Detriot

[spence]

How much of the dependency class is indirect vs direct?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How much of the dependency class is indirect vs direct?

-spence

It depends, as you well know being, as JohnR once said, the queen of it, on context. What is indirect in one context can be direct in another. Or, as you quipped in another thread: "I'm not sure I understand the question. There are many variables here . . ."

I'm not sure in what context your question is asked, but in the context of the dependency class being a result of the ruling class's policies, I would say that most of the dependency is direct rather than indirect. The current ruling class, being a direct descendent of progressive politics in America, has as its mission a State in which the citizens have no inalienable rights, but has only those rights granted by government. As such, all enterprises are allowed by government and are obligated to follow its mandates in an ever-expanding minutia of regulations. The same growth of intrusion in the functions of personal life applies.

The transformation of an American society which was based mostly on self-government and self-reliance in a fluid "class," where one could rise and fall on merit and effort, to a more rigid structure of "classes" which require government assistance to maintain has created the dependency class. Before the transformation, the great body of American society did not depend on a central government for its welfare. The "great" societies formed by federal progressive governments have steadily changed self-reliance to government dependence and made the ability to achieve wealth or a "better" life economically more difficult, and made a "class" structure more difficult to escape, and has specifically made the dependency class not only a beneficiary of government, but a supplicant.

[scottw]

the comments from some of my customers recently who fancy themselves proud and lifelong liberal democrats(who are quite moderate and "have actually voted republican" they implore, but can't name any that they ever voted for) have been fascinating on these subjects....on Detroit..... "it's too bad"(noticeable lack of compassion) "but you really can't believe the numbers being tossed about because anyone can post anything on the internet these days".. especially that literacy number associated with Detroit(which surely requires even greater government intervention)...when I pointed out out that whatever numbers they believe or don't, a major American city has declared bankruptcy and is in ruin, they argue that "there are actually some great things going on in Detroit, like THE ARTS, it's just that no one ever talks about it".... pressed for specifics on THE ARTS in Detroit, they offer nothing but a smirk(what??? you don't know?? pffffft?)....when I ask if THE ARTS are going to help the population of Detroit in squalor of relieve the massive debt they reply "you have to start somewhere"...when I point out out that THE ARTS at the Detroit Museum are being appraised for likely fire sale they change the subject.....the subject turns to unfunded pensions, entitlements etc....one says, "these people need to be told that they are going to have to work a little longer and they can't retire with the expectation that the government is going to provide for them for the rest of their lives".....I point out that whenever someone stands up and says this, the folks that they tend to vote for and whose policies they trumpet run commercials with grannie being pushed off of a cliff in a wheelchair and make all sorts of ridiculous claims of draconian this or that....AND MY FAVORITE PART OF THE CONVERSATION ............"well, then they(republicans/conservatives) need to ignore that and yell even louder and keep saying it until the message gets through".....guess they missed that entire SCOTT WALKER in WISCONSIN episode...these folks despise "republicans", except "those like Lincoln Chaffe, Republicans need more of them" and conservatives are even worse.. causing severe bristling when mentioned and probably an itchy rash, I've known them for 25 years, they and a number of customers who I've known for the same period with a similar political leaning have an oddly dim view of the future currently, you'd think they'd be be enthusiastic as the people and policies that they have supported for the last 50 years(most are into their 70's now) are really gaining hold, we're becoming more like Europe every day(which is what we've been told we should be aiming for), part time working, massive government dependent, lawless and ruled by unaccountable elites....

a favorite line from another customer recently who is a super-lib, who frequently writes letters to the editor hammering republicans on a regular basis(had a ball with Romney), prints copies and signs them for me to take home with me when I visit him and who assured me that with Obama's reelection "things are going to be MUCH DIFFERENT NOW"(in a good way) but who is feeling the pinch of the Obama reality said intently ..."you know that I'm extremely liberal on every issue but when it comes to my money I'm very republican"..I said..."I have no doubt"


and....last but not least...when all else fails...relativity....."it doesn't really matter who the president is...things would be the same".....I said..." then you probably shouldn't bother voting next time around"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence
How much of the dependency class is indirect vs direct?


