Guitardian wrote:feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor. The ones who don't sit in cushy offices and actually have to WORK while they are at work, and live from one paycheck to the next.
You obviously need to study more about the middle class. The MC often lives pay check to pay check. And cushy offices? My dad's middle class, and his cushy office was a tent in the middle of Afghanistan with mortars coming down around his battalion.
Not everyone in the MC works in an office nor does everyone in the MC have a cushy job. You're complaining about 40 hours a week? One of my uncles works 50. Two others work 24/7. One of my aunts is a nurse and works from 11 PM to 7 AM all days of the week. My mom is a teacher and she works from 5 AM to 6 PM. My dad has been deployed almost a dozen times in the past decade. My mom and dad are well off because his deployments exempt him from income tax. The rest of my family however does not live as easily as we do, and I have doctors and nurses in my family. These jobs may not be the hard manual labor of construction, but they aren't the walks through a park you seem to think they are. EDIT: THe lack of physical stress is easily matched by the increase in mental stress, not that there isn't any physical stress.
Sweeping generalizations are made about the lower class all the time, and I get that that upsets you, but don't make sweeping generalizations about the MC in return. When you don't want people to be insulting, it helps not to insult them back. The MC isn't the power house it used to be. It's been getting weaker and weaker for decades.
Frazzled wrote:
To the point. Taken to their logical conclusion both socialism and fascism are kissing cousins. At the end of the day they are still dictatorial governments telling the average person what to. Whether its what type of food they can or can't have, it doesn't matter if the guy telling you is wearing a brown shirt or a red shirt. he's still telling you what to do and using government power to make you do it.
That's the purpose of all governments. The question isn't whether or not the state is telling its people what to do, the question is "What is the state telling its people to do?"
Frazzled wrote:
What mythical state is this? The state owns the preprty. The "people" only have a small use of it. Wage slavery is abolished? So you haven't actually studied any communist states then. Everything is now clear.
That is what ideological communism is about, its simply not something that's realistically achievable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
well I think that if you let people do whatever comes naturally they'll degenerate.... so over the long term a society that does this, that has too much freedom, wont perpetuate itself. it will implode. its not really practical right now bc theres no agreement on what morality is, which is really too bad....
I don't think there has ever been significant agreement regarding what is, and is not moral behavior. The difference has simply been about the degree to which people were willing to enforce their standards of morality on others.
And, incidentally, I'm not saying that individual members of society have to tolerate behavior that they feel is immoral. I'm saying that there are limits on what should be acceptable regarding the intolerance of seemingly immoral behavior, and that those limits are basically defined by what constitues a legitimate excuse for legislation.
Kragura wrote:no matter how basic and accepted the step is it is still a step towards socialism.
But it's also a step towards a dozen other systems, and was taken not, primarily, because people wanted to arrive at socialism but because they wanted to arrive at one of those systems instead.
Once again, a person can say they think the government should build roads, and I could say "no matter how basic and accepted the state building roads is, it is still a step towards fascism". And while it may not technically be false when taken literally, it barely means anything in this sense, and it is generally said to imply things that are false (the roads are built by supporters of fascism, the construction of the roads will lead us to fascism, etc).
That is what ideological communism is about, its simply not something that's realistically achievable.
Point taken D. I'm coming from the position of "real world" communism for lack of a better term, as most political systems are utopic on an ideological basis. Where the rubber meets the road is something else entirely (for all of them).
Guitardian wrote:feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor. The ones who don't sit in cushy offices and actually have to WORK while they are at work, and live from one paycheck to the next.
You obviously need to study more about the middle class. The MC often lives pay check to pay check. And cushy offices? My dad's middle class, and his cushy office was a tent in the middle of Afghanistan with mortars coming down around his battalion.
Not everyone in the MC works in an office nor does everyone in the MC have a cushy job. You're complaining about 40 hours a week? One of my uncles works 50. Two others work 24/7. One of my aunts is a nurse and works from 11 PM to 7 AM all days of the week. My mom is a teacher and she works from 5 AM to 6 PM. My dad has been deployed almost a dozen times in the past decade. My mom and dad are well off because his deployments exempt him from income tax. The rest of my family however does not live as easily as we do, and I have doctors and nurses in my family. These jobs may not be the hard manual labor of construction, but they aren't the walks through a park you seem to think they are. EDIT: THe lack of physical stress is easily matched by the increase in mental stress, not that there isn't any physical stress.
Sweeping generalizations are made about the lower class all the time, and I get that that upsets you, but don't make sweeping generalizations about the MC in return. When you don't want people to be insulting, it helps not to insult them back. The MC isn't the power house it used to be. It's been getting weaker and weaker for decades.
Indeed. Sweeping generalizations is exactly what I was upset about, so responded in kind. Glad you pointed it out. To tell you the truth, all sarcasm aside I don't even know how to define 'middle class' any more. It may have something to do with having a stable job and a house and a car and some wife and some kids.There's this illusionary word used here to define how regular well adjusted members of society ideally live. It doesn't really exist, the term is just a political tool. We all know what 'upper class' is. It involves expensive dining, very nice cars, jet setting, and otherwise spending on luxuries rather than necessities. Where do you draw the line between middle and lower 'class' though? Middle class is just lower class in denial? At least us poor people know we're poor and don't try to pretend we aren't. But not all poor people are bums, some are just humble and hard working and happy enough just to have a job, feel no need to climb the ladder.
Dogma
I think there's been pretty broad consensus on what was moral and what was not in the past.... at least broader than there is now. Mb that consensus was wrong, mb not, but it was real... The only standard our legal system seems to recognize now is immediate harm to individuals - long term harm to the community is no longer considered a valid grounds to discourage certain kinds of action. In that sense imo we've departed from the good standards of the past. AF
There has only been a consensus in the past in the sense that we allow nostalgia to black out the realities of the past. There were times, like the 50's, where people put a facade on the disagreements but if you scratched the surface they come flooding out. The 'good standards of the past' tend to be a lie wrapped in nostalgia.
Yeah I miss 'colored' drinking fountains too. (sigh) everyone was so much better those days... By the way it's still okay to be a racist if you are over 65.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Dogma
I think there's been pretty broad consensus on what was moral and what was not in the past.... at least broader than there is now. Mb that consensus was wrong, mb not, but it was real... The only standard our legal system seems to recognize now is immediate harm to individuals - long term harm to the community is no longer considered a valid grounds to discourage certain kinds of action. In that sense imo we've departed from the good standards of the past. AF
Like Ahtman, I see that sort of thinking as the result of nostalgia.
Going beyond contemporary history, I can think of a number of examples that illustrate the lack of moral consensus:
Ahtman wrote:There has only been a consensus in the past in the sense that we allow nostalgia to black out the realities of the past. There were times, like the 50's, where people put a facade on the disagreements but if you scratched the surface they come flooding out. The 'good standards of the past' tend to be a lie wrapped in nostalgia.
there always were and always have been conflicts.
what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.
I'm not arguing for the merits of the morality itself. what I'm saying is that a moral consensus is in itself valuable.
Better to have a consensus on bad morals than no consensus at all. AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Dogma
I think there's been pretty broad consensus on what was moral and what was not in the past.... at least broader than there is now. Mb that consensus was wrong, mb not, but it was real... The only standard our legal system seems to recognize now is immediate harm to individuals - long term harm to the community is no longer considered a valid grounds to discourage certain kinds of action. In that sense imo we've departed from the good standards of the past. AF
Like Ahtman, I see that sort of thinking as the result of nostalgia.
Going beyond contemporary history, I can think of a number of examples that illustrate the lack of moral consensus:
The temperance movement.
The abolitionist movement.
The isolationist movement.
temperance.... I think there was a pretty broad agreement that alcohol consumption was not moral. At least, in the 19th century, among native born protestants. Temperance started as a way to attack the German and Irish immigrants - it was part of a larger anti-foreigner campaign. Within the native born US population I dont think it was especially controversial. Everyone knows that alcohol consumption can lead a person to do stupid (I dare say immoral) things. I dont really see this as an area of moral disagreement.
abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
isolationism.... is not a moral issue... its a political one.
Its possible that desiring a moral consensus is nostalgic.... but societies and people do in fact change, and not always for the better. Any assertion that the past was better in certain respects could potentially be dismissed as nostalgia - but that would be to miss the larger point here.... that a broad consensus on values across a society is valuable for its own sake.... and that morality is not a private business. Its a public business because we do not live in isolation - we live in groups. If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.
And I am saying it is a load of hooey.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.
And I am saying it is a load of hooey.
witty. elegant. exact. irrefutable. not only do you smash all opposing arguments, you do it with style.
Ahtman wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its possible that desiring a moral consensus is nostalgic.... but societies and people do in fact change, and not always for the better. Any assertion that the past was better in certain respects could potentially be dismissed as nostalgia - but that would be to miss the larger point here.... that a broad consensus on values across a society is valuable for its own sake.... and that morality is not a private business. Its a public business because we do not live in isolation - we live in groups. If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.
