It is undeniable that someone or some group of people will control society.  The biggest problems I have with our system are essentially the same problems that I have with liberalism; or neoliberalism if you will: A market driven by private industry, liberal trade, and a relatively 'open markets' to maximize profit; essentially of the state.  Most people, especially in America, do not know the meaning of it or even know of its existence.  In practice, a handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their profits.

Noam Chomsky described this hypocrisy in what Americans think about the current system and how it actually contradicts it in his book, "Profit over People:"

There [The United States], to the contrary, neoliberal initiatives are characterized as free market policies that encourage private enterprise and consumer choice, reward personal responsibility and entrepreneurial initiative, and undermine the dead hand of the incompetent, bureaucratic and parasitic government, that can never do good even if well intended, which is rarely.  A generation of corporate-financed public relations efforts has given these terms and ideas a near sacred aura.  As a result, the claims they make rarely require defense, and are invoke to rationalize anything from lowering taxes on the wealthy and scrapping environmental regulations to dismantling public education and social welfare programs."

This is certainly the "paradigm of our time."

Your point about diversity is well-taken.  Again, you remind me of Hamilton.  I want to make sure I analyzed your argument correctly so please let me know if I took this the wrong way: You would argue against immigration because people 1) Everyone being granted the same opportunities is frightening.  2) Personal freedom and belief systems but the right to impose this upon others?

People do use this, and I think it can be attributed to fear and greed, to balkanize society.  The people who say to you, "what makes you qualified," should realistically not be taking part in such discussions with you; until the educate or open their minds.  To be honest with you, I do not have a stance on immigration.  I find myself consumed in the current system.  I understand why people come to America, and I understand the problems that giving everyone equal opportunities can create.  However, the U.S.  system grants no equal opportunities, while balkanizing society.  My argument for immigration, philosophically, would merely be on the concept that nobody should be able to control where people can/cannot live.  This, however, is unrealistic and, like you have said, people will always control society [which includes the land]. Real immigration would only be plausible if society was not so divided.  Again, I would not know how to decide on such a dilemma.  I feel like people should be able to live comfortably, but the 'same' chances is far-fetched in reality.  Is your form of aristocracy similar to that shown by Plato? If so, you are slowly making me a believer.

This is what I meant in the first place.  And our culture does exhibit these problems.

Well, my support for gay marriage is basically entrenched in my unrealistic ideals [mainly liberal ideas]. I also realize that my sentiments may be rooted in my detest for the vociferous religious lunatics and conservatives racist who use this to further balkanize society [i've been using balkanize often lately, sorry for my lack of different word choices, but it fits!].

If I look at Gay Marriage solely on what it could do for society, or in turn, negatively counteract societal progress I still support it.  I think, as a country, our culture needs to realize that dissention is a dynamic problem [and I realize that people will never completely agree, but when it counteracts progress it becomes a problem (much related to your idea of diversity).

Another argument I have for gay marriage is that I think it could be beneficial to society.  Family life is a societal fabric that is anything but nonexistent in America.  You argue that there is not enough evidence as to how gay people raise children or how they turn out.  I also realize that arguing that no more children can turn out terribly because of poor parenting is not an argument for gay marriage.  Your idea about married people being beneficial for society because of the chance of reproduction is well taken.  But, even if those people do not have kids, they can still benefit their society: taxes, community initiatives, adoption, political involvement, housing, etc.  In fact, I would argue that not every married person should receive those benefits solely because of the marriage.  In sum, I think gay marriage can be beneficial to society and help begin the lessening of culture dissention [while we argue amongst ourselves about these sorts of issues we allow the kleptocracy to keep running away with all the money.  Instead of working together and finding ways to lessen the every growing gap between the rich and poor.]

there was one another point about gay marriage that I forgot to mention.  You have proved that overpopulation is not a problem.  But, in terms of people to resources, I think it is a very serious problem.  Arguing that gay people should be allowed to marry because we need less people is not very strong, but if those people could care for some of the plethora of children who do without, then I think it should be used.

Finding educated people with enough open-mindedness for me to actually trust them with giving sincere, well-though out, and well-informed critiques of my thoughts.  When I do find a person capable of doing so [to be honest you may be the only one] I cannot help, but bounce as many ideas as possible off of them as I can.  We will never agree about everything and I would be frightened if we did.  I would love to swap book ideas with you.  I would especially enjoy reading the arguments of people who are not given the time of day because of past actions or beliefs [such as the KKK politician]. For we can always take something out of it.

