TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- All I need to know I learned in kindergarten
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

All I need to know I learned in kindergarten

Valuable lesson learned from The Little Red Hen:




The Little Red Hen

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. And so she did.

The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by ! myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.

And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he likes. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her... She never again
baked bread because she joined the "party" and got her bread free.

And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared, as long as there was free bread.

Wow, all they taught us was how to take a dump in a toilet so they wouldn't have to change our diapers no more.

Ted Kennedy was the government agent.


[[[smoke]]]

Tell that story to a former Enron employee, or maybe my cousin who lost her job at motorolla and her house.

Let�s see what they tell you.

What do you think they'd say to me?

Nah you got it wrong . The hen will have a good life through her hard work and transfer that good life to her children. The other animals who dicked around will not be able to provide for their children as well and will, as a result, have less opportunities since they're dumber. Then the government agent will come in to punish the hen for passing on the benefits of her hard work to her children.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What do you think they'd say to me?

Damn you Clinton for signing NAFTA!



(My cousin anyways).

Seriously though, they'd want a crackdown on corporate crime so that they could be little hens again and compete on a fair playing field.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Nah you got it wrong . The hen will have a good life through her hard work and transfer that good life to her children. The other animals who dicked around will not be able to provide for their children as well and will, as a result, have less opportunities since they're dumber. Then the government agent will come in to punish the hen for passing on the benefits of her hard work to her children.

Or the other animals would complain and complain and complain until a change was made. Or the pigs would organize and form a government where some had more rights then others. Viva la Porka!

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Tell that story to a former Enron employee, or maybe my cousin who lost her job at motorolla and her house. Let�s see what they tell you.

Well, the Little Red Hen wasn't a crook. Don't try to tell me that because Enron failed, Capitalism failed as well! That's bleeding heart liberal talk!

quote:

Well, the Little Red Hen wasn't a crook. Don't try to tell me that because Enron failed, Capitalism failed as well! That's bleeding heart liberal talk!

Moreso than just bleeding heart liberal talk, it's just downright spurious. What happened with Enron was distinctly anti-capitalist. The absolute control of the owner over his property is one of the fundamental precepts of capitalism, but in the case of Enron, the owners - the shareholders, lost control of the company altogether as they weren't even aware of the true financial state of the company!

An (admittedly contrived) analogy would be to say that we shouldn't put air bags in cars, because someone could remove the air bag and use it to kill another person.

Furthermore, it's unclear to me how socialism could have prevented this fraud from taking place. I guess I'm just really not sure what point Dave was trying to make - although I strongly agree with his sentiments in his second post:

quote:

Seriously though, they'd want a crackdown on corporate crime so that they could be little hens again and compete on a fair playing field.

I agree with this precisely because a crackdown on corporate fraud is a necessary step towards the establishment of a more capitalist economy than we currently have - in that it empowers the owners of the company by ensuring the accuracy of the information provided to them.

The story makes three assumptions:

1) That people only become rich through effort and enterprise.
2) That people become rich independent from (or, indeed, in spite of) society.
3) That poor people are only poor because they are lazy and that they actively turn down opportunities to enhance their wealth as a result.

None of these are true, therefore the analogy is false.

Oh and there's a fourth one:

4) The Democrats are socialists.

They're probably further to the right (economically that is) than than fully 80% of the political parties in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The story makes three assumptions: 1) That people only become rich through effort and enterprise. 2) That people become rich independent from (or, indeed, in spite of) society. 3) That poor people are only poor because they are lazy and that they actively turn down opportunities to enhance their wealth as a result. None of these are true, therefore the analogy is false. Oh and there's a fourth one: 4) The Democrats are socialists. They're probably further to the right (economically that is) than than fully 80% of the political parties in the world.

It's funny cause if 1 and 3 were true alot of crop field and sweatshop workers would be rich!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, the Little Red Hen wasn't a crook. Don't try to tell me that because Enron failed, Capitalism failed as well! That's bleeding heart liberal talk!

Nononono.

That's not what I was saying at all; bad analogy on my part.

Some of the animals or whatever that got laid off need a safety net in place to be reimbursed for being wronged, or they will be out on the street. They have the court systems, and they hopefully would also have a government safety net (if only a temporary one).

Likewise, if the government had not bailed out the airlines after 9/11, they would have all gone broke.

And since when are democrats socialists? They're basically liberal businessmen who believe in religious freedom, properly funding police, fire, and education, and upholding the Bill of Rights. Well ok they do a better job at upholding the Bill of Rights, but are not perfect either.