Isn't the whole basis of democracy that the democratic system reflects the consensus on what the government's actions should be? The conclusion I'm getting from your post is that the majority should disable the ability of the minority to vote all, because they aren't a part of "the consensus". However, this would quickly lead to a tiny oligarchy determining moral consensus, as a new, narrower "consensus" would come into being after each purge, and justify subsequent purges. In fact, even if those outside of "the consensus" voluntarily gave up political influence (permanently), it would have the same effect. If they only gave up political power until they became the majority once again, then you just have majoritarian democracy, and there's no reason in further excluding them from the system. In short, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're advocating, but it doesn't sound like a good idea from here. Could you give some examples of what you would consider the problems with the lack of moral consensus to be, how they need to be solved, and so forth?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....
"Was" is a verb in the Past Progressive tense, IIRC. Or past perfect progressive.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its possible that desiring a moral consensus is nostalgic.... but societies and people do in fact change, and not always for the better. Any assertion that the past was better in certain respects could potentially be dismissed as nostalgia - but that would be to miss the larger point here.... that a broad consensus on values across a society is valuable for its own sake.... and that morality is not a private business. Its a public business because we do not live in isolation - we live in groups. If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.
Isn't the whole basis of democracy that the democratic system reflects the consensus on what the government's actions should be? The conclusion I'm getting from your post is that the majority should disable the ability of the minority to vote all, because they aren't a part of "the consensus". However, this would quickly lead to a tiny oligarchy determining moral consensus, as a new, narrower "consensus" would come into being after each purge, and justify subsequent purges. In fact, even if those outside of "the consensus" voluntarily gave up political influence (permanently), it would have the same effect. If they only gave up political power until they became the majority once again, then you just have majoritarian democracy, and there's no reason in further excluding them from the system. In short, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're advocating, but it doesn't sound like a good idea from here. Could you give some examples of what you would consider the problems with the lack of moral consensus to be, how they need to be solved, and so forth?
If moral principles were determined on a weekly or a yearly basis, yes, it would lead to the gradual disqualification of almost everyone in the system. Moral principles should, and generally are, established on a much more long term basis; as long as the standards dont change, or change only very slowly over the course of a persons life, I dont think the progressive purges that your talking about would be applicable....
sure, I can give an example. alcoholism. If my neighbor chooses to drink himself stupid every night, hey, its his life. As long as he's not hurting me, what do I care? If that alcoholic votes......... I have a big problem with that. It introduces an irresponsible person with an unrealistic set of expectations into the voting public; it also creates an incentive for a politician to pander to him. Maybe my neighbor isnt fit to work anymore because he cant stop drinking. so he loses his job. so he votes to tax me to provide him with relief. John Doe senator needs that vote, so now you have an ugly alliance between a drunk and a crooked politician.
This situation isnt really that hard to imagine..... I do in fact have a neighbor who collects food stamps from the government yet still finds money to drink a gallon of beer every night. If she had to buy her own food she couldnt spend all that money on beer. She's wasting the community's money to fund her irresponsible activities - and you can bet that if it ever comes to a vote, whether to extend or to restrict eligibility for the food stamp program, she'll vote to extend it. Its in my interest and in your interest to keep that person from voting, because she's a degenerate, and when degenerates vote its bad for..... everyone.
alot of people agree that alcoholism is bad, but getting people to agree that alcoholics shouldnt be able to vote seems to be alot harder for some reason.....
as far as things that there is no moral consensus on... or where that consensus once existed but has broken down...... I'd say the lack of consensus on abortion is a pretty big problem. It diverts alot of peoples energy and occasionally gets someone killed/incarcerated for life. Other examples..... divorce. most people will say they disapprove of it but if you judge by the actions of the american public Id say theres some pretty substantial disagreement over it. If we could all agree one way or another - to either marry for life and ing mean it, or dont get married at all and just do what you want, that would be kind of nice....
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....
"Was" is a verb in the Past Progressive tense, IIRC. Or past perfect progressive.
Hey, it's been a while.
ummm... yeah I guess you're right. It's still missing something though.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included
good so far
[in his] attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
there. fixed it.
He's still wrong the consensus among enlightenment thinkers (jefferson's group) was that slavery was wrong. What Dogma was talking about, and which Ahtman responded to, didnt happen until much later. There was a consensus in both cases. Most people thought slavery was wrong in jeffersons day. most people didnt care one way or another about it in the day of abolitionists. At least in the north. In the south they thought it was a good thing. whatever. Its really more a political than a moral issue in my opinion. But I think the example strengthens my case since, if you look at it as a break down of moral consensus, then what happened afterwards - the american civil war - argues pretty strongly that you want to preserve that consensus, not let it break down.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If moral principles were determined on a weekly or a yearly basis, yes, it would lead to the gradual disqualification of almost everyone in the system. Moral principles should, and generally are, established on a much more long term basis; as long as the standards dont change, or change only very slowly over the course of a persons life, I dont think the progressive purges that your talking about would be applicable....
My idea wasn't based on moral opinions changing, necessarily, just the moral opinions that people have always had coming to the surface as the group becomes more and more homogeneous. For instance, say that 25% of the population thinks that homosexuality and premarital sex are both fine, 35% of the population thinks that homosexuality is immoral but premarital sex is still okay, and 40% of the population thinks that both immoral. The simple majoritarian solution would be to ban homosexuality (thought immoral by 75%) and to allow premarital sex (thought moral by 60%). However, what may well happen when they have the ability to further eliminate each other from the political process is that homosexuality, being the bigger issue for both the later two groups, will come to the forefront of the political arena. It will be decided that the moral consensus is that homosexuality should be prohibited, and that those who support it should be excluded from the political process from that point on. Then, with the bigger issue decided, people will inevitably begin debating issues that they see as less important (but still important enough to bring to the table), such as premarital sex. In this case only the last two groups will be able to decide what the moral consensus is on this, and so premarital sex will be banned as well.
Or, to quote an old joke:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said “Stop! Don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
“Like what?”
“Well … are you religious or atheist?”
“Religious.”
“Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?”
“Christian.”
“Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
“Protestant.”
“Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
“Baptist.”
“Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
“Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
To which I said, “Then die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.
sure, I can give an example. alcoholism. If my neighbor chooses to drink himself stupid every night, hey, its his life. As long as he's not hurting me, what do I care? If that alcoholic votes......... I have a big problem with that. It introduces an irresponsible person with an unrealistic set of expectations into the voting public; it also creates an incentive for a politician to pander to him. Maybe my neighbor isnt fit to work anymore because he cant stop drinking. so he loses his job. so he votes to tax me to provide him with relief. John Doe senator needs that vote, so now you have an ugly alliance between a drunk and a crooked politician.
This situation isnt really that hard to imagine..... I do in fact have a neighbor who collects food stamps from the government yet still finds money to drink a gallon of beer every night. If she had to buy her own food she couldnt spend all that money on beer. She's wasting the community's money to fund her irresponsible activities - and you can bet that if it ever comes to a vote, whether to extend or to restrict eligibility for the food stamp program, she'll vote to extend it. Its in my interest and in your interest to keep that person from voting, because she's a degenerate, and when degenerates vote its bad for..... everyone.
Alright, I do think that this is a legitimate complaint. However, I don't see how taking the right to vote away would be a workable solution to it. Even putting aside the moral arms race I mentioned above, how exactly is the state supposed to go about determining whether or not the electorate is moral enough to vote? Will some sort of court system be set up for it? Will there be some sort of tribunal, where your neighbors testify against you? Will suffrage be denied by default, and only people who prove themselves in some manner will be granted it (a la Starship Troopers)? Will these immoral people be denied other methods of political influence, such as the ability to write on the topic, or assemble? How can legislation, much less the constitutional amendment it would require to be put into place, be attained if you can't even stop drunks from taking your money?
I don't mean to sound overly harsh, because I agree with a lot of the point you're trying to make. However, the idea of denying suffrage to people based on their immorality just doesn't seem sensible; not even a little bit, really. It seems like you may as well skip out on democracy entirely and just instill a philosopher-king, if nothing else it would save you a trip to the poll booth.
Hmm. Here are two more things to think about. The first is this; you are of the opinion, from what I can tell, that the need for a moral consensus is based on the political implications of immorality. However, I have heard people frequently express distinctions that they themselves make between what they would call "morality" - their personal sense of morals - and what they think the government needs to do in a specific issue. For instance, there some people who think that sodomy or burning the flag is wrong, "morally", but nonetheless that the government has no right to prohibit this from being done. If there was a bitter divide on the personal morals of flag burning, but a general consensus on the political nature of the issue, then you wouldn't have a conflict. And similarly, you would have a conflict if personal morals were in general consensus but political/ideological consensus had not been reached. Thus, what you really desire would seem to be a form of ideological consensus, with moral consensus only useful insofar as it can lead to the former. Now, perhaps you define the term "moral" in so broad of a function as to include the ideological view points I'm talking about (I often do), in which case I would instead say that, perhaps, the divisions is nonetheless an important one to make.
The second thing to think about is that there pretty much is an ideological consensus regarding the taxation of hardworking people to give to the lazy or self-absorbed (i.e. that it shouldn't be done). Similarly, alcoholism is - pretty much be definition - a bad thing, and I think you could say pretty safely that this is a matter of moral consensus in any case. So then we would appear to have another problem; the current form of our democracy doesn't necessarily hold politicians close to the viewpoints of the constituency. After all, you rarely have many realistic choices in an election, and it's pretty widely recognised that small, strong interests usually overpower large, weak interests, regardless of the fact that the later is often what one may call the moral consensus.
