In a time when many new areas of the world seem to be undergoing an economic change which raises the standard of living of their people while many of the European areas seem to be "past their prime" as far as their economic growth is concerned, there is much discussion about the loss of opportunity for the "Middle Classes"and less opportunity for them to attain the "Good Life".  While the idea of the good life has changed over the ages, some aspects seem to be universal. Which do you think are the most important?

What makes up a "Good Life" as far as you are concerned?

Is a college degree necessary for success in modern America? There are certainly a lot of high-paying jobs available that do not require a college degree; a plumber may make as much as an MD  (according to WebMD the median income of GPs was about $135K last year).

What's your opinion about the worth of a college/university education?

With no response to the past two topics suggested, even an old curmudgeon like Soc can take a hint.

I'll monitor this site regularly but if no one is interested in it any more, I'll take it down.

There has been much discussion lately about the decline of Xanga. I suppose it's losing out to facebook, tweeter,linkedin, et al.  

Too bad, I rather like longer discussions.

Well, I suggested a couple of pretty basic discussion topics - non political, for a change, and seem to have a number of lurkers but no one willing to commit themselves to actually discussing philosophies of life - theirs or anyone else's

In my day (400 bce) we even had  announced topic discussions - and arguments - at drinking parties. I can't offer you wine, but I can offer you space.

So what do you think an interesting topic (or argument) might be?

Can a creditable philosophy of life be built around these three words: 

Love  Joy  Happiness

How about these three:

Prejudice  Hate  Greed

OK then,  What is your philosophy of Life? A mix, a balance, what?

Xangans do not , at least those who've checked this site don't, seem to be interested in any more discussion of government and society right now.

I expect election-year media bombardment has something to do with that attitude; so I'll propose a fundimental philosophical question instead:

Is it possible to really " Prove"anything?

For example: Proof using the standard scientific method depends on constant testing with consistent results, which are supposed to "prove"your hypothesis.

Is this really solid proof? Is it possible to declare anything True or proved beyond any shadow of a doubt? Why not?

I've been talking about some of the fundimental elements of all societies and how they presently function.

My question to you is:

How Satisfied are you with the present government of the country where you reside?

What do you think can or should be done to make things better?

There seems to be a very wide gap in role government should play in any society. While Government is a basic social institutional framework, the role it should play depends on the basic value system of each society of which it is part and how those values are interpreted. Obviously government's role may be changed as the culture changes. 

There is no argument about government's basic role, which is the ordering and protection of the society/nation/culture. How the government is managed and controlled depends on each culture's basic value system. My student, Plato envisioned a perfect Utopian society where the ruling force (Government) was in the hands of those "Men of Gold" who were by natural ability and training best fit to govern. In his Atlantis, people (men - he came from a pretty sexist Classical Greece) were sorted out according to their abilities and each knew his place and duty. In the twenty-five hundred years since his time, no society as large as a nation has been so lucky as to have such a well-organized society. That is not to say that many men have not envisioned themselves as the ideal ruler and some have persuaded enough others to support them either with arms or ballots to let them have a try at ruling.

In every case absolute rule has ended in failure of some sort - most often because the Absolute Ruler had no checks on his dumber decisions and the nation had no way except a coup or his death to rectify things. Often the nation had to go through a prolonged internal struggle as a new leader gained supremacy. This was hard on the nations - and harder on citizens.

The alternative kinds of government  - hereditary, elected leaders, theocratic, democratic, communistic, et al; all more-or-less worked for a time but only if there was cultural consensus on how government should be limited and what the basic legal and value framework should be. Constitutional government seems to work best, providing that the citizens agree on what the constitution means and how it should be applied.  Most nations have some form of extra-governmental framework, either legal or religious, with the responsibility to interpret that nation's laws and constitution and fit it to the nation's existing problems. These interpretations always must be in accordance with the consensus of basic value interpretation.

In the US today, and indeed in much of the world, there is serious culture lag. The current or past value interpretations no longer seem to fit the problems. An example might be the role of government in the care of citizens, either in old age or in health. for many years the US has had (as do almost all developed nations) a rather modest old folks pension system. Some years ago this was augmented by a healthcare system. These systems have been paid for by a combination of government-collected workers contributions and general tax collections.

While there is little disagreement  over the benifit of these systems, there has always been some objection in the widening of government's role in the life of citizens and recently government control over what has been until recently, private business. Many years ago in most cities, fire fighting companies were private and only responded to those who had contracts with the insurance company that supported them. Buildings actually had plaques designating which company had the contract. Buildings without the proper badge were allowed to burn. Nowadays, there is no objection to the idea of tax-financed Fire Departments and the idea of selective fire fighting seems bizarre. 