Last I checked it was Republicans who had passed a 500 billion prescription drug entitlement and had increased the size of the federal government at a rate double Lyndon Johnson's, so please spare me the "big government liberals" line.

Unfettered capitalism, and hard-line socialism are both harmful to the general citizenry.

On one hand you have little children making Nike shoes for 1 dollar a day, 15 hours a day in a sweatshop. On the other you have people who are unable to even start their own small businesses.

So if you want to call me a "bleeding heart liberal" for feeling that little children shouldn't be exploited, then I'm proud to wear that label. Progressives just believe in setting some guidelines for business to abide by, since by nature things are stacked against the worker.

Proof Jesus was a liberal:



*Note the characteristic bleeding heart*

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The story makes three assumptions: 1) That people only become rich through effort and enterprise. 2) That people become rich independent from (or, indeed, in spite of) society. 3) That poor people are only poor because they are lazy and that they actively turn down opportunities to enhance their wealth as a result. None of these are true, therefore the analogy is false. Oh and there's a fourth one: 4) The Democrats are socialists. They're probably further to the right (economically that is) than than fully 80% of the political parties in the world.

The story is also flawed if you take into account the fact that the hen has almost certainly gained his proper education needed to be a productive worker, and benefited from some of those institutions of society that are supported with his tax money such as public schools, libraries, and universities.

Gaining an education and learning lifelong job skills from these institutions, and then once they are no longer needed, favoring policies that decapitate them, is freeloading.

Since you mentioned kindergarten, the children in New Hampshire can't even go to kindergarten because the Republican controlled legislature is unwilling to raise any form of taxes to pay for it. Local property owners are forced to shoulder the entire burden for public education, and that meager source of revenue is not adequate to fund public schools in general, let alone kindergarten.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=162425

Please enlighten me as to how that benefits the future hens of our country?

I'd say you were lucky to have had politicians watching out for you so that you could go to kindergarten in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The story makes three assumptions: 1) That people only become rich through effort and enterprise. 2) That people become rich independent from (or, indeed, in spite of) society. 3) That poor people are only poor because they are lazy and that they actively turn down opportunities to enhance their wealth as a result. None of these are true, therefore the analogy is false. Oh and there's a fourth one: 4) The Democrats are socialists. They're probably further to the right (economically that is) than than fully 80% of the political parties in the world.

I'm with Renegade ^^^^.

I think, Shakka, you need to move on to some less simplistic lessons; perhaps it's time to think about moving on to pre-school.

Oh fuck that. You're all trying to read into it and make stupid assumptions to justify your flawed personal philosophies. All the story is saying is that people who take it upon themselves to be personally responsible for their own destinies are in control of their own happiness and they owe nothing to those who choose to be lazy and who want to get by on someone else's buck. It's more a commentary on the issue of class warfare and the liberal rally cry of reallocation of wealth from those who created it to those who didn't do jack shit to earn it. In the end the hen chose to accept the way society worked by going on strike (much like Atlas Shrugged if you nitwits ever learned how to read anything above your 7th grade trigonometry book).

And Democrats/"progressives" do push a socialist agenda, they just don't want you to know it.

Who ultimately owns you? If you've got any pride, you know that YOU own yourself and that only YOU are ultimately responsible for your own fate in this world. If you can't deal with it and want to hand your rights over to your "benevolent" government, then so be it, but tell me this: Where will you get your tax credits from when the "rich" people decide that they're sick of your leeching and stop producing? What would you do then if you lived in a bankrupt society with nobody to blame except your own lazy selves? Personally, I find it offensive to know that I'm paying tax dollars to support your theiving, entitlement believing, second-handing looters.

Furthermore, I can only assume that you guys would like to be "rich" and successful yourselves? How on earth do you ever plan to achieve success and personal wealth if the only way you think that's attainable is by stealing it from the "rich" people who actually created the wealth in the first place? Isn't it hypocritical for you to criticize rich people simply because you aren't rich, but so badly want to be rich?

Shakka, you know I love ya man, but you post some serious right-wing gunk here sometimes. I do enjoy reading opposing opinions, but geez this story is just kinda goofy. Kinda like a f$cked version of Orwell's Animal Farm.

Oh well. It's Friday, and I'm not too concerned about much of anything. Peace out cuz...

***flashes some made-up gansta hand sign***

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Oh fuck that. You're all trying to read into it and make stupid assumptions to justify your flawed personal philosophies.

huh, funny... I thought it was a story about a chicken who was hijacked by aliens, probed with special abilities, and returned to earth as a superchicken capable of talking, sowing wheat, and baking bread! --All without hands mind you!

