Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For Stan: Don't Leave this Forum Until You Read This..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For Stan: Don't Leave this Forum Until You Read This..

    Stanley, you have entered this forum like a whirlwind, and have reaped mainly your own wind. You even went so far as to say that you opine that 0.5% of the brains of Independentistas is DNA damaged, because you heard from some of your 'crony' "scientist" amigos that they theorize that such could be the cause of why Independentists are the way they are. Now in the least that is reaching, and quite unscientific unless tests based on scientific method are performed, and a one-to-one correlation between explanation and prediction produces an invariant relationship. But such has not been the case. So, therefore, I recommend that you read from a post by our real 'ten o'clock' scholar Comrade Camano wherein he presents us with an essay by Alfred Einstein, who I venture to say you or no one in their right minds would say that any part of his brain is genetically damaged in its DNA gene code. Please read it and be edified so that you can correct the egregious errors that you have been throwing upon this forum. Perhaps, the storm you have created can then come to a peaceful and productive conclusion. Read and learn from the following with an open mind:

    Why Socialism?
    by Albert Einstein

    This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

    Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

    Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

    But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

    Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

    For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

    Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

    I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

    It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

    Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

    It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

    Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

    If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

    I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

    The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

    For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

    Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

    The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

    Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

    This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

    I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

    Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
    ------------------------------
    Stan, you already know my answers to these weighty and profound questions that Einstein has left us. And my answer is through the applications of Scientific Socialism.

    Perhaps, you will be convinced now by our 'socialism', which is not that of fascism in any way, shape, or form but real socialism and not merely an empty word.

    Our scientific socialism supports the principle which Marx first gave us that scientific socialism can be achieved through peaceful means and/or reforms by such as the democratic engines of elections, town meetings or discussion forums like this one on puertorico.com, and also demonstrations by the People, if and when they are necessary and sufficient, like the one for example that is taking place on our Isla Nena de Vieques.

    Hence, I see nothing utopian about our struggle to create a Socialist Republic of Puerto Rico. It is viable and will happen because it is historically determined. Make no further mistakes about that Stanley.

    HACIA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE BORICUAS,
    Soy Puertorrique/no y Punto.
    EddieR

    E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

  • #2
    Thanks for the info:

    I have always known Einstein was a left winger and on top of that he was a genius. His brain may have been wired differently.

    BTW, I did not say Independentistas have their brains wired differently. I specifically said socialistas or the extreme left. The reason I brought this up is the uncanny tendency to agree in so many issues. One tends to see the same proclivity to favor certain positions from individual to individual; it is really something to see. One hardly ever sees much variation from one extreme left winger to another. For example an extreme American left winger and an extreme Puertorican left winger tend to have a near 100% match in thier belief system even thou they have different backgrounds. For example when I hear Yautia she tends to mention the very same thing Jesses Jackson mentions. Why is that? How could one explain the same tendency over and over again to favor the same positions?


    Los recuerdos suelen
    Contarte mentiras



    Stanley

    Comment


    • #3
      If Einstein is an unoriginal thinker what should we expect from Stan the MAN?

      The true clones that sound all alike are very much the survival of the fittest capitalist. Social darwinism. I am naturally superior and have the right to my priveleges.

      I thought Eddie's post is quite "eddiefying" and I agree with it. I am a socialist, not a scientific socialist, but believe science should be at the service of all of humanity and not those who can buy it and manipulate it. I always learn from his posts as well as Camano and many thoughtful members of this forum.

      Suki

      Comment


      • #4
        Suki:

        If you read my exchanges with Eddier you will see that I don't actually put down the ideal that many good hearted communists have in their hearts.

        I even posted the lyrics of the Song "Imagine" by one of my heroes John Lennon. It is indeed a beautiful thing if we could achieve such a nirvana.

        As I said one must submit to the system with the same fervor a priest does as he takes the vows of celibacy and poverty. One must be in complete submission and voluntarily give up the right to owe property (vow of poverty). From your writings it seems you are willing to do this and I congratulate you for having such a big generous heart.

        One must also vow to work very hard and be productive even thou one may not get much in return.