[QUOTE=detbuch;1010201]It depends


and it doesn't matter.......

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

and it doesn't matter.......

If your objective is to not think I'd say you're right. It's perhaps one of the most important things the author missed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If your objective is to not think I'd say you're right. It's perhaps one of the most important things the author missed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

psychobabble

"dependency class is indirect vs direct".....
"indirect vs direct dependency class"...
"direct dependency class"
"indirect dependency class"
"direct dependency"
"indirect dependency"

GOOGLE any combination of "variables" in this "concept"....no wonder the author "missed" this "one of the most important things"...along with everyone else.....

I think Detbuch was humoring you and your nonsense....... and made a great "thinking" point describing reality in the process...

"The current ruling class, being a direct descendent of progressive politics in America, has as its mission a State in which the citizens have no inalienable rights, but has only those rights granted by government. As such, all enterprises are allowed by government and are obligated to follow its mandates in an ever-expanding minutia of regulations. The same growth of intrusion in the functions of personal life applies."

direct or indirect....voluntary or involuntary......

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm not sure in what context your question is asked, but in the context of the dependency class being a result of the ruling class's policies, I would say that most of the dependency is direct rather than indirect. The current ruling class, being a direct descendent of progressive politics in America, has as its mission a State in which the citizens have no inalienable rights, but has only those rights granted by government. As such, all enterprises are allowed by government and are obligated to follow its mandates in an ever-expanding minutia of regulations. The same growth of intrusion in the functions of personal life applies.

The transformation of an American society which was based mostly on self-government and self-reliance in a fluid "class," where one could rise and fall on merit and effort, to a more rigid structure of "classes" which require government assistance to maintain has created the dependency class. Before the transformation, the great body of American society did not depend on a central government for its welfare. The "great" societies formed by federal progressive governments have steadily changed self-reliance to government dependence and made the ability to achieve wealth or a "better" life economically more difficult, and made a "class" structure more difficult to escape, and has specifically made the dependency class not only a beneficiary of government, but a supplicant.

Perhaps it's just the opposite?

Certainly there is a small percentage that are really dependent and are more favorable to this dependent state.

But what about the millions of defense contractors who are dependent on the ruling class to fund their jobs? What about the transportation workers who are dependent on the Fed to keep things liquid so they have a reason to move business people around? What about the millions of attorneys who thrive under the chaos of regulatory change?

Everyone else could be very independent in their own right, but aren't they just as dependent in the end?

Not to mention the ruling class is pretty dependent on the dependent...and everyone else.

Perhaps we're all just dependent. It would certainly eliminate two of the variables and establish a more simple context.

-spence

[scottw]

WOW..you just took psychobabble nonsense to a whole new level...that's not "thinking"...that's taking a huge toke off of the bong and rambling gibberish...nicely done!

Detroit is a shining example of and the logical conclusion to your...see above

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps it's just the opposite?

Perhaps you mean opposite ends of the same "spectrum?" I know you like to think in terms of spectrums, and contexts, and so forth. So maybe that's what you mean here, otherwise, in the following you seem to be supporting Hayward's dependent class/ruling class relationship.

Certainly there is a small percentage that are really dependent and are more favorable to this dependent state.

Your following comments imply that you think there is more than a small percentage that are really dependent.

But what about the millions of defense contractors who are dependent on the ruling class to fund their jobs?

Yes, when the ruling class expands its size and power and financial resources, it can hire and incorporate greater and greater numbers into the dependent class. And when it can accumulate debt well beyond even its expanded financial resources and beyond that of the private sector, it can pay for enough dependents to subsume the majority of the population into dependence. Are there really millions of contractors? That is scary.

What about the transportation workers who are dependent on the Fed to keep things liquid so they have a reason to move business people around?

Yes, this is the increasingly prevalent type of unconstitutional power that the ruling class has taken from the private sector and local governments and made itself supposedly "indispensable" in areas that could do without it, thereby increasing the number of dependents and the size of its budget and debt.

What about the millions of attorneys who thrive under the chaos of regulatory change?