The government realizing that this is an unsual space-chicken quarintined the bread to make sure all the other animals wouldn't be contained with some evil alien virus worse then mad cow which would kill us all.

Scared after hundreds of government agents in black swarmed the farm compound to get the chicken to give up its bread, it was terrified for its entire life and dared not bake any alien-bread again, grateful that those government agents did not chop off her little chicken head to find out what was wrong with her.

Am I the only one that interperted it this way? I mean its so damn obvious...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Shakka, you know I love ya man, but you post some serious right-wing gunk here sometimes. I do enjoy reading opposing opinions, but geez this story is just kinda goofy. Kinda like a f$cked version of Orwell's Animal Farm. Oh well. It's Friday, and I'm not too concerned about much of anything. Peace out cuz... ***flashes some made-up gansta hand sign***

Yeah yeah yeah--it's a simple story with a simple message. If Capitalism is too right wing for this forum, I apologize. But I really don't see why it's such a hard pill for some people to swallow that they are ultimately the one's responsible for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yeah yeah yeah--it's a simple story with a simple message. If Capitalism is too right wing for this forum, I apologize. But I really don't see why it's such a hard pill for some people to swallow that they are ultimately the one's responsible for themselves.

Hey, I just got done writing this in another forum, so I'll be my lazy-ass self and copy/paste it here. My quick $.02 economic philosophy:

I think capitalism certainly has it's strong points, and to judge capitalism on corrupt companies that have hit headlines (Enron, WorldCom, etc.) is pretty fallacious. Capitalism at its core also looks good philosophically - competing free enterprise markets can help drive consumer prices down which in the end benefits the consumers.

But the reality of that situation seems to be another matter, especially if one looks at the grand scheme of globalization. Another problem that gets thrown in the mix is private enterprises getting overly involved in politics. Politics muddy the waters way too much in free market theory, and I believe your example of Halliburton fits well here (talking about this company in the other forum). I think it goes to show that what looks good on paper isin't always what's good in practice. I also firmly believe that mankind has a natural tendency for power and greed. These two factors have a propensity to overcome the senses of individuals once they have it, much like those CEO's and Chairmen at the very top of the corporate ladder who's corrupt actions are well known.

But I also don't believe the answer is the exact opposite - pure socialism. As much as I would want equal opportunity amongst everyone, I don't feel that those who do actually work harder should have to cover the asses of those who choose to work very little if at all. Furthermore, history has already shown us the perverted brother of socialism with the same problems that corrupts the fat capitalists (power and greed) - Communist Russia. Hell, China is a present day picture of this.

In the end, I think in practice the key is moderation of control: government intervention is a necessity to maintaining boundary lines and ethical behavior, but those lines should not restrict a business to thrive, create more jobs, and compete with other markets that in the end help drive prices down for the consumer.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The story makes three assumptions: 1) That people only become rich through effort and enterprise. 2) That people become rich independent from (or, indeed, in spite of) society. 3) That poor people are only poor because they are lazy and that they actively turn down opportunities to enhance their wealth as a result. None of these are true, therefore the analogy is false.

Remove the "only" parts and then it indeed becomes true. I believe what the hen story is trying to characterize are the inherent failures of a dependant welfare state ... all of which are quite prevalent and visible anywhere you go. However, everybody KNOWS what happens in a state without welfare; people starve, die, and live in abject, miserable conditions ... nobody needs a story to point out the failures of that policy. So I dunno, I think the story does a good job in pointing out that welfare needs to be regulated and watched to make sure it's working as it's designed to do ... otherwise the story does start becoming true

Ummm errr yea kind of what was said above (I started writing this at 9:30 but got called away to a meeting heh)

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But I also don't believe the answer is the exact opposite - pure socialism. As much as I would want equal opportunity amongst everyone, I don't feel that those who do actually work harder should have to cover the asses of those who choose to work very little if at all. Furthermore, history has already shown us the perverted brother of socialism with the same problems that corrupts the fat capitalists (power and greed) - Communist Russia. Hell, China is a present day picture of this.

Thanks Opus--I like your post. Some good points in there. I agree about the power/greed problem--however I think it's more of a human nature problem that exists in every culture in every society when people realize that they can manipulate others. It is a flaw in human nature more than anything, and I guess Capitalism can create an environment where, if gone unchecked, these evils can certainly manifest themselves the same way they can in other societies. My take on power and greed however is that it is most likely a result of people who get carried away with the idea that they can make up other peoples' minds better than the other people themselves can. It becomes an addiction for those who choose to live beyond themselves and try to live other peoples' lives for them.