        And lastly one must not have a molecule, not even an atom of corruption. This is evil and will almost always make communism fail. Corruption is also evil in Capitalism and that is why the governments have so many mechanisms in place that force the capitalist to share the wealth. The most common one is the inpounding of a certain percentage of the income (taxes). With this money the governments are then able to help the disadvantaged. These funds are also used to run the government and to pay the salaries of bureaucrats like Yautia.

        So in the end communism is a noble thought, but it fails because of the human condition. Most folks are unable to submit into the system and sooner or later want their own personal freedom and independence. I know you disdain those who seek personal freedom and you admire those who submit themselves to the group, but you must understand we are not all the same.

        However, I must tell you that in a capitalist system you still have the choice of behaving like a communist and you and your mom can give away a big part of your salaries to those you want to help. I encourage you to do so, but you should not impose this into others.

        As you know folks like you are given accomodation in a capitalist system and you have the freedom to protest and speak your mind.


        Los recuerdos suelen
        Contarte mentiras



        Stanley

        Comment


        • #5
          Communists are all Independentists....

          Originally posted by Stanley
          Thanks for the info:

          BTW, I did not say Independentistas have their brains wired differently. I specifically said socialistas or the extreme left. The reason I brought this up is the uncanny tendency to agree in so many issues. One tends to see the same proclivity to favor certain positions from individual to individual; it is really something to see. One hardly ever sees much variation from one extreme left winger to another. For example an extreme American left winger and an extreme Puertorican left winger tend to have a near 100% match in thier belief system even thou they have different backgrounds.
          ---------------------------
          Now, now, Stanley, don't try to tweak your 'ambivalencies'. You were never specific in limiting your denigrating remarks about the genes of leftwingers to only those who are socialists and/or communists. Moreover, what you feel as uncanny in their public agreements is owing not to some unnatural affinity that they have for one another, but instead because of the quite normal unity of thought and purpose which has evolved in the usual united fronts that occur, like the one in Puerto Rico, which has united Independentists of all stripes and platforms in fighting for the Sovereignty of Puerto Rico as a Republic.

          It seems that such a United Front confuses your brain, Stan, and simply makes you 'dizzy' as you have said. On the other hand, the only specific thing you have ever said is the recent one wherein you revealed to us that you are a Libertarian.

          And it may well be the case, because you are obsessed like all Libertarians by taxes and death, and an aversion to all strong, centralized gov'ts that will limit you in your "unbridled individualism". Perhaps, you don't want to expand on your Libertarianism, or radical conservatism, because you want to keep hidden the fact that you guys are really quite violent, and are what is classically understood as being ANARCHISTS. Yep, that is what you are, just as the Bomber of the Federal Building in Oklahoma, T.McV. who was also a declared Libertarian, too.

          Sure you also probably opted for being with the Libertarian Party, because the Republican Party doesn't want you guys. Not even the uncompassionate conservative Republicans want you.

          You aren't wanted by the Communist Party either. Communists loathe all anarchists, and support the need for a strong, centralized gov't that derives its power from the People in which all power resides. And they have always supported Independence, because the Communists have always been against colonialization and/or imperialism, and for the liberation of all colonialized Peoples, no matter what their race, color, or creed might be. And that is why all communists are Independentists.

          HACIA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE BORICUAS,
          Soy Puertorrique/no y Punto.
          EddieR

          E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't have a problem in admitting that I am a Libertarian.

            Don't get confused I am not a right winger:

            I do not oppose abortion (for those who want it, however I would never kill my own offspring).

            I am against the death penalty (is barbaric).

            I think that religion is the opium of the masses (even thou I am RCA and all my kids have the proper credendials that the church requires). Furthermore, like you I cannot be sure if there is a God.

            I am VERY tolerant and enjoy mingling with the left (it is funny how sometimes the left becomes as intolerant as the right).

            As you know I truely believe that a capitalistic engine is the most efficient way to create wealth for all. On top of that I would add a democratic socialized system like the Europeans do. I could be happy living in France, England, Spain, the Scandinavian countries, ect. The Israelis are also socialists.

            Regarding the uncanny similarities amomng all of you. You are probably correct it is not genetic, I was just throwing a stinger. Amazingly so, the right wingers tend to be alike.