Oops, a third thing: is it possible for the moral consensus of a society to merely be that further moral consensus is unimportant? If so, should it be respected?
i'm an alcoholic. I still feel that my occasionally beered-up wisdom is better and more well thought out than some of my sober peers. Maybe we should just not allow stupid feths to vote? It doesn't have to be a drug that makes you a dumbass. Some people just are, and I can still beat em at chess when I'm wasted. If your alcoholic neighbor having a right to make decisions bothers you, then you hang out with the wrong alcoholics. I caaan aallsoo typpe wheen Im drunk...
AbaddonFidelis wrote:what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.
And I am saying it is a load of hooey.
witty. elegant. exact. irrefutable. not only do you smash all opposing arguments, you do it with style.
I gave your argument the respect it deserved. At least I was on topic and not strawmanning my way into a tangent on grammar. In a formal written argument it may be out of place to phrase a sentence in such a manner, but in an informal setting such as this, and with sarcasm being such a large element, there is nothing wrong with it. In the end what we learned is that you had no real response so you nitpicked. It isn't an uncommon tactic.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
temperance.... I think there was a pretty broad agreement that alcohol consumption was not moral. At least, in the 19th century, among native born protestants.
Well, I don't agree with your first statement. As I understand it the period during which the temperance movement reached it height featured two dominant ideological positions:
1. Alcohol is evil.
2. Meh.
The thing about indifference is that it doesn't tend to lead people out into the streets, and really that's about the same response regarding people that assent to a current policy. Counter-protests almost never have the same sort of force that straight up protests do.
Still, disregarding our differing understandings of history, we're still left with that last piece of your sentence, which clearly describes the problem with determining consensus. Even if all native born protestants thought drinking was bad, the population of the United States was not limited to native born protestants; meaning that fact doesn't establish general consensus across the whole of society.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Within the native born US population I dont think it was especially controversial. Everyone knows that alcohol consumption can lead a person to do stupid (I dare say immoral) things. I dont really see this as an area of moral disagreement.
Of course you don't, you've already admitted something very close to tacit agreement with the idea.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
I don't really want to get into a debate about history, so it will suffice to say that I disagree with the idea that abolitionists were insignificant outside New England. Moreover, even if they were, it doesn't really matter. The abolitionist movement was a significant moral disagreement at some point in American history, and a major contributor to the American Civil War. That fact alone indicates that moral consensus didn't exist.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
isolationism.... is not a moral issue... its a political one.
Its also a moral issue regarding the proper role of the government in society, and the larger world. Notably, American international politics always tend to take on moral issues; as the isolationist reaction to Wilsonianism (another morally driven sort of foreign policy) illustrates.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.
This is going to be a fundamental point of disagreement for us. I accept that voters have the rights to control who rights their laws through representation, but the idea of determining the franchise according to informal moral codes strikes me as nothing more than theocratic governance. And that's something that I find to be abhorrent.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....
There are actually two verbs, which makes sense given that its a compound sentence.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....
There are actually two verbs, which makes sense given that its a compound sentence.
Orkeosaurus
I think that who gets to vote and who doesnt should be decided by the people - either directly or through representatitves - when the government is established and should require a supermajority , say 2/3 or 3/4, to modify afterwards. Basically what we did at the founding of this country, and the process we have now. That process appears to be inclusive rather than exclusive, as all kidns of groups that originally could not vote now can. I would argue that process has gone too far. We shouldnt restrict suffrage based on sex or race like we used to - we should restrict it based on the demonstrated capacity to manage ones own affairs. for instance if you're crazy, a bum, on government assistance, in a detox program, etc. - you cant handle your own affairs and therefore have no right to tell me how to handle mine - to vote.
If someone proposes to take away the right of someone else to vote then I think there should be a legal process, with the same system of protections, appeals, and review that we have for anyone who has to defend themselves in court. It should be an open and a public process, like any other legal proceeeding.
No I dont think we should take away other peoples rights like speech protection from false imprisonment being compelled to testify against themself etc. I just mean restriction of the franchise.
yes I think an ideological consensus in general is very important. we all need to be playing out of the same, or at least a similar, play book, or else there will be total chaos. I mean you couldnt play a game of 40k if no one agreed about the rules. Well how are we supposed to live our lives when no one agrees about the rules for that either? Its basically make it up as you go along right now. I think the results of that are pretty obviously bad. But its none of the states business except as it effects peoples rationality, and even then only to the extent that tehy are participating in government - to the extent that tehy are voting or holding office.
yes I suppose its possible that the consensus of society can be that consensus is unimportant. which is more or less what we have now, although its a consensus based on a recognition of universal ignorance more than anything else. there's no agreement about what mroality is beond some vague talk about not hurting other people or doing good to others. as far as substantial foundations for why this is right and that is wrong, it doesnt exist, except to say dont judge me and i wont judge you. ie lets write each other moral blank checks for any kind of behavior....
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.
And I am saying it is a load of hooey.
witty. elegant. exact. irrefutable. not only do you smash all opposing arguments, you do it with style.
I gave your argument the respect it deserved. At least I was on topic and not strawmanning my way into a tangent on grammar. In a formal written argument it may be out of place to phrase a sentence in such a manner, but in an informal setting such as this, and with sarcasm being such a large element, there is nothing wrong with it. In the end what we learned is that you had no real response so you nitpicked. It isn't an uncommon tactic.
In any setting whatever the inability to communicate clearly disqualifies a person from participating.
I do in fact have a response - its in my reply to monsterrain. of course its possible that someone who cant construct a sentence knows all about american history. but its not likely.
anyway if you'll start making cogent arguments phrased in readable english I promise to treat your posts with more respect.
pinky swear.
honest.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma
about temperance... well yes I guess you have to define the group when you're talking about the consensus it is to share. In a way moral consensus is what creates a group so thats a pretty good dividing line right there.... Irish Catholics and Native born protestants occupied pretty different cultures in the middle of the 19th century but shared the same government, hence the conflict...
about abolitionism. well lets look at it from the other way. If it wasnt a moral consensus, then look what happened afterwards. The American Civil War was a national disaster..... 600,000 people died. look at what kind of stuff a lack of consensus about core values can lead to.
I agree with you that americans tend to make every political issue into a moral one. I think its a false conflation. whether to get involved in ww1 for instance shouldnt have been about whether the germans were good or bad - just about how the country's interests were best served. same thing with any other foreign involvement. kosovo for instance.
I can respect that we have a difference of opinion....
I just enjoy good conversation AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:In any setting whatever the inability to communicate clearly disqualifies a person from participating.
Oh please, I know even with your limited faculties you know the difference between academic and informal. If it were really that serious we could destroy your arguments on much the same grounds as they are not following proper standards. Of course I think anyone reading knows it was never about the grammar, it was a about you being petty and petulant. Now you are trying to create some false qualifications for the discussions based on your own personal weakness. You were the one that said there were no verbs, and was wrong, twice. Your jump away from the point and to these kinds of insults shows that you must not have a good grasp of the subject. There is some very vanilla, middle-of-the-road thinking coming from out of your corner so I still have little to no reason to hold your thoughts in that high of an esteem. Your expression of American history comes across as someone who has taken a college level survey course on the subject, but not advanced studies. That also goes for your thoughts on Political Science and Philosophy in regards to morality and the state. I'm not saying you are uneducated, but you certainly aren't as educated as you want to appear to be. Just because I'm glib, sarcastic, and place little weight in an OT board on a gaming website doesn't mean that I am a fool or an idiot.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that who gets to vote and who doesnt should be decided by the people - either directly or through representatitves - when the government is established and should require a supermajority , say 2/3 or 3/4, to modify afterwards. Basically what we did at the founding of this country, and the process we have now. That process appears to be inclusive rather than exclusive, as all kidns of groups that originally could not vote now can. I would argue that process has gone too far. We shouldnt restrict suffrage based on sex or race like we used to - we should restrict it based on the demonstrated capacity to manage ones own affairs. for instance if you're crazy, a bum, on government assistance, in a detox program, etc. - you cant handle your own affairs and therefore have no right to tell me how to handle mine - to vote.
Hmm. So am I right to assume that further changes will still be discounting votes, in accordance with the first change? If so, you do still run the risk of the spiral into oligarchy, although the difficulty in making the changes to suffrage do help to put a damper on it. Theoretically you could also have a system where the there is a smaller group of voters who make general policy decisions, and this group may have people excluded from it, and where there is also a larger group that defines the parameters of the first, and is inalienable. (Now I'm just speculating, I suppose...)
If someone proposes to take away the right of someone else to vote then I think there should be a legal process, with the same system of protections, appeals, and review that we have for anyone who has to defend themselves in court. It should be an open and a public process, like any other legal proceeeding.
There are two problems with this that come to mind; the first is that it's expensive. Criminal trials maybe a necessity; after all - you can't just throw people in prison without recourse - and the costs of civil trials are lessened by need for people to hire their own lawyers and so forth. However, a "moral" trial couldn't work like a civil trial, because it would allow the wealthy to systematically eliminate people from the voting pool with too much ease. That leaves most of the expense of a criminal trial, further compounded by fact that the huge savings of plea bargaining wouldn't be present.
