Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00108)

At 03:45 PM 1/7/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Your views of liberal and conservative are much different from mine.  My
>idea of a liberal is someone who believes that people in government are so
>good, and people who are not in government are so helpless without people
>in government, that big government is necessary to help people not in
>government get by.  My idea of a conservative is someone who believes that
>the most important issue in politics is that, since power so easily
>corrupts, no one has too much power, preferring as decentralized and
>limited a government as possible.  
>

        Tom: I completely agree with you on the above. I have seen both
sides. Governmental and local individual level. Most things are done most
efficiently at the local level -- I would go even at the individual level.
Even in businesses, it is the small business owner run businesses are most
efficient and most customer responsive.

        When TS was started, the "Real Founders" knew well aware of the need
for total autonomy at the local level, since They knew that is the best and
most efficient way to get Theosophy out. Even though Col. Olcott had almost
autocratic powers regarding chartering and demitting of lodges and members,
he very very rarely got himself involved at lodge level. I am sure that he
must have been told by his Bosses in unmistakable terms that it was what was
expected of him and he did do it. Some discussion on this can be seen in ML
to APS dealing with London Lodge problems. What a change we see in today's
situation!!!


>
>>There will come a day when it is finally realized that people are inherently
>>good. 
>
>That day will not come until people are actually good.  Until then, some
>people forcing other people to trust everyone else in collective agreements
>will be justifiably resisted.
>
>
>>People naturally want to trust, and do.  
>
>They also naturally want to try to get something for nothing, and do.
>
>
>>The belief and acceptance of
>>trust is also based on rational thought.  Trustworthiness is established
>>when specific criteria have been met, when it is shown that in particular
>>circumstances, one can be trusted. 
>
>Ditto for skepticism, when it is shown that one cannot be trusted.
>
>
>>It is peculiar how conservatives claim the supremacy of the individual, yet,
>>go on to declare that trusting one may be your undoing.
>
>Individuals are better equipped to decide whom to trust than is a
>bureaucracy.
>
>
>>>The more that people trust each other, the more profit
>>>there is in cheating, since it will not be expected, and the number of
>>>cheaters will increase.
>>
>>This conclusion has been proven wrong by history.  It is when people don't
>>trust each other that cheating increases.  
>
>It is when people are too gullible that cheating increases.
>
>
>>Anxiety that one may not receive
>>what one needs is conducive to cheating.  Insecurity, fear, and suspicion
>>propel individuals to adopt less than honest conduct to cope and survive.  
>
>It works both ways.  If people were basically trustworthy, they would have
>been more likely to have been trusted by those with whom it would have been
>profitable to do business, and they wouldn't be insecure.  Collective karma
>directly applies to people trusting each other.  How much starvation has
>been caused by a few dishonest people forcing skepticism to be everyone's
>best choice?
>
>
>>>The less that people trust each other, the less
>>>profit there will be in cheating, and the number of cheaters will decrease.
>>
>>Again, looking around you will prove this assessment false.  Cheating is
>>abundant today, not because people overly trust each other, but because
>>people don't trust each other enough.  
>
>Cheating is not caused by people not trusting each other.  People not
>trusting each other is caused by cheating.
>
>
>>>"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."
>>
>>"A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested."
>
>Arrested?  By the very government that he so strongly advocated?
>


        Let me add my 2 cents worth. As like attracts like, I have seen that
I had the good fortune of having to deal with a lot of people who can be
trusted -- these are both T/theosophists and those who are not.
Occassionally we may run into people who cannot be trusted, and usually this
is due to the fact that they may try to exploit you for their own political,
monetary and other end. Trustworthiness and a person's learning, position,
fame, wealth, etc has no correlation at all. Some times I have had
surprises. Less learned, less wealthy,  working in a routine low pay job,
individuals have turned out to be most trustworthy. It looks like when
intelligence gets sharpened by education and experience, if there is this
pre disposition to selfish ends - that could be monetary or position or fame
or even spiritual -- then the untrustworthy traits seem to show their ugly head.



MKR