I also believe that part of that blame should lie with the other people themselves who choose to let themselves be herded like sheep. So many people don't want the responsiblity of thinking for themselves. People, for the most part, want someone else to tell them what is right because they are afraid of responsibility. That, in turn, opens the door for someone with a craving for power to manipulate them how they see fit. It's a problem that needs to be dealt with at both ends. It's hard to have control over someone if they don't willingly submit themselves to your whim.

Politics is a result of philosophy. I'll try to post some this weekend if I can find the time to sit down and type it out. The last time I tried to post philosophy on this board it didn't get saved somehow and my 30 minute effort turned out to be all for not.

Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Oh fuck that. You're all trying to read into it and make stupid assumptions to justify your flawed personal philosophies. All the story is saying is that people who take it upon themselves to be personally responsible for their own destinies are in control of their own happiness and they owe nothing to those who choose to be lazy and who want to get by on someone else's buck. It's more a commentary on the issue of class warfare and the liberal rally cry of reallocation of wealth from those who created it to those who didn't do jack shit to earn it. In the end the hen chose to accept the way society worked by going on strike (much like Atlas Shrugged if you nitwits ever learned how to read anything above your 7th grade trigonometry book). And Democrats/"progressives" do push a socialist agenda, they just don't want you to know it. Who ultimately owns you? If you've got any pride, you know that YOU own yourself and that only YOU are ultimately responsible for your own fate in this world. If you can't deal with it and want to hand your rights over to your "benevolent" government, then so be it, but tell me this: Where will you get your tax credits from when the "rich" people decide that they're sick of your leeching and stop producing? What would you do then if you lived in a bankrupt society with nobody to blame except your own lazy selves? Personally, I find it offensive to know that I'm paying tax dollars to support your theiving, entitlement believing, second-handing looters. Furthermore, I can only assume that you guys would like to be "rich" and successful yourselves? How on earth do you ever plan to achieve success and personal wealth if the only way you think that's attainable is by stealing it from the "rich" people who actually created the wealth in the first place? Isn't it hypocritical for you to criticize rich people simply because you aren't rich, but so badly want to be rich?

If anyone's making "stupid assumptions" it's you. I never even mentioned whether I'm left or right, nor did Renegade as far as I can see. I was just pointing out that there's more to it than is illustrated in your little farm yard animal story. To think otherwise is naive at best, and dangerous at worst.

The story's lesson is true as far as it goes, but it's only a small part of a larger picture.

I don't think anyone would argue the right of a person to rise above another person because he's more enterprising, innovative, and hard working; capitalism provides a means for him to do so, but it is not a perfect system.

And btw, that last paragraph from your holier-than-thou rant is laughable. I've got a job and I pay my taxes (were you even talking to me; where did I say I support dole bludges?). I get the feeling from reading it that you believe you're only successful in life if you've made lots of money . People are what matters, not money. I respect a volunteer firefighter, or a middle class doctor, far more than I respect some arrogant wealthy knobhead so sure of his own importance. There comes a point where one mans wealth becomes obscene, and it's even worse when that wealth is built on actively impoverishing others.

I can only guess from your above post that your a kid with a rich daddy. If not, that's how you're coming across. The world is not black and white. There is just as much human misery in a purely capitalistic society as there is in a pure communist society. And not everyone is interested in gathering wealth.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I think is how it goes, not the pursuit of money.

quote:

Originally posted by b1_ I can only guess from your above post that your a kid with a rich daddy.

Nope, you're making yet another faulty assumption. My family is by no means rich, we just haven't operated on the assumption that anyone owes us a living, or anything else for that matter. My "daddy" happens to have worked 2 jobs for the last 35 years if for no other reason than to lead by example to show that hard work and personal responsibility are two of the most important virtues a person can have.

quote:

If anyone's making "stupid assumptions" it's you. I never even mentioned whether I'm left or right, nor did Renegade as far as I can see. I was just pointing out that there's more to it than is illustrated in your little farm yard animal story. To think otherwise is naive at best, and dangerous at worst.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never made any assumptions, rather Renegade was the first person that ever brought up the aspect of assuming anything. In case you missed it, the story isn't something I wrote, rather it is merely a slightly more sophisticated version of a nursury school play(hence the brilliant title of this thread

quote:

The story's lesson is true as far as it goes, but it's only a small part of a larger picture.