"Millions of attorneys"? There are about 1.4 million or so, and they don't all thrive under that particular chaos. But is this a defense of the ruling class and its regulatory State? This is the wonderful gift of dependence? Legalistic vampires eating out our substance to make the ruling class work and bond us to it? Yes, their "thriving" is the diversion of money from our pockets into theirs in order to comply with the mandates of the ruling class. As such, they not only thrive under the chaos, they are part of the ruling class. Read Hayward's article carefully and you will see that they and others, media, etc. are included.

Everyone else could be very independent in their own right, but aren't they just as dependent in the end?

Yes, but doesn't it depend on what they are all depending on? Dependence, in various forms, is common to us all. But must it be on a ruling class that makes us a dependent class?

Not to mention the ruling class is pretty dependent on the dependent...

Of course it is. I've said so myself a few times. Especially see my comment on the "controllers" in the thread started by Jim in Ct titled: "Why do liberal universities honor murderers?" The relationship is symbiotic. But that does not change the nature of the relationship between controller and controlled, or ruling class and dependent class. It is one of top down authority opposed to the bottom up system of the Founders.

. . . and everyone else.

No, Everyone Else, not wishing to be dependent on a ruling class is opposed to it. Whatever
"dependence" they have on that class beyond what is constitutionally prescribed is forced. If you mean coercion to be a form of dependence, that is an un-American condition, at least pre-progressive American, and not what Hayward meant by dependence. Symbiosis in this context is cooperative. Coercion is dictatorial. Although some of those co-opted into the dependent class that Hayward defines may have initially been against it, they willingly partake when regulations, penalties, and subsidies make it more palliative than not. The rest of the dependent class had no objections from the start.

Everyone Else doesn't want any part of it.

Perhaps we're all just dependent. It would certainly eliminate two of the variables and establish a more simple context.

-spence

Again, we all depend on something, and the more "independent" we are, the less we depend on others and the more on ourselves.

Hayward's article speaks about an infusion of a Marxist class structure of a lower, middle, and upper class into American politics which is foisted on us as a reality which must be made right by an all-powerful central government . . . but he says the real structure is RULING CLASS, DEPENDENT CLASS, and Everyone Else.

That we all depend on something is a human condition. That we are increasingly dependent on a central power that "marches us [all] in the same direction" is antithetical to freedom.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, we all depend on something, and the more "independent" we are, the less we depend on others and the more on ourselves.

That we all depend on something is a human condition. That we are increasingly dependent on a central power that "marches us [all] in the same direction" is antithetical to freedom.

Perfect !
Just an after thought. It's also human to like "Free Stuff" and the more your dependent on it
the lazier you get and the more you think your entitled to it.

[scottw]

NO!...it's not human to like "free stuff" because most understand that "stuff" isn't free, the perpetuation of the entitlement culture has just created the illusion and belief it's there for the taking and it's ok to participate...after all...everyone else is ...and conceding that "we all depend on something" as though that statement bears any relationship to an inane statement like "Perhaps we're all just dependent" like millions contractors, transportation workers and attorneys thriving under the chaos of regulatory change is just participating in inane diversion from subject...

human history is a perpetual struggle against dependence on those that foster dependence and use it to improve their own condition usually beginning with phony benevolent promises and ending in violence and misery

equating interdependent relationships that we might willingly enter into with dependent relationships that we may be forced into (for our own good or the good of the state) by a bureaucratic fiat or that employment in that bureaucratic state somehow entitles insulation from the realities of employment in the real world again entertains this stupid notion and deflects from the issue

"free stuff" and the idea that there should be no shame in living through the labor of others is a seed that has been sewn in this society for most of the last century by the "ruling" class, as it is being called....it is intended to weaken the human spirit and create a society that is more malleable to the whims of the "ruling class" which has clearly overspent it's promises...

conceding that "perhaps we're all just dependent" is handing over you life and the lives of your children to the ruling class who have no intention of slowing the growth of their state and is regulation and intrusions....makes me sick


dependence IS antithetical to freedom.....if "Perhaps we're all just dependent" then we are all losing freedom, many of us willingly it seems....this notion that greater dependence on a central government and all of it's wisdom and bread and circus will somehow make us freer people is a false promise...just ask the people of Detroit

