by evilgenius » Thu 11 May 2017, 12:31:08
The trouble with hoping for the old to die off is that it isn't exactly something peculiar to them which causes them to think the way they do. As the young get old they begin to think the same way, at least in numbers that matter enough such that you won't see the expected outcome. I attribute some of this to in/out group thinking. Just like the US discovered as the Cold War was dissipating, entrenched in groups need an enemy. As things transpired, there was no enemy big enough afterward to qualify. That was ok for them, though. They simply aimed their disapproval at a range of foes. The good thing was that the new list could now include all kinds of philosophical intransigencies never before targeted.
Also, while the left has been busy trying to define everything according to one person's, or group's, rights, the right has been busy trying to hold onto the power they've already been enjoying. In order to execute this they've appealed to their own notion of rights, those dealing with liberty. Neither side wants to recognize that their arguments don't hold water. The trouble is that it was easy to define rights when there was a king. When the king came by everybody had to bow and scrape. But what happens when, essentially, everyone has the rights that only kings used to have? It isn't rights that are in contention, but right-of-way. Appealing to a person's rights when the issue is right-of-way doesn't get you anywhere. Of course people have rights. But you know what, a little tax here and there is not a violation of them. It may be a getting wrong of who should have right-of-way, but it certainly doesn't amount to a taking of one's personal liberty.
This raises another point, that right-of-way isn't subject to the needs of those involved. Just because someone is on their last legs doesn't mean it is their turn any more than someone in the US has the right to go forward at a traffic light against a red light merely because they feel that they've waited long enough. Chances are, if you think only in terms of rights, when it comes to many of the issues that have come up in which people have mislabeled them as rights issues there does exist an urge to go against the red. If there is a chronic lack of ability to move people need to realize that it is a management issue and not a rights issue. Together, we have to change the structure within which right-of-way transpires, at least such that people do get a turn. Whether they choose to sit there and not take it (maybe because they are still fixated upon their rights, seeing themselves as kings) and then try to go after their turn is over, stomping upon someone else's right-of-way, is another issue.