The second, larger issue, is that the court system is simply not that accurate. Criminal cases need strong physical evidence to have a guilty verdict rendered, and they still often come to the wrong conclusion. What you intend to put on trial would seem to be, essentially, character evidence. Character evidence is not traditionally allowed in civil trials (in the U.S.) or to be brought up by the prosecution in criminal trials. That right there should say something about its reliability. If character evidence is so untrustworthy that it can't be brought to bear against someone accused of murder - and used alongside physical evidence - how can it be anywhere near reliable enough to be brought to bear for being an "irresponsible voter", with no major physical evidence being used alongside it? (Further, the huge problems with the accuracy of character evidence, if this idea went through, necessitate an extensive appeals process, which compounds the cost problems.)
Now, one way to go about things is to say forget all of this: people can vote if they want to. No one will take away their right to vote. However, they may give up their right to vote, voluntarily, in exchange for public assistance. This is, in my opinion, a hell of a lot more feasible than attempting to try people for an "inability to take care of themselves", as the people losing their right to vote will have volunteered for the arrangement. However, a serious problem with this idea arises if public assistance starts to become increasingly necessary. You could easily end up with a slow slide into non-citizenhood for most people, having been forced there by threat of starvation, and rendered unable to help reverse economic policies which are unfairly screwing them over. The idea could lead to what could really only be called a form of serfdom, not dissimilar from what destroyed the Roman republic.
No I dont think we should take away other peoples rights like speech protection from false imprisonment being compelled to testify against themself etc. I just mean restriction of the franchise.
That's good, because that would open up a whole new kettle of worms.
yes I think an ideological consensus in general is very important. we all need to be playing out of the same, or at least a similar, play book, or else there will be total chaos. I mean you couldnt play a game of 40k if no one agreed about the rules. Well how are we supposed to live our lives when no one agrees about the rules for that either? Its basically make it up as you go along right now. I think the results of that are pretty obviously bad. But its none of the states business except as it effects peoples rationality, and even then only to the extent that tehy are participating in government - to the extent that tehy are voting or holding office.
So then you agree that ideological consensus is more important than personal consensus? (At least so far as policy is concerned, I suppose.) I do think a loose ideological consensus is a good thing, at least. If people don't hold as many principles in common when it comes to what the government should or should not be doing, I think it invites corruption in many cases. People will do what they think will help themselves the most because, hey, what else are you going to base your decisions on? And the masses will let corruption slide because it doesn't seem out of place. However, I may be very wrong about this. It certainly does seem to be the case that a strong ideological consensus and a great deal of corruption can go together; the attempts at communist states are a perfect example (not that I mean to go off topic, mind you, and start discussing communism!).
Regarding the 40k analogy, I guess you could say my view is this: you can play a game of 40k when you and your opponent don't agree what the rules are (i.e. RAWRAWRAW NOTHING BUT THE RAW), so long as you and your opponent have an ethos that allows you to play even when you disagree on what it is the rules actually say. For instance, I could believe that I technically don't need to reroll the damage result against a Venerable Dreadnought (because it just says I be asked to reroll it! Aren't I clever?), but nonetheless be something less than a total douche and reroll it anyways. The difference between Rules as Written and Rules as Played in this instance being akin to the difference between a person's view of true "moral law" and a person's view on how these moral laws should actually be translated into the political arena.
yes I suppose its possible that the consensus of society is that consensus is unimportant. which is more or less what we have now, although its a consensus based on a recognition of universal ignorance more than anything else. ntheres no agreement about what mroality is beond some vague talk about not hurting other people or doing good to others. as far as substantial foundations for why this is right and that is wrong, it doesnt exist, except to say dont judge me and i wont judge you. ie lets write each other moral blank checks for any kind of behavior....
It always seemed ironic to me how dogmatically opposed people are to the idea of "judging" others. Moral relativism is one of those things that really annoys me, probably to a greater degree than is sensible. (Like Avatar does.) I swear, it's just increasingly becoming an excuse to sound smart and worldly without making the slightest commitment to... well, anything. (The next time someone starts a sentence with "who are we?" I think I'm going to flip out.)
AbaddonFidelis wrote:sure, I can give an example. alcoholism. If my neighbor chooses to drink himself stupid every night, hey, its his life. As long as he's not hurting me, what do I care? If that alcoholic votes......... I have a big problem with that. It introduces an irresponsible person with an unrealistic set of expectations into the voting public; it also creates an incentive for a politician to pander to him. Maybe my neighbor isnt fit to work anymore because he cant stop drinking. so he loses his job. so he votes to tax me to provide him with relief. John Doe senator needs that vote, so now you have an ugly alliance between a drunk and a crooked politician.
It is amazing that you could live in a country where lobbying and moneyed interest play a direct, public role in formulatining policy, where both parties have made documented efforts to suppress the vote of demographic groups that are unlikely to vote for them... and think that the biggest worry in democracy is a 'degenerate' casting his vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Real classy way to argue a point there Sebster. Whats stage II-do you just start throwing poo?
It probably wasn't the nicest way of framing it, but I keep hearing that ridiculous claim over and over again, and it gets frustrating.
To the point. Taken to their logical conclusion both socialism and fascism are kissing cousins. At the end of the day they are still dictatorial governments telling the average person what to. Whether its what type of food they can or can't have, it doesn't matter if the guy telling you is wearing a brown shirt or a red shirt. he's still telling you what to do and using government power to make you do it.
No. Simply just no. That only works if you assume that the only possible measure of government is how much they interfere in your life, and that's a point of view that only makes sense to a subsection of Americans.
The rest of us realise that there is more to politics than just the power of the state, and that the difference between 'the state is empowered to use the means of production to provide a decent living for all' and 'you are here to make the state powerful' is a big fething deal.
Didn't mean to say all poor are scumbags...........Just the poor that leach of everybody else. Go ahead and have 10 kids, don't expect me to pay for them though. I'm the youngest of 8, I know what government cheese and peanut butter taste like (hint...they were actually pretty good in the 80's) but my father was too proud to take a food stamp or welfare from anyone. We volunteered a lot of time at the local catholic school, that's how we were able to attend. We worked in the kitchen, made the bulletins, served all the masses, cleaned the school, set up and ran bingo,drove buses and vans when we were old enough. For my family's services they gave us reduced (almost free) tuition.
You want to have the government pay for your kids? I say you can have one on us, but if you don't go on birth control after that the checks stop coming.
Social programs should be around to help people that need it, and want to get better. The second you can afford a flatscreen TV or a SUV you are done son!
What they shouldn't be is a payment to keep a@@holes in line so that they can breed more a@@holes. That kind of thinking is crap, I don't pay ransom to anybody.
I once had a lady come into my bar (that I own) run up a tab and try to pay with a government issued child support card!? You know some places actually would have accepted that as payment?! It looked just like a credit card, found out it would have gone through if my bar was a resturant or bar and grill instead of just a boozehole.
If you work and you're poor, then you get my respect! I paid for college doing construction in the summers. I'm no elitist I'm blue pride! You should really be pissed at the people that are living better than you are by stealing the tax money from your paycheck everyday.
Andrew1975 wrote:Didn't mean to say all poor are scumbags...........Just the poor that leach of everybody else. Go ahead and have 10 kids, don't expect me to pay for them though. I'm the youngest of 8, I know what government cheese and peanut butter taste like (hint...they were actually pretty good in the 80's) but my father was to proud to take a food stamp or welfare from anyone.
You're going to have to define welfare. I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Food stamps and the like are a form of government welfare.
You want to have the government pay for your kids? I say you can have one on us, but if you don't go in birth control after that the checks stop coming.
It is difficult for me to respond to this in a non-sarcastic way. I'll try anyway.
How many of those people are there? If you grew up with 7 siblings and ate government cheese and peanut butter, you were are from one of the families that you spout so much hate towards. At this point I would like to remind you that you're suggestion is not mine, I have made no slight against your family; I am happy you didn't starve to death.
Social programs should be around to help people that need it, and want to get better. The second you can afford a flatscreen TV or a SUV you are done son!
What they shouldn't be is a payment to keep a@@holes in line so that they can breed more a@@holes. That kind of thinking is crap, I don't pay ransom to anybody.
I can juggle anecdotes and chainsaws at the same time. WHEEEEE!
That is an extremely offensive suggestion you just laid out right tharr.
I once had a lady come into my bar (that I own) run up a tab and try to pay with a government issued child support card!? You know some places actually would have accepted that as payment?! It looked just like a credit card, found out it would have gone through if my bar was a resturant or bar and grill instead of just a boozehole.
I'm still juggling chainsaws and anecdotes, but now I have a few bottles of Bacardi 151 in the mix. I dare you to light a match; this won't end well.
If you work and you're poor, then you get my respect! I paid for college doing construction in the summers. I'm no elitist I'm blue pride! You should really be pissed at the people that are living better than you are by stealing the tax money from your paycheck everyday.
I am a bit shocked at how many of those people I know, because I know quite a few people that deny themselves assistance out of pride, to the detriment of their character IMHO.
You should be angry at the fact that you are using emotion so ineffectively.
sebster wrote:It probably wasn't the nicest way of framing it, but I keep hearing that ridiculous claim over and over again, and it gets frustrating.