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

NO!...it's not human to like "free stuff" because most understand that "stuff" isn't free, the perpetuation of the entitlement culture has just created the illusion and belief it's there for the taking and it's ok to participate...after all...everyone else is ...and conceding that "we all depend on something" as though that statement bears any relationship to an inane statement like "Perhaps we're all just dependent" like millions contractors, transportation workers and attorneys thriving under the chaos of regulatory change is just participating in inane diversion from subject...

human history is a perpetual struggle against dependence on those that foster dependence and use it to improve their own condition usually beginning with phony benevolent promises and ending in violence and misery

equating interdependent relationships that we might willingly enter into with dependent relationships that we may be forced into (for our own good or the good of the state) by a bureaucratic fiat or that employment in that bureaucratic state somehow entitles insulation from the realities of employment in the real world again entertains this stupid notion and deflects from the issue

"free stuff" and the idea that there should be no shame in living through the labor of others is a seed that has been sewn in this society for most of the last century by the "ruling" class, as it is being called....it is intended to weaken the human spirit and create a society that is more malleable to the whims of the "ruling class" which has clearly overspent it's promises...

conceding that "perhaps we're all just dependent" is handing over you life and the lives of your children to the ruling class who have no intention of slowing the growth of their state and is regulation and intrusions....makes me sick


dependence IS antithetical to freedom.....if "Perhaps we're all just dependent" then we are all losing freedom, many of us willingly it seems....this notion that greater dependence on a central government and all of it's wisdom and bread and circus will somehow make us freer people is a false promise...just ask the people of Detroit

There IS an element of liking free stuff in the human condition. It may be more of an extension of humans liking to GIVE free stuff. There is a good feeling in sharing your stuff with others, and a disappointed feeling if they refuse the gift. So the giving and taking is reciprocal. But there is only satisfaction in giving or taking free stuff if it is voluntary. That is what makes the free stuff truly free. And, even in that "free" association, there is an element of price for the exchange--gratitude by the receiver, love (or duty) by the giver and, perhaps, infinite determinate variables. Perhaps, the most common voluntary free giving is gifts to your children--determined by the price of love.

But if the "giving" is forced, the element of "liking" changes to "hating." And for the receiving, since it comes from no-one in particular to love or appreciate, there is no gratitude. But it does come from a government or bureaucracy, and in our the case from an administrative State, a "benevolent" one which insists that you're entitled to the gift, so there is no need for thanks. Rather, the need is to demand. Of course, the ever-present price, in this case, is a dependent loyalty to that government or bureaucracy that gives you stuff. That loyalty, both ways, to and from the giver and taker, is the string attached to the gift. Rather than a relationship between child and parent nourished by love which teaches the child to grow with values of love and dependence on "your own," it creates a dysfunctional relation between a childlike dependence on a dispassionate and neglectful, rather abusive, government "parent" who treats the child, from a distance, as a token of its power and largesse, and who never teaches its children the value of growing up into a self-dependent and loving adult. It creates a selfish child who expects to be given stuff and who only learns that all you have to do to keep getting it is to keep the givers in power. That element of humanity that breeds the richness of life, its give and take, is transformed into a mean existence of taking without giving in a personal way. It is, as you say, a destruction of the human spirit. It is that sort if dependence which is antithetical to freedom. And, as you say, speaking of dependence in general--on weather conditions for instance, or health, or on self and family, on the stability of the universe and the grace of God--as if it were in the same category as dependence on an all powerful central government deflects from the issue. It is that sort of "equivalence" that blinds us from the truth.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

NO!...it's not human to like "free stuff" because most understand that "stuff" isn't free,

Have to disagree with you on that statement, Scott. First let me say after working
company conventions for 35 years there wasn't a person attending that wouldn't take a free "give away" even as small as a pen. Banks "give away" toasters to get your business etc. Politicians offer free hot dog and beer picnics to get your vote.
While some understand it's not free most think it is,and in the case of government hand outs think that someone else is paying for it,why not take it.