            However, those of us who float in the middle (and you are quite right to call it ambivalence) are quite hard to put into a box.

            YOu said you were in WWII, it is possible you fought right next to my dad.


            Los recuerdos suelen
            Contarte mentiras



            Stanley

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stanley
              I don't have a problem in admitting that I am a Libertarian...........

              YOu said you were in WWII, it is possible you fought right next to my dad.
              Stan, I am pressed for time, and can only ask you a question. Later on tonight, perhaps, I can reply to your post 'en toto'.
              The question is where did you read that post of mine? I was under the impression that it had been put on ice by the moderator of this forum, Nacionalista, for whatever reason that he as a professional military might have. I did not object to it being "on hold", but now I see that you have read it, I need some directions as to where it is on this forum. I have done an official search for it here, but it was no where to be found by me.

              If the moderator has a good reason for putting it on "hold", I don't object to that because he as military might of seen something concerning the WWII, that ought not be posted about. But what that could be, (perhaps, my evaluation of the Red Army of the Soviet Union, in their heroic battles at Stalingrad and Leningrad did not agree with the moderator, eh), I really can't fathom at this time.

              Later...Stan.

              HACIA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE BORICUAS,
              Soy Puertorrique/no y punto.
              EddieR
              E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

              Comment


              • #8
                EddieR

                I believe there is another thread that sort of disappeared. I had planned to post the definition of Nazi and was unable to find the thread.

                Anyway here it is:

                Na·zi    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (näts, nt-)
                n. pl. Na·zis

                1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
                2. often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.

                I was just saying that the term Socialist was in the name. I do agree they were fascists and not socialists.



                Los recuerdos suelen
                Contarte mentiras



                Stanley

                Comment


                • #9
                  Dr. Wonmug falls short

                  Even while advocating a socialist economic framework, Einstein nervertheless recognized the primacy of human spirit and human aspirations in posing the question "How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?" It is evident that he understood the difficulty in reconciling these opposing interests. It is equally clear that he had no answer, most likely due to the fact that they are irreconcilable. We know from the lessons of the 20th century that human motivation has withered in the context of planned economies, and it is reasonable to expect that will always pertain. We also know that individual aspirations are incongruous with the "social good". After all, boys will be boys! Hence, we can pose the more appropos question: How can individual aspirations be allowed to flourish within the context of societal order? Partido Puertorriqueno has the answer. All that is needed is a government that is the MOTHER OF ALL COPS - always there at the appropriate moment with the appropriate amount of ear-twisting to restore a proper perspective and appreciation for the rights and welfare of fellow beings, including human beings. In that way, a societal point of view is institutionalized.

                  Simply put, free enterprise WITH RULES is the natural order. It is WILD WEST societies like the United States of America that give capitalism a bad name! This rugged individualism thing can be carried too far, you know.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Dr. Wonmug falls short

                    Originally posted by Raulgr
                    All that is needed is a government that is the MOTHER OF ALL COPS - always there at the appropriate moment with the appropriate amount of ear-twisting to restore a proper perspective and appreciation for the rights and welfare of fellow beings, including human beings. In that way, a societal point of view is institutionalized.

                    Simply put, free enterprise WITH RULES is the natural order. It is WILD WEST societies like the United States of America that give capitalism a bad name! This rugged individualism thing can be carried too far, you know. [/B]
                    Raul, are you serious? What you are advocating for Puerto Rico with that "mother of all cops" type of gov't is nothing else but a POLICE STATE! Gosh, will this be like your original proposal as a plank in your platform that all drugs should be legalized in P.R. so that the poor and unenlightened could take narcotics to the point of O.D.ing?
                    Recall, that you rescinded that viewpoint upon taking note of the overwhelming criticism you received because of it.