Yes, I do.  I have AIM (Mszymanski24... I was about 10 =x). I don't know why we have not thought about this previously.  I would be a much more highly effective way of having conversations.

I completely agree with everything you just said.  Perhaps foreign policy was a bad example.  Since, as you pointed out, nothing can ever be done to change it so therefore, by my logic, it is just as useless.  I get discouraged by or culture... errr, lack of culture.  We hide under the false ideals that America stands for diversity and chances for all, but then treat immigrants [in an immigrant country] as second-class citizens.  Not only that, but, as withe very society, one group of people does not only want freedom for their beliefs, but they want to force it on the rest of society.  I think religion, with the Tea Party, is a primary example of that.  There is no denying that culture is a major issue.  I happen to get frustrated with the way people twist and use it to gain something [for example, Dems and Republicans using it to give people an illusion of choice].

Not only that, but, as withe very society, one group of people does not only want freedom for their beliefs, but they want to force it on the rest of society….

I see where you are coming from, but I do not think I can completely agree with this.  Our culture is materialistic beyond simple greed that takes place in every individual.  Our capitalistic society embodies this concept.  What is considered a high standard of living, in this country, is simply absurd.

In that case, I am completely fine with you taking that stance.  In fact, it is [while I disagree] rather refreshing.

Have you watched it as of yet? Would love to hear some feedback from you on it!

This is very evident in todays society.  I agree with almost everything that he said, especially when he discussed "fear" and "false conservatism." Conservatism, as a philosophy, can be quite useful.  But, I haven't seen a true 'conservative' or conservative society since I have been alive.

"Behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist."

Once again, I am quite sorry about the absurdly long delay in my response.  I hate that real life interferes with our wonderful discussions.  If it were up to me I would do nothing other than have conversations with individuals such as yourself and read as many books as possible.  Unfortunately this will never be the.  I must once again thank you for having these discussions with me.  They give me a break from nonsense.  I couldn't tell you how nice it is to have someone who can see so many different perspectives without blindly shooting any of them down.  Not only it is nice to bounce some of my ideas off of a solid mind, but I constantly learn more and continue seeings issues from different angles.  I hope all is well!

I think that culture should be a major concern, but not the culture wars that we are putting so much emphasis on.  Let me try to use some examples.  Culture in Nazi Germany, for example, played a large role in allowing the Nazi to seize and maintain power.  Your mention about a homogeneous society is well taken, and it has been proven that societies that are culturally the same [for the most part] are happier.  But, issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, does not pertain to the same cultural issues that we are discussing.  These issues hardly ever directly impact the individuals who waste so much time pursuing an impossible ideal for each issue.  Based, mostly, on frivolous arguments.  Instead of concerning ourselves with classism, globalization, upward socialism [spreading the wealth upward and destroying any middle class ], american exploitation of other countries, etc... we instead concern ourselves with hookers, gays, and fetuses, and these mostly all deal with moral cultural issues.  These disagreements, in my opinion, are not nearly as important as the issues we often discuss.

The cultural wars, to me, are simply used to divide the people so that those in power can maintain power.  The country was founded on this principle: government protects property from the majority.  And this still exists today.  Strong labor movements tend to exhibit a strong social contract.  I would say that this culture is very important, but does not exist in America.  We do not care for the poor, needy, unhealthy, or defenseless.  Instead we provide benefits for the rich because it is in our culture [I think we could talk more about Ronald Reagan with this discussion!]. I think George Carlin's stand up, while funny, hits the nail on the coffin when he talks about our differences.

Perhaps I should have done more research before painting such a picture.  This, however, does not change my stance gay marriage is not an important 'issue.' I can see your point of view against gay marriage, but in reality, if gay people marry it wont really affect you, or society.  Maybe some more people will take advantage of the system [like married people who have 100 kids do, or people who marry for insurance purposes], but in the end it means nothing to me.

Interesting! Yes, I would say that you are correct.  I think this relates will to Professor Chomsky's discussion about the working class here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0XKfSaSTCc.

I think that this government has had major implications and influence over the culture in the United States [i think cut-throat capitalism also plays a substantial role]. But again, I consider this conversation about culture, and the culture wars currently in the U.S.  to be two completely separate issues.

Yes, I know this.  I was saying that I do not know what type of government I would suggest, but it would have to choose its leaders based off of their merits and not their wealth or family.

Can I used this =x =)??