Have you considered that the issue may be one of terminology? My usual definition of communism is a stateless society where the means of production are communally owned, and distribution is afforded "according to one's need" rather than by productive ability. While this may not actually end in equal pay for doctors and street sweepers, it may very well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:I once had a lady come into my bar (that I own)
Orkeosaurus
well yes the legal process is expensive.... I think it might prove to be less expensive in the long run than bad governance. govt subsidies to my degenerate neighbor and her beer drinking habit for instance. its about 300 dollars a month and I know she's had it for at least 3 months. Honestly I'd be willing to spend 10,000 to keep her from voting. just on principle.
good point about how to prove the thing..... I guess you would have to have some kind of legal definition of a drunkard, with its own standard of evidence. This person would have had to be seen publicly intoxicated by at least 4 witnesses on each occasion, at least 4 times a week for 4 consectuve weeks, etc. something like that. Once the principle is admitted than implimentation is a different issue. We make mistakes in criminal trials too but we all agree that we need to have criminal trials. If we all agree that drunkards shouldnt vote then we should be willing to accept that sometimes mistakes will happen there too.
I agree with you. rather than make it a legal proceeding, it should be a condition of receiving aid from the state, which, to me, demonstrates that someone is incapable of managing their own affairs, and hence those of others. As a condition of the state paying for your basic needs - food stamps, imprisonment, institutionalization for toxic chemicals or for mental illness - you shouldnt get to vote, either while you're receiving the assistance or for a certain specified period of time afterwards. But if you recover your ability to fend for yourself, maybe you should get your voting rights back. I really think you have a better idea here... the danger of oligarchy is present here, thats true.... really all democracies are continually threatened by it though. roman democracy for instance was basically an oligarchy by the time caesar ended it. until very recently british govt was too... there were property restrictions on who could vote. ours started out that way and imo is headed back in that direction. I dont really know what to say there, except that its a part of democratic government in general.
I would argue that moral consensus, and consensus between individuals, flows out of ideological consensus on a pretty basic level. we dont have any moral consensus in this country because of a breakdown in ideological consensus, which is basically a function of the failure of the traditional religious establishment - protestantism - to reconcile the discoveries of science with their theological traditions. We dont all have to be robots marching in lock step - but we do need to have the basics in common. I agree with you it invites corruption if there is no consensus. then people wont do whats right, since no one agrees what that is anyway - they'll do what advantages them and then make up some justification for it after the fact. which is in fact what happens in this country all the time. then, as you say, people on the bottom follow the example of people on the top, and youve got one big corrupt country. not so good.
Yes. agree with you 100% about moral relativism. its disgusting. all this shades of grey, walk a mile in their shoes, dont judge me crapola. there's right and there's wrong people should be held accountable. its most irritating.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:sure, I can give an example. alcoholism. If my neighbor chooses to drink himself stupid every night, hey, its his life. As long as he's not hurting me, what do I care? If that alcoholic votes......... I have a big problem with that. It introduces an irresponsible person with an unrealistic set of expectations into the voting public; it also creates an incentive for a politician to pander to him. Maybe my neighbor isnt fit to work anymore because he cant stop drinking. so he loses his job. so he votes to tax me to provide him with relief. John Doe senator needs that vote, so now you have an ugly alliance between a drunk and a crooked politician.
It is amazing that you could live in a country where lobbying and moneyed interest play a direct, public role in formulatining policy, where both parties have made documented efforts to suppress the vote of demographic groups that are unlikely to vote for them... and think that the biggest worry in democracy is a 'degenerate' casting his vote.
I dont think the biggest worry is a degenerate vasting his vote. It just happens to be the worry under discussion at the moment.
I would love to kick the corporations out of government. They're alot higher on my list than irresponsible people.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Orkeosaurus
well yes the legal process is expensive.... I think it might prove to be less expensive in the long run than bad governance. govt subsidies to my degenerate neighbor and her beer drinking habit for instance. its about 300 dollars a month and I know she's had it for at least 3 months. Honestly I'd be willing to spend 10,000 to keep her from voting. just on principle.
good point about how to prove the thing..... I guess you would have to have some kind of legal definition of a drunkard, with its own standard of evidence. This person would have had to be seen publicly intoxicated by at least 4 witnesses on each occasion, at least 4 times a week for 4 consectuve weeks, etc. something like that. Once the principle is admitted than implimentation is a different issue. We make mistakes in criminal trials too but we all agree that we need to have criminal trials. If we all agree that drunkards shouldnt vote then we should be willing to accept that sometimes mistakes will happen there too.
I agree with you. rather than make it a legal proceeding, it should be a condition of receiving aid from the state, which, to me, demonstrates that someone is incapable of managing their own affairs, and hence those of others....
Sorry but as the resident functional alcy who has AT LEAST 4 beers a day on average and still manages to type coherently, I have to object to this one. It's on the level of saying that stupid people can't vote, fat people, because of their decision to overeat, can't vote. Smokers can't vote... since if they can't even respect their own lungs, what good is their opinion? OLD people can't vote because they are all misinformed and products of a dinosaur age of thinking. Single mom's shouldn't vote because they already proved they were stupid and made bad descisions... How far can we really go with that line of thinking? BTW I bought homeless people 40oz bottles of beer to get them to register to vote back in '04 and in '08. HAHAHAAA we shall win in the end.
Kragura wrote:The same could be said for every governmental system except for anarchy and communism.
Are you intentionally playing ignorant here? Every communist system tried has been a bloodbath and failed utterly. Just because you choose to ignore doesn't mean it didn't occur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:And the two only start to look similar to one peculiar brand of American conservatives who view the entirety of politics as good wholesome freedom and government. To those of us not afflicted with that brain eating virus, the many actual differences between socialism and fascism actually matter.
Real classy way to argue a point there Sebster. Whats stage II-do you just start throwing poo?
To the point. Taken to their logical conclusion both socialism and fascism are kissing cousins. At the end of the day they are still dictatorial governments telling the average person what to. Whether its what type of food they can or can't have, it doesn't matter if the guy telling you is wearing a brown shirt or a red shirt. he's still telling you what to do and using government power to make you do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:Great post Sebster but this needs addressing
The actual substance of communism is all to do with the state owning the means of production.
No it's not, no matter what countries branded communist by the west have done, communism is about making the means of production communily owned by everyone and abolishing wage slavery and private property.
What mythical state is this? The state owns the preprty. The "people" only have a small use of it. Wage slavery is abolished? So you haven't actually studied any communist states then. Everything is now clear.
You name one country you think is communist and I will tell you why it is not.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:we dont have any moral consensus in this country because of a breakdown in ideological consensus, which is basically a function of the failure of the traditional religious establishment - protestantism - to reconcile the discoveries of science with their theological traditions.
Hmm, that certainly sounds plausible. I think there's some issue with liberalism as well. It failed to deliver, and left an ideological hole, which was then filled with a sort of feel-good idea of mass democracy, that doesn't really stand for anything. That might just be me, however.
"Those countries aren't Communist, they're something completely different as defined by an esoteric set of rules that were invented to weasel out of the fact that Communism has utterly failed in North Korea, China, and several other countries that have been mentioned."
Guitardian wrote:BTW I bought homeless people 40oz bottles of beer to get them to register to vote back in '04 and in '08. HAHAHAAA we shall win in the end.
Guitardian wrote:BTW I bought homeless people 40oz bottles of beer to get them to register to vote back in '04 and in '08. HAHAHAAA we shall win in the end.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
about abolitionism. well lets look at it from the other way. If it wasnt a moral consensus, then look what happened afterwards. The American Civil War was a national disaster..... 600,000 people died. look at what kind of stuff a lack of consensus about core values can lead to.
Sure, but from my perspective the absence of consensus is the 'natural' state of affairs. Bloody wars, and other forms of violence, are the means by which consensus is established. Given that, I think tolerating the absence of consensus on most issues is the way to go, I'm not interested in bloodying everyone who doesn't see things my way. I'll argue with them till I'm blue in the face, and maybe make light of their perspective, but violence really doesn't serve my interests.
There was a study done by Ted Gurr back in the Seventies that took a sample of all the polities that had existed from 1800-1971 in order to determine what conditions allow for a durable polity. His conclusion was that relative level of democracy and authoritarianism, while pertinent, did not serve as the most effective predictor of durability. Instead it was directiveness, or the extent to which the governing forces of the polity attempted to manipulate it, that was the most significant. In essence he found that states that were highly flexible, and therefore minimally directive, tended to last the longest.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I agree with you that americans tend to make every political issue into a moral one. I think its a false conflation. whether to get involved in ww1 for instance shouldnt have been about whether the germans were good or bad - just about how the country's interests were best served. same thing with any other foreign involvement. kosovo for instance.
Yeah, that's basically classical realism you're looking at there. The problem with classical realism is that it has a hard time really getting away from morality, despite its best attempts to do so. After all, how does one determine what any given state's interests are without some form of moral judgment (even if it is a different sort of morality than that which is applied to individuals).
"Those countries aren't Communist, they're something completely different as defined by an esoteric set of rules that were invented to weasel out of the fact that Communism has utterly failed in North Korea, China, and several other countries that have been mentioned."
Odd how the rules were invented 100 years before any of those countries became communist then. was Marx a time traveller?
Guitardian wrote:BTW I bought homeless people 40oz bottles of beer to get them to register to vote back in '04 and in '08. HAHAHAAA we shall win in the end.
Did they vote third party? If not, no one wins.
Well, the beer companies did ok I would guess.
Oh yeah, I had forgot about them.
