| Sep 22 - 15:13:20 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 |
| New from old. | Started by: Octavius on Jan 06, '08 22:05 |
|
As you will probably all know, I have been crapping on about old fashioned morals and philosphies for quite a while. I've always been one of the first in line to advocate traditional, or perhaps honourable for want of a better phrase, ways of doing business; yet recently I have begun to question my own outlook our thing. Undeniably, La Cosa Nostra has changed much, from it's meagre beginnings in the hills of Sicily to it's absoloute power it exercises here today. when I think about the good old days in Sicily, I appreciate how the concepts they had then were extremely relavent, and I understand the importance of upholding those concepts today. I don't think anyone can argue that some of these ideas - Omerta naming just one, are still as applicable now as ever; but perhaps the validity of some notions ought to be questioned just a tad. I've been taught for my whole life, as have my forefathers, that Famiglia is the be all and the end all, yet I was reading something very interesting just the other day. 1776 was, as I'm sure we're all perfectly aware, the year that gave birth to the United States of America as an indepedant nation, yet something of equal interest to me happened in that same year. A book called "The Wealth of Nations" was written by a man called Adam Smith, a pro-capitalist manifesto; it proposed the theory that the greater good was served by individuals persuing their own needs, rather than the greater good itself. This philosphy was embraced by the fledgling country, and now, almost two hundred years later, it is the richest nation in the world. Can, and indeed should, this notion be accepted by us of La Cosa Nostra, a natrual progression which we should seek to adopt, or progression for progression's sake only, which we should avoid at all costs? |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I'm all for one branching out on their own and earning something for themselves, but when it's all said and done, your loyalty should remain to the family. Just as America's citizen's loyalty remains with it's country, the members loyalty should remain with it's Family. This is how we build a stable world. America survives not because we have competition of business, but because we also have the stability of a work force of people whom guard the borders to keep people from attacking. A family, if you will, is like the country here. I agree some what to your statments, but not entirely. I believe a give and take of the two ideals is what is really needed. A fine mixture, much like a fine wine. |
|
| Reply by: Zig-Zag at Jan 07, '08 00:21 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
You come up with a good point, but with a poor analogy, not all wines are blends, some are absoloutely pure, so I could justifiably say that there must be a predominant ideal by which you live your life, just as there is a predominant grape in a fine wine.The reason I won't say this, even though I actually have is that it is equally as misleading as the analogy that a blend constitutes a good wine. However, I'll stop being a supreme pedant and actually address the matter at hand presently. It's a good point you make, as I've mentioned above, and I do agree with it to an extent. Though I do believe it is important to hold the ways of the past close and though I do believe it's important that we do not evolve too quickly for ourselves socially, I also believe we should not do this for it's own sake. Is it not the American dream that we all strive for the unattainable in a dog eat dog world? If so, I question the validity of claiming the country, and our empire, was built on stability rather than betterment of the individual. |
|
| Reply by: Octavius at Jan 07, '08 12:52 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
It is an interesting topic that you pose... It seems that we can logically conclude that the ideas of capitalism have, to a certain degree, enabled America to attain a great deal of success. Therefore, on the surface, it is reasonable to assume that adopting these same ideals into our belief systems would provide us with similar success. The problem, though, lies in what you can define as "success". If you speak of success solely in monetary terms, then sure, the adoption of these ideas that Adam Smith introduced are appealing. As you stated, America is the richest country in the world. However, in this thing of ours, I personally believe that a family's success is much deeper than economic gain, and can only be defined in spectrum, as a combination of values- loyalty, solidarity, honor, character, respect, skill, wealth, and integrity. Strength in this lifestyle lies in the ideals and outlook of the family, and how well these points are integrated among its members. The root ideas of capitalism conflict with many of these characteristics. Individualistic competition promotes greed and demotes familial solidarity. It promotes individual attainment, rather than collaborative effort. It pushes one to focus on their own pursuits, with barely a secondary regard to the success of others. Basically, though the concepts of capitalism do work in nation building, they have no real place in our world. Instead, a more balanced philosophy promoting the core values that have always important to this thing of ours would be a better approach to the attainment of overall success. |
|
| Reply by: The_Monster at Jan 07, '08 13:47 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