Way to go. You'll get it eventually.

quote:

I don't think anyone would argue the right of a person to rise above another person because he's more enterprising, innovative, and hard working; capitalism provides a means for him to do so, but it is not a perfect system.

It has nothing to do with "Rising above another person" as you put it. It's about taking charge and doing for yourself. I could care less whether or not other people are involved as it is inconsequential. Nothing can be perfect outside of a vacuum.

quote:

And btw, that last paragraph from your holier-than-thou rant is laughable. I've got a job and I pay my taxes (were you even talking to me; where did I say I support dole bludges?). I get the feeling from reading it that you believe you're only successful in life if you've made lots of money . People are what matters, not money. I respect a volunteer firefighter, or a middle class doctor, far more than I respect some arrogant wealthy knobhead so sure of his own importance. There comes a point where one mans wealth becomes obscene, and it's even worse when that wealth is built on actively impoverishing others.

Holier than thou??? ha! Get a grip. Money may come up due to the fact that so many people like to harp about rich vs. poor, etc. I have all the respect in the world for a volunteer firefighter, and I agree that people matter. If a person is happy with themselves, then that's great. As long as they don't come along and say that someone owes them something in addition to what they've earned simply because they have a smaller paycheck. Sure, wealth can become obscene, but that never gives another person the right to take or demand something that was never theirs to begin with. Just because one person is "rich" and another is "poor" doesn't justify some arbitrary law of averages whereby one must voluntarily sacrifice what is his for the sake of someone else who has no rightful claim to it.

quote:

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I think is how it goes, not the pursuit of money.

Yup, whatever makes you happy. Just don't go trying to take something away from someone that is not yours. Only you can determine whether you are happy or not. Whether it's a 6 figure salary or eating your own shit, I really don't care. Your happiness is for you to determine. I am a supporter of individuality and personal responsibility. Now go troll somewhere else.

No arguments then with Ted Kennedy being the scourge of hyprocity? What a friggin' Chappaquiddick lowlife... He needs to be doing prison time with JoJo Bubba at the helm.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Nope, you're making yet another faulty assumption. My family is by no means rich, we just haven't operated on the assumption that anyone owes us a living, or anything else for that matter. My "daddy" happens to have worked 2 jobs for the last 35 years if for no other reason than to lead by example to show that hard work and personal responsibility are two of the most important virtues a person can have.

Congratulations. As I said above, spoilt rich kid is just how you're coming across, to me any way.

To tell you the truth, you're not making a lot of sense to me now. I think we agree mostly - I don't want some dole bludger demanding my tax dollars either, but I see the need for hospitals and schools, and the need to ensure "dole bludgers" don't starve; they're not all fat hippy males needing drug money; some are single mothers needing to keep their children alive. Surely you're not advocating letting them die in the street?

Once again I'm telling you that if you think all you need to know about how the democrat party works is that hen story then you are naive. Perhaps you didn't mean it literally?

quote:

Originally posted by b1_ Congratulations. As I said above, spoilt rich kid is just how you're coming across, to me any way. To tell you the truth, you're not making a lot of sense to me now. I think we agree mostly - I don't want some dole bludger demanding my tax dollars either, but I see the need for hospitals and schools, and the need to ensure "dole bludgers" don't starve; they're not all fat hippy males needing drug money; some are single mothers needing to keep their children alive. Surely you're not advocating letting them die in the street? Once again I'm telling you that if you think all you need to know about how the democrat party works is that hen story then you are naive. Perhaps you didn't mean it literally?

No, I didn't mean it to be taken that literally. Perhaps we aren't seeing eye to eye on that front which is why we had our little train wreck debate. The title of the thread was merely an expression I borrowed from another book that was published years ago. It was merely meant to point out the simplicity with which the story spelled out the merits of personal responsibility and individual effort.

I realize that there are people in society that for some reason or another aren't as capable as others (Maybe they're crippled, retarded, or simply destitute). Fortunately for them, there is a welfare system in place whereby they can get a helping hand. I do however take issue with an entire class of people who demand that they are entitled to something they had no hand in producing simply because they want what the other person has, but without contributing to the input. Even worse when you have politicians like Weasley Clark running around wanting to eliminate federal income tax on the lower 50% of income earners while raising the burden even more on the most productive members of society (Yeah, they're rich, and yeah, there are some who probably don't deserve all of their good fortune, but for the most part the most successful people are responsible for their own success). It bothers me that so many people want the exception to be the rule.

Seriously. 50% of voters not paying taxes plays right into this famous quote by Alexander Tyler:

quote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."

And further, he postulated:

quote:

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage."

Kind of makes you think.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.