But just think: Nader could be president right now, if only you voted for him! Nader wouldn't have let that oil spill, he would have tested the oil rig out and informed consumers about its flaws!
"Those countries aren't Communist, they're something completely different as defined by an esoteric set of rules that were invented to weasel out of the fact that Communism has utterly failed in North Korea, China, and several other countries that have been mentioned."
Odd how the rules were invented 100 years before any of those countries became communist then. was Marx a time traveller?
Rules are typically invented before the game can be played so I'm not sure what the problem of them having been written before the 'revolutions'. I don't see how it would happen any other way really.
Nevertheless, Marxists have frequently debated amongst themselves over how to interpret Marx's writings and how to apply his concepts to their contemporary events and conditions. Moreover, one should distinguish between "Marxism" and "what Marx believed"; for example, shortly before he died in 1883, Marx wrote a letter to the French workers' leader Jules Guesde, and to his own son-in-law Paul Lafargue, accusing them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and of lack of faith in the working class. After the French party split into a reformist and revolutionary party, some accused Guesde (leader of the latter) of taking orders from Marx; Marx remarked to Lafargue, "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist" (in a letter to Engels, Marx later accused Guesde of being a "Bakuninist").
And to other business at hand:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Guitardian wrote:BTW I bought homeless people 40oz bottles of beer to get them to register to vote back in '04 and in '08. HAHAHAAA we shall win in the end.
Did they vote third party? If not, no one wins.
Well, the beer companies did ok I would guess.
Oh yeah, I had forgot about them.
But just think: Nader could be president right now, if only you voted for him! Nader wouldn't have let that oil spill, he would have tested the oil rig out and informed consumers about its flaws!
I think what I meant was "who are we to decide who the winners really are".
Guitardian
I spelled out exactly how far I want to go with it. If you require state assistance you dont get to vote.
why? because its demonstrated inability to order your own life.
if you cant order your own, youve got no business trying to order mine. ie writing the laws. ie voting.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:we dont have any moral consensus in this country because of a breakdown in ideological consensus, which is basically a function of the failure of the traditional religious establishment - protestantism - to reconcile the discoveries of science with their theological traditions.
Hmm, that certainly sounds plausible. I think there's some issue with liberalism as well. It failed to deliver, and left an ideological hole, which was then filled with a sort of feel-good idea of mass democracy, that doesn't really stand for anything. That might just be me, however.
no its true. liberalism works pretty well materially and tolerably well politically. but its a spiritual failure.
life to be good has to be more than free. it has to be meaningful. liberalism has no answers in that department.
AF
"Those countries aren't Communist, they're something completely different as defined by an esoteric set of rules that were invented to weasel out of the fact that Communism has utterly failed in North Korea, China, and several other countries that have been mentioned."
Odd how the rules were invented 100 years before any of those countries became communist then. was Marx a time traveller?
dogma
well I think lack of consensus between groups is probably normal. lack of consensus within groups... to a certain extent yes... but disagreement about core values.... idk. I dont think it will work. I dont think its working now. I predict that it will fail. but thats just conjecture. its still an open experiment....
yes a government has to be responsive...... this is true.... when the bottom changes the top has to as well, or else it will be shrugged off...
about classical realism.... well I would define morality as the behavior people who are part of the same group owe to each other.... the states interests are what will benefit the people who compose it.... as for people outside of it.... the state does not have any moral obligations to them, just as they have no moral obligations to it.
Thats how statesmanship is conducted in practice anyhow so I think its best to just be up front about it. Telling Americans that there are critical moral issues behind every act of international policy is baby talk. I mean its infantalizing the electorate. its pure nonsense. only very rarely does someone get into power in washington whose genuinely concerned about stuff like that. Carter and Wilson are the only ones I can think of in the 20th century. Internationally neither of them were particularly effective....
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:AbbadonFidelis shouldn't be able to vote because he is bad and should feel bad.
Just kidding, but the stuff you are suggesting is pretty goddam crazy.
is it? here's my argument [recap]
if you want to have good laws, you need good lawmakers. how can you make sure you end up with good lawmakers? have sensible voters. how can you make sure you have sensible voters? according to the founding fathers, dont let anyone vote who isnt
1 white
2 male
3 an adult
4 a substantial property owner
by comparison Im pretty liberal. The only people I want to exclude from the polity are
1. drunks
2. crazy people
3. slowed people
4. people on the dole
why?
1. because they cant even order their own lives, so how can they order the state's?
2. because they'll tend to vote themselves social programs that benefit them and their impotence at my expense.
Is it really that crazy? we dont let convicts or 4 year olds vote. why not? because they arent qualified to participate. because voting is power. because not everyone is entitled to wield that power.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean its like a family with 10 kids. are all members of the family important? sure. do they all get an equal say? nope. neither should they. dad knows things the 4 year old doesnt. thats why he gets to make decisions (when the wife lets him) and the 4 year old doesnt. Its really the same principle in politics. only the stakes are much, much higher....
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
I spelled out exactly how far I want to go with it. If you require state assistance you dont get to vote.
why? because its demonstrated inability to order your own life.
if you cant order your own, youve got no business trying to order mine. ie writing the laws. ie voting.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:we dont have any moral consensus in this country because of a breakdown in ideological consensus, which is basically a function of the failure of the traditional religious establishment - protestantism - to reconcile the discoveries of science with their theological traditions.
Hmm, that certainly sounds plausible. I think there's some issue with liberalism as well. It failed to deliver, and left an ideological hole, which was then filled with a sort of feel-good idea of mass democracy, that doesn't really stand for anything. That might just be me, however.
no its true. liberalism works pretty well materially and tolerably well politically. but its a spiritual failure.
life to be good has to be more than free. it has to be meaningful. liberalism has no answers in that department.
AF
The level playing field has never existed from the start though. It's easy to say that only those who don't need government assistance in order to contribute to the society can vote, when you are one of those who have either inherited or grew up with a supportive family to make sure you get into that revered middle class status. It's harder to justify that way of thinking, and to disrespect the less fortunate, when you have been there yourself. The French revolution proved pretty well that the peasants are perfectly capable of taking away your rules if they want to, when your rules are against their interest.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
I spelled out exactly how far I want to go with it. If you require state assistance you dont get to vote.
why? because its demonstrated inability to order your own life.
if you cant order your own, youve got no business trying to order mine. ie writing the laws. ie voting.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:we dont have any moral consensus in this country because of a breakdown in ideological consensus, which is basically a function of the failure of the traditional religious establishment - protestantism - to reconcile the discoveries of science with their theological traditions.
Hmm, that certainly sounds plausible. I think there's some issue with liberalism as well. It failed to deliver, and left an ideological hole, which was then filled with a sort of feel-good idea of mass democracy, that doesn't really stand for anything. That might just be me, however.
no its true. liberalism works pretty well materially and tolerably well politically. but its a spiritual failure.
life to be good has to be more than free. it has to be meaningful. liberalism has no answers in that department.
AF
The level playing field has never existed from the start though. It's easy to say that only those who don't need government assistance in order to contribute to the society can vote, when you are one of those who have either inherited or grew up with a supportive family to make sure you get into that revered middle class status. It's harder to justify that way of thinking, and to disrespect the less fortunate, when you have been there yourself. The French revolution proved pretty well that the peasants are perfectly capable of taking away your rules if they want to, when your rules are against their interest.
And how did that work out for them 20-50 years down the track? (seriously how? I don't know much about the french revolution)
AbaddonFidelis wrote:dogma
well I think lack of consensus between groups is probably normal. lack of consensus within groups... to a certain extent yes... but disagreement about core values.... idk. I dont think it will work. I dont think its working now. I predict that it will fail. but thats just conjecture. its still an open experiment....
How do you define a group if not by beliefs? And how do you reconcile the fact that group membership is no longer restricted by geography?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Thats how statesmanship is conducted in practice anyhow so I think its best to just be up front about it. Telling Americans that there are critical moral issues behind every act of international policy is baby talk. I mean its infantalizing the electorate.
Oh, the moralism in American international politics isn't done for the people, not always anyway. Often times its simple what the people in power believe.
And how did that work out for them 20-50 years down the track? (seriously how? I don't know much about the french revolution)
A whole lot of death and Napoleon actually. It didn't work out well for France at all. Not immediately. It set the stage for later events of importance to France and the world. The French Revolution is too complex to really describe as simply good or bad.
Regardless, it doesn't really show what Guitardian is saying. The middle class was vital to the revolution (EDIT: The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and the birth of the United States helped). Without them it wouldn't have happened. The poor didn't just rise up one day cause the rich were hosing them. The middle class realized it's political power and spurred them to rise up because it was also being hosed (in their minds at least) and had amassed enough power to make revolution viable. I don't see what the point really is. We should be fear mongered by the poor because they might start killing everyone? Not really a way to get what you want and the Revolution itself didn't really resolve many of the immediate problems for the poor and they lost most the progress they made after Napoleon messed it up.
The Revolution was important but Guitardian is applying it falsely imo. The Revolution is a very specific event in history sparked by a combination of factors that are unlikely to be replicated in the modern world. I don't see it's application here.
It is difficult for me to respond to this in a non-sarcastic way. I'll try anyway.
How many of those people are there? If you grew up with 7 siblings and ate government cheese and peanut butter, you were are from one of the families that you spout so much hate towards. At this point I would like to remind you that you're suggestion is not mine, I have made no slight against your family; I am happy you didn't starve to death.