Recent widening of the healthcare laws to cover almost all citizens has met with considerable resistance, even though most of the coverage would be through private insurance companies and paid for by those covered. While there is no disagreement over the cost benefits to the nation, there is some question about the re-interpretation of the value of Importance of the Individual and individual right to totally control their own life.  Even though in the US, this value has been reinterpreted and modified many times, whenever such a reinterpretation occurs there is always resistance. Since the reinterpretation is due to changed basic cultural problems - in this case the enormous growth in healthcare costs and its availability to all citizens with corresponding erosion of the basic values of individual freedom and equality, there is no doubt that the values will be reinterpreted to solve these present cultural problems.

Culture changes rather slowly - but it does change and the role of Government changes with it.

At his blogsite, Tychecat has an interesting (well, fairly interesting) comment about how American culture is changing. I think it's worth repeating here: 

----------------------

All cultures exist in an ever-changing environment with new problems and situations arising which the culture must confront and deal with. This is done through the application of the culture's basic values to the situation. An example of this might be how the American culture deals with the problem of immigration.

The American Basic Value system is generally based on the following values:

Liberty/Freedom

Justice

Individual worth

Industry

Rationality

Honesty

Friendliness

Bravery

Cleanliness

Equality

Respect for others

It is how these values are applied to everyday life and situations, generally within the framework of one or more of the Social Institutional Frameworks (Family, Education, Religion, Economics, or Government) each of which has its particular responsibilities within the culture, that determines how well the culture copes with its problems. 

Because a culture's problems must be confronted using the current basic value interpretations, cultures may become stressed when the interpretations offer solutions that no longer fit the situation, or when current value interpretations conflict - as is the case with the present American illegal immigration problem.

This problem is a fairly long-standing one. For most of American History, immigrants were welcomed, but beginning in the late nineteenth century and continuing into the early twentieth, immigration patterns changed and American basic values, which had been accepting of individuals - mostly because they were from similar north european cultures - had trouble changing their interpretation to include individuals from very different middle and eastern europe - these immigrants had great difficulty in being accepted by the resident population. Black slaves and ex-slaves had never been accepted as individuals worthy of respect and there was widespread prejudice against them. The Blacks were,however, already here and attempts to return them the Africa were never very widespread. Orientals, who had been encouraged to immigrate as workers were deemed ineligible for citizenship and their native-born descendants faced the same discrimination as other groups judged to be "Not like us" thus unworthy of acceptance. American Indians likewise faced this discrimination.

It was decided during the 1920s that future immigration would be severely restricted with quotas for those of different areas - mostly from northern europe, but not very many from anywhere. Casual illegal immigration from Mexico was overlooked for many years as western farm owners needed cheap labor and gradually a large resident Latino population of mixed illegals" and their US-born and thus legal descendants. As this population grew larger and more politically active, and as the American interpretation of the values of Individual worth and Equality changed so as to begin acceptance of non-european groups, there has been considerable argument and conflict over just how far the values should be reinterpreted .

The differences and problems over value reinterpretation and how well the problems are solved is called culture lag. Every culture experiences this culture lag and value reinterpretation is pretty much constant but occasionally the lag becomes so pronounced that fundimental culture change results. This, for example, happened in the US during the 1960s - a period of pretty fundimental change in our basic interpretations of the Equality, Respect for Others, Freedom, and individual worth basic values. Riots, assignations, and political upheaval were some of the results during that unhappy decade.

The current political situation shows a good example of the culture lag-change in action. Those candidates representing those opposed to culture change generally present conservative and reactionary views while those supporting change obviously are progressive. Since the change is real, there is no hope that those opposed can do much to avoid it and can only slow the process. How values are interpreted very much depends on how we choose to do it and our choices are always within the framework of our existing basic value system. The speed of interpretation is determined by necessity and general consensus - which is reached fairly slowly. If no consensus is reached, the culture lag grows larger and larger and the culture may actually collapse or change so drastically that it becomes unrecognizable and a new culture rises from the ashes of the old.

-------------

Any Comments?

The subject of Constitutional control of religious freedom has become a point of controversy in the current US political campaigns.

What's your opinion on this subject?  Why?

Should Governments exert ANY control of Religion?

Should Governments regulate commercial or other non-religious activities of religious institutions?

Should Governments regulate religious activities that the society considers undesirable or harmful?