                    Now, we are at the plank that "promises" what can be nothing else than a draconian police state. And I abhor that plank of yours' and am optimistic that it will go the way of the open door policy towards narcotics that you previously lobbied for and then rescinded.
                    -----------------------------------

                    Stan, I agree totally with you that Nazism is not socialism at all; it is only an empty word that fascists used to get the attention of the working class in Germany, and then turn them over to the Werhmacht to be made into an organized machine of Hun soldiers in which to wage the second World War. Thank goodness to social reason that the fascists failed overtly. However, there are neo-nazi movements festering in many places of the world still. And the battle against such heartless fascism seems to be a never ending one. When on occasion after WWII I had a chance to speak with such neo-fascists, I tried to get them to step up to scientific socialism and save their "souls". In short, to inject some sense of morality and civilized behavior in them. Only time will tell if my efforts will be rewarded.

                    HACIA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE BORICUAS,
                    Soy Puertorrique/no y Punto.
                    EddieR
                    E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One man's police state . . . .

                      Originally posted by Eddier1
                      Raul, are you serious? What you are advocating for Puerto Rico with that "mother of all cops" type of gov't is nothing else but a POLICE STATE! Gosh, will this be like your original proposal as a plank in your platform that all drugs should be legalized in P.R. so that the poor and unenlightened could take narcotics to the point of O.D.ing?
                      Recall, that you rescinded that viewpoint upon taking note of the overwhelming criticism you received because of it.

                      Now, we are at the plank that "promises" what can be nothing else than a draconian police state. And I abhor that plank of yours' and am optimistic that it will go the way of the open door policy towards narcotics that you previously lobbied for and then rescinded.
                      Eddie,

                      What you “recall” is rather different from my recollection of the actual events and circumstances, but that doesn’t surprise you, does it? If you had bothered to look at my posts on the matter you would have recalled that I took some care in explaining the reasons for inclusion of that provision in the Partido Puertorriqueno platform: (1) elimination of turf battles and killings over the distribution of drugs and elimination of thefts by drug users; (2) elimination of the hazards to enforcement personnel and the enormous waste of resources incurred in the completely futile attempt to enforce what amounts to a legislation of morality (It failed the last time – remember Prohibition? And, in Puerto Rico, the abuse of alcohol is a far more devastating and pervasive societal problem than is the use of any other drug.); and (3) the ability to control the legal sale of drugs (manner, place, and time), to exact a stiff penalty for abuse that endangers public safety, and to provide programs of education and rehabilitation to reduce drug use. And all of this in the context of a vibrant full employment economy that invites citizens to bring purposeful direction to their lives. I did say that, if a consensus view in opposition to this particular provision emerged, I did not consider it to be a “stopper” for going forward with rest of the platform, as that battle could always be waged later in the legislature (an ideal exercise in democratic action). There has been so far not a shred of public awareness or discussion of any provision of the Partido Puertorriqueno platform, as I continue to search for a venue for dissemination of that information, much less debate and consensus on the specific matter of continuing the “war on drugs”. This hardly amounts to rescission of the present position of Partido Puertorriqueno on this matter, wouldn’t you agree? Moreover, I suspect that you and I are more alike in one respect than you might care to admit. Neither of us is much disposed to be impressed with the fuzzy-minded thinking of MORALISTS. As a reductionist, my inescapable pragmatism causes me to look for those things that work. Have you noticed lately, Eddie, that the war on drugs ain’t workin’? I repeat – IT IS NOT WORKING!!

                      And, Eddie, you wouldn’t try to kid an old kidder from the Bronx, would you? Now, how do you think folks here view you, the KING of the PLANNED ECONOMY, lecturing me on police states? You see, the Mother of all Cops to which I allude is pretty much like your mom – paddled your behind good when you needed it. And you didn’t turn out so bad, did you? And neither did I, for that matter. But, most important of all, those RULES that MOM will be enforcing will be established by citizens who agree to be governed by them, and who agree to the penalties for their violation. That is the operation of a democratic Republic. Now, while democracy in action isn’t easy (it’s even hard to get a decision from three people on where to go to lunch), hopefully, given adequate information and discussion, citizens are able to determine what is and what is not in their best interests. My bet is that they will see that DEMOCRACY, LAW, and LAW ENFORCEMENT serve them best, far better than the POLICE STATE that will be necessary to effect your planned economy. So, one man's POLICE STATE is another man's CIVILIZED SOCIETY. Let’s let the people decide, shall we?

                      Regards, Raul

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X