We got government cheese and peanut butter because they used to give it away at the school. That is not welfare or food stamps. It's actual food given out by the church....big difference, we earned that through our service. We never took any direct government aid except some unemployment, which you pay for when you work anyway, you are just getting your money back.
People who don't work and suck off the system are vile. That's what the socialist/communist ideas have done to the U.S. they burden everyone with these peoples problems.
Wait, was the cheese and peanut butter from the government, or from the Church?
Also, yes, socialism is designed to place some of the burden of those who are not employed, or who cannot be employed, onto those who can be. That's a part-and-parcel component of all archic, and most anarchic, societies.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Have you considered that the issue may be one of terminology? My usual definition of communism is a stateless society where the means of production are communally owned, and distribution is afforded "according to one's need" rather than by productive ability. While this may not actually end in equal pay for doctors and street sweepers, it may very well.
I don't think it's an issue of terminology. I think it's an issue of people hearing a legitimate complaint about communism (the lack of a profit motive to drive efficiency and expansion in business) and only vagulely understanding that, and reducing it to 'everyone gets paid the same'. They go on to repeat that, other people here it and repeat it and soon enough a lot of people believe that everyone got paid the same, regardless of what job they did. It doesn't seem to matter to anyone how actual communist countries work, they've got their mantra and that's enough for them.
You can say it might end up with everyone getting paid the same, but no communist I've ever heard is actually arguing for everyone to get paid the same, and no communist state has ever tried anything of the sort. So why even bother with the possibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont think the biggest worry is a degenerate vasting his vote. It just happens to be the worry under discussion at the moment.
I would love to kick the corporations out of government. They're alot higher on my list than irresponsible people.
AF
It's just, it's like complaining about a fly in your soup. Sure, that sucks and all but if the bar is burning down...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:You name one country you think is communist and I will tell you why it is not.
See, this is the thing. Communist academics really could have spent the last couple of decades talking about why true communist states never arose where it was tried, how it slid into dictatorship and oppression each time. They might have even built a case for how it might be done next time, to avoid that slaughter. But they haven't even tried, instead they just avoid the issue, they weren't really communist, it'd never be like that in real communism, now moving on aren't capitalists evil?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:Odd how the rules were invented 100 years before any of those countries became communist then. was Marx a time traveller?
You know what I would watch? Time travelling Marx teams up with time travelling Benjamin Franklin and time travelling Mohammed. They would fight crime.
Wait, was the cheese and peanut butter from the government, or from the Church?
Am I the only one that remembers how hard times were in the early 80's. The government used to give out cheese (good), bread(the worst white bread ever) butter, and peanut butter (real peanut butter, the expensive stuff you have to stir up first) at local schools and churches to anyone who needed it. You just had to wait in line. We helped distribute it.
by comparison Im pretty liberal. The only people I want to exclude from the polity are
1. drunks
2. crazy people
3. slowed people
4. people on the dole
I should probably respond with reliable statistics showing exactly what you are talking about here. I am not entirely sure I'm even clear on some of your statement here, so I won't even bother.
At the very least you are talking about somewhere in the region of 15% or more of the entire U.S. population. That is bloody craziness.
AF wrote:why?
Dunno.
1. because they cant even order their own lives, so how can they order the state's?
I am sure you will take care of that for them. Caring as you are and all.
2. because they'll tend to vote themselves social programs that benefit them and their impotence at my expense.
I trust you to make the right decisions on their behalf; pinky swear.
Is it really that crazy?
Yep.
we dont let convicts or 4 year olds vote. why not? because they arent qualified to participate. because voting is power. because not everyone is entitled to wield that power.
You are clearly a very worldly individual with much experience to impart to all of us.
My options are limited thus. Either I block you specifically from voting, in place of the 40 odd million people you are talking about here, or I appoint you dictator.
I'm going to have to choose dictator, mainly because I enjoy a good slapstick routine.
mean its like a family with 10 kids.
No, it really freaking isn't. Don't worry about it, dad.
are all members of the family important? sure. do they all get an equal say? nope. neither should they. dad knows things the 4 year old doesnt. thats why he gets to make decisions (when the wife lets him) and the 4 year old doesnt. Its really the same principle in politics. only the stakes are much, much higher....
Kragura wrote:You name one country you think is communist and I will tell you why it is not.
See, this is the thing. Communist academics really could have spent the last couple of decades talking about why true communist states never arose where it was tried, how it slid into dictatorship and oppression each time. They might have even built a case for how it might be done next time, to avoid that slaughter. But they haven't even tried, instead they just avoid the issue, they weren't really communist, it'd never be like that in real communism, now moving on aren't capitalists evil?
I consistently find myself agreeing with your post bar one minor detail. I as a communist and as have all the communists i know spent long amounts of time pondering the question huge numbers of theories ideas and hypothesis have been put forward comrades can argue for days about whether china stopped being communist in 1979 or in 1978. whether the soviet union began it's degeneration after Lenin Stalin Khrushchev or Breznev and whether Cuba is still socialist. this I think is one of the greatest threats to the far left today rampant sectarianism and and overall stubbornness over the ideas you imply they don't have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
It is difficult for me to respond to this in a non-sarcastic way. I'll try anyway.
How many of those people are there? If you grew up with 7 siblings and ate government cheese and peanut butter, you were are from one of the families that you spout so much hate towards. At this point I would like to remind you that you're suggestion is not mine, I have made no slight against your family; I am happy you didn't starve to death.
We got government cheese and peanut butter because they used to give it away at the school. That is not welfare or food stamps. It's actual food given out by the church....big difference, we earned that through our service. We never took any direct government aid except some unemployment, which you pay for when you work anyway, you are just getting your money back.
People who don't work and suck off the system are vile. That's what the socialist/communist ideas have done to the U.S. they burden everyone with these peoples problems.
What about the people who can't work i.e cant get a job.
(not intended as one of my absolutely cutting and philosophically sound rhetorical questions, I'm actually curious)
Kragura wrote:I consistently find myself agreeing with your post bar one minor detail. I as a communist and as have all the communists i know spent long amounts of time pondering the question huge numbers of theories ideas and hypothesis have been put forward comrades can argue for days about whether china stopped being communist in 1979 or in 1978. whether the soviet union began it's degeneration after Lenin Stalin Khrushchev or Breznev and whether Cuba is still socialist. this I think is one of the greatest threats to the far left today rampant sectarianism and and overall stubbornness over the ideas you imply they don't have.
You could do what real life Communist leaders have done and kill them, or send to reeducation camps, until you get the hegemony of belief you seek.
"drunks, crazy people, slowed people, people on the dole"... The only people you want to exclude AF?
Well first off, you forgot "donkey-caves" and secondly, define "slowed people"? Personally I believe anyone with an IQ less than 130 to seem "slowed". That gives us about a less than 1% competent voters population. Kick off religious people too while we're at it, since nobody got to vote for god, he needs to stay out of it. Although most of them have already been omitted by either the IQ requirement or the "no donkey-cave" rule. So... who's left? about a hundred people give or take are considered worthy to have their opinions made into practice.... oh wait that would be the U.S. Senate if only it wasn't for that damn IQ requirement and "No donkey-caves" rule...
Guitardian wrote:
The level playing field has never existed from the start though. It's easy to say that only those who don't need government assistance in order to contribute to the society can vote, when you are one of those who have either inherited or grew up with a supportive family to make sure you get into that revered middle class status. It's harder to justify that way of thinking, and to disrespect the less fortunate, when you have been there yourself. The French revolution proved pretty well that the peasants are perfectly capable of taking away your rules if they want to, when your rules are against their interest.
Yes if there are too many poor people they can foment revolution. I dont want to impoverish people. Alot of the policies I would advocate are for the protection of the poor.... minimum wage, workers safety laws, keeping corporations out of politics, the right to form unions, etc. I'm not talking about disenfranchsing the entire lower class. Just the lowest of the lower class. Most working class people dont take government subsidies. They would continue to vote. Anyway people who are on the dole need to respect themselves by getting off of it - then I'll respect them better. Oligarchy is possible on one extreme - the other possibility is poor people using their superior numbers to vote themselves the wealth of the middle and upper class through social programs. It can and does happen - its called voting democrat.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: del'Vhar
the french revolution was a total disaster in the short run. After a decade of massive economic disruption, state sponsored terrorism, ruinously expensive wars, and anarchy at the highest levels of government, the army stepped in and restored order. I would hope that guitardian doesnt want a repeat...
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yeah Lord of Hats is right it wasnt driven by the rural poor but by the urban middle class
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:dogma
well I think lack of consensus between groups is probably normal. lack of consensus within groups... to a certain extent yes... but disagreement about core values.... idk. I dont think it will work. I dont think its working now. I predict that it will fail. but thats just conjecture. its still an open experiment....
How do you define a group if not by beliefs? And how do you reconcile the fact that group membership is no longer restricted by geography?
right now.... I really dont know. we're witnissing a break down in group cohesion. our tools of communication are so powerful that geography probably doesnt count for much anymore. If I had to pin it on one thing I'd say shared beliefs, shared values, shared interests. fundamentalist christians are a group. 40k players are a group. as far as a wider community. well I guess thats what I'd complain about. it doesnt seem to exist anymore. we're all just strangers passing in the night, you know? So I dont really have a good answer for you I guess... but I think its pretty clear that sharing a single political organization doesnt qualify.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Thats how statesmanship is conducted in practice anyhow so I think its best to just be up front about it. Telling Americans that there are critical moral issues behind every act of international policy is baby talk. I mean its infantalizing the electorate.
