are mature as measured by your relative social measuring stick. However, to sustain a free society requires a lack of ignorance because it implies self-governance. I.e. how can men be truly free if they can not govern themselves and know not how because they are ignorant?

A free society, based on self-governance, can not last if the people are ignorant. It has no option but to self destruct.

The real point I was trying to make with my other post was that when the state assumed control of raising our children, these issues became epidemic. That state has completely failed to provide formal education; instead they turn out information drones who know facts but remain ignorant. The state has completely failed to instil the peoples social values (i.e. they remain ignorant of them); instead of our culture being passed down from one generation to the next, it is determined by what happens in our schools. Instead of society training the children, the children are essentially raising themselves as their group thinks is best. Children, being ignorant without training and discipline, do a poor job of raising each other through peer pressure. Their decisions for a functional society are generally poor and facilitate the necessity of the nanny state to watch over them, take care of them and make decisions for them. None of which is compatible with self-governance.

[Eutaw]

Why are people ignorant? Immaturity. I still stand by that. Self-centered, what-can-you-do-for-me, I-want-it-now-and have-no-long-term-vision, throw-a-tantrum immaturity.

This.

I currently have a summer job to help myself through college. I work in apparel in a department store. My job exists simply because people are too lazy to put clothes on hangers. Why bother putting what you don't own in its proper place? The floor is apparently good enough. Not to mention the incredible amountof theft that takes place everyday. Ignorance, immaturity, greed. Thank you, Mindflayer.

Eutaw

[Mindflayer]

The first sign that a baby is growing to be independent is that he stands on his own two legs, then propels himself on his own power, to go forth and explore the world on his own. Parents help pick up that child when it falls, reassure him when his travels scare him, and discipline him when he falls short of their moral and ethical code.

As he grows, that child should have instilled in him a desire to learn new things, to stand always on his own, to expand his horizons, and to live by the foundation set by his parents and the framework built by society.

That all falls apart when a young adult is treated as a toddler his whole life, catered to, never told he has failed, never punished for transgressions, and taught that only material things bring pleasure. At that point, they are no more mature than a young baby, crying for food, only to be sated immediately with his mother's teat.

This is what I mean by immaturity leading to ignorance. Why explore the issues when you are sated by the superficiality of online narcissism, by friends and parents that don't seek knowledge, and by disposable consumerism?

I argue also this is why military brats (at least until my generation) were always more mature and less ignorant. We were immersed in other cultures, often hostile, and we had to learn to adapt. We were ambassadors of our nation so we had to learn and live by the norms of not only our culture, but those of the host nation. We also knew anything we did would reflect in our sponsor's career and on the American community as a whole. That responsibility bred maturity and as mature young adults, we abhorred ignorance.

[chfaunce]

This.

I currently have a summer job to help myself through college. I work in apparel in a department store. My job exists simply because people are too lazy to put clothes on hangers. Mindflayer.

Eutaw

Your job also exists because people like me are sometimes too lazy to to laundry...

// worked at Hechingers while in college. Job existed because Home Depot hadn't come to town and shut us down...

Oh, and

[gunderwood]

The first sign that a baby is growing to be independent is that he stands on his own two legs, then propels himself on his own power, to go forth and explore the world on his own. Parents help pick up that child when it falls, reassure him when his travels scare him, and discipline him when he falls short of their moral and ethical code.

As he grows, that child should have instilled in him a desire to learn new things, to stand always on his own, to expand his horizons, and to live by the foundation set by his parents and the framework built by society.

That all falls apart when a young adult is treated as a toddler his whole life, catered to, never told he has failed, never punished for transgressions, and taught that only material things bring pleasure. At that point, they are no more mature than a young baby, crying for food, only to be sated immediately with his mother's teat.

This is what I mean by immaturity leading to ignorance. Why explore the issues when you are sated by the superficiality of online narcissism, by friends and parents that don't seek knowledge, and by disposable consumerism?

I argue also this is why military brats (at least until my generation) were always more mature and less ignorant. We were immersed in other cultures, often hostile, and we had to learn to adapt. We were ambassadors of our nation so we had to learn and live by the norms of not only our culture, but those of the host nation. We also knew anything we did would reflect in our sponsor's career and on the American community as a whole. That responsibility bred maturity and as mature young adults, we abhorred ignorance.

Ah, I think we are saying the same thing with different words. It seems we agree that the root problem is children not being trained and disciplined into adults. It is no wonder they need a nanny state.

I would add two things to your military brat example.

First, while I never had to deal with this particular example, you are forced to some extent to deal with life as it is, not as you wish it to be. During times of war, not everyone's dad came home. You can't hide from it, you have to deal with it because it is part of your community. Thankfully the first Gulf war had very few casualties, but we didn't know that going into it.

Second, they only real class structure is officer vs enlisted. Growing up enlisted, you were exposed to many other races/ethnicities and really thought nothing of it. It was just a fact of life that people of all colors lived in the same communities. You didn't have the choice to live in the "white" housing or "black" housing. They didn't exist, it was military housing and your neighbors were who they were.

[Eutaw]

Ah, I remember Hechingers. I think I was in 6th grade when they closed down. My dad still has a hechingers shirt that he wears all the time.

As for the military brat, I am one and moved a good ten times with my family before moving again to college. I think my life was actually pretty great despite the moves. Saw parts of Europe as a child and met lots of good people along the way. I think we have a much different view of the world compared to the kid that stays in one community until adulthood. They both have their positives and negatives, but I wouldn't change my history. I was taught respect by my parents and mentors (all military who demanded respect.) I do see a big problem with maturity with civilian kids when they leave the nest though.

And thanks for the welcome!