Oh, the moralism in American international politics isn't done for the people, not always anyway. Often times its simple what the people in power believe.
No I certainly don't want a repeat. I am not a big fan of mob rule and violent revolt. Pointing out that it can happen is different than hoping that it does.
Wrexasaur
I read your reply.....
ummm.... if you dont have anything to say.... just dont say it. k?
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: btw I love that clip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:"drunks, crazy people, slowed people, people on the dole"... The only people you want to exclude AF?
Well first off, you forgot "donkey-caves" and secondly, define "slowed people"? Personally I believe anyone with an IQ less than 130 to seem "slowed". That gives us about a less than 1% competent voters population. Kick off religious people too while we're at it, since nobody got to vote for god, he needs to stay out of it. Although most of them have already been omitted by either the IQ requirement or the "no donkey-cave" rule. So... who's left? about a hundred people give or take are considered worthy to have their opinions made into practice.... oh wait that would be the U.S. Senate if only it wasn't for that damn IQ requirement and "No donkey-caves" rule...
there actually is a medical definition for someone who is... mentally handicapped. I forget what the clinical term is now. used to be mentally slowed. now its something else. its something like IQ below 60 or 70. not 130. the definition is medical it's not based on who you think is a dummy.
anyway you're taking the argument in a totally different direction. I never said that stuff about religious people or a no donkey-cave rule so I'm not going to defend any of it either. thats your idea not mine. What I said is that people who cant take care of themselves - as demonstrated by reliance on state support to live - dont have any business telling me how to live my life. writing laws. participating in politics. voting.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:ummm.... if you dont have anything to say.... just dont say it. k?
You mad.
Look dude, I am trying really hard to convince myself you aren't trolling, as your suggestions have been flatly crazy.
You aren't responsible enough to vote in my opinion (just kidding), so I really have decided to make you dictator of the day. I am going to enjoy this one.
I am guessing that you aren't going to benevolent and many laughs will be had by all. I don't want to take the vote away from 15-20% of the U.S. population when I can simply take the vote away from all of them, leaving just you to make the decisions. That is the best answer here, trust me, you'll do fine.
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you wrex. you obviously dont understand my argument, so what you're saying basically doesnt have anything to do with anything. this is the last thing I'll say to you on this thread. AF
Your accusations about my intelligence are false, as is your suggestion that my intention is to start a flamewar.
How many millions of people are we talking about here? You directly suggest that state assistance is wrong and bad, while at the same time limiting that argument to that of individuals, leaving out the fact that subsidies are just a part of life in the U.S.
Without subsidies many industries would begin to fall apart at the seams. Without subsidies many small businesses would fall flat on their faces at the starting line. Without assistance many would not be able to attend college, nor would they even have the time to think about voting.
It is quite possible that you don't understand the depth of what you have suggested, but I sincerely doubt that possibility. There is little reason to address many of your points, because they are ridiculous. It would be a waste of my time and yours.
I would like to know if you can answer the simple question about how many millions of people you are actually talking about removing from the voting pool. I maintain my response that you should either be removed from the voting pool yourself, or be appointed dictator for a day.
It seems reasonable enough to remove one person, in place of millions, but I still feel that having you make all of the decisions could be the best answer on this.
By Abbie Don Fidelis's somewhat rational idealism, yes, it makes sense that some folks should not really get a say if they cannot participate in a society. Wait... no it doesn't.
From my point of view, much of society and culture and our social systems and infrastructure are taken for granted, just like the ability to walk or speak is taken for granted. So rich kids with a college degree and some irrelevant office space style job their daddy could buy them would be voting, while orphans growing up eating at soup kitchens would not.
Some people do take advantage of a welfare state. Others take advantage of a privelliged lifestyle. This doesn't make either group very qualified in my opinion. I would like to say that anyone on SSI can't vote too, because, hey, at some point in your life you are too young to be allowed a vote, a job, an ability to speak your mind in a relevant way (Sucks being self aware when you're 8 years old). At another point in life you are too old to think rationally for the greater good and just vote based on your own old biases, set in your ways, and usually only concerned with how much you can get during your retirement.
Retardation being a diagnosed medical condition based on an approximate IQ score is equally unfair. If a 70 is a 'dummy' to someone with the average 100, then what do you think an average 100 is to a 130? who sets the bar on what is considered 'too stupid'... because if it were up to Noam Chomsky or Steven Hawking (just as an example, not a big fan) then I doubt any of us would be alowed to vote.
Kids are very perceptive, very smart, and untainted by social expectations and ground in ideas that they take for granted. Maybe they should be the only ones allowed to vote. It is their future after all.
Guitardian wrote:This doesn't make either group very qualified in my opinion.
This point is exactly what qualifies the vast majority of people voting powers. No single group can understand the needs of an entire country, hence, allowing for a voting system that accepts that, appears a very solid compromise. Nearly all of us need the right to vote, for this system to make any sense. If there is change to be had, it would preferably come in the form of short term dictatorships, which come with a great deal of inherent problems. If it worked I would support it, only as a very short term solution, often for the purposes of fixing what is clearly broken.
We can't agree on who that dictator should be, so I still support AF for dictator. It would be amusing on many levels.
I understand that there are limits to who should be able to vote, but there is a point at which those limits go beyond rational; instead becoming oppressive and ridiculous. Convicts and children should not be granted voting powers, for very clear reasons. Stretching that argument to pick out more demographics, opens it to crazy interpretations and narrow-mindedness. Neither of which are necessary to a good, short term dictator.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
which is the scariest thing of all....
That doesn't particularly scare me, honestly. I don't know if its simple jading, or the result of my current place in society, but what our leaders do or do not believe is of little importance to me. The chances of catastrophe are slim, and I'm fully capable of escaping catastrophe in the event that it does occur.
Never thought that a torn ACL would be a good thing.
Kragura wrote:I consistently find myself agreeing with your post bar one minor detail. I as a communist and as have all the communists i know spent long amounts of time pondering the question huge numbers of theories ideas and hypothesis have been put forward comrades can argue for days about whether china stopped being communist in 1979 or in 1978. whether the soviet union began it's degeneration after Lenin Stalin Khrushchev or Breznev and whether Cuba is still socialist. this I think is one of the greatest threats to the far left today rampant sectarianism and and overall stubbornness over the ideas you imply they don't have.
You could do what real life Communist leaders have done and kill them, or send to reeducation camps, until you get the hegemony of belief you seek.
Good comment, Ahtman, with a lot of sad truth behind it. I'm neighbors with a family whose father was sent to a "reeducation " camp in Laos. They made the hard decision to escape the country and were almost discovered and killed by Communists as they made their way to the border. The father got out of the camp after a lengthy confignment and also escaped Laos with stories of people put into the camp for dissent routinely put to death on a day by day basis. Gitmo and other prisons have nothing to compare with the stories that came out of his experience with Communist "reeducation". I also worked with Cambodians that had similar stories.
What about the people who can't work i.e cant get a job.
(not intended as one of my absolutely cutting and philosophically sound rhetorical questions, I'm actually curious)
Why can't they work, what's the problem. We were essentially volunteering at the church anyway, they just took a little better care of us because we had always been very active at the church even before my dad lost his job.
Look, in most communist countries the families took care of those that didn't work, if you didn't have a family you were out of luck, there were still homless people in the USSR. That's not the communist dream though.
If you can't work and you don't have family, you better find a shelter. I have no problem with homeless shelters and soup kitchens. But just giving people money who don't work, money, to raise their own children, housing and food is BS. Top off letting them live freely with letting them breed freely, now you're just raising the next generation of lazy mouths to feed, that learn it is easier not to work then to work hard.
Look I lived a stone through from the ghetto when I got out of college (E 55th and Euclid in Cleveland OH). I've seen and continue to see more abuse of these systems then I see legitimate use. I was constantly harassed at the grocery store to let people buy me food on their food card, so they could get 50% cash to go but cigarettes and liquor. Obviously they didn't need them food credit if they were willing to sell it at 50% face value. It was insulting, because the way I saw it, that was my money the government was giving them, and now they want to sell it for 50%.
Crap.
I'm sure it has uses, I'm sure there are people that use it as a hand up instead of a hand out. I used to think it was just a small percent that abused it. But the more I saw the more it seamed common practice. People looked at me funny, when I got annoyed, like I was the one being stupid and NOT taking advantage of the system.
Guitardian wrote:By Abbie Don Fidelis's somewhat rational idealism, yes, it makes sense that some folks should not really get a say if they cannot participate in a society. Wait... no it doesn't.
From my point of view, much of society and culture and our social systems and infrastructure are taken for granted, just like the ability to walk or speak is taken for granted. So rich kids with a college degree and some irrelevant office space style job their daddy could buy them would be voting, while orphans growing up eating at soup kitchens would not.
do I detect a trace of envy.....?
you dont have to be rich to go to school. the government will give you some of the money you need, and loan you the rest on pretty generous terms. all you have to do is ask. the system is really pretty liberal. anyone who wants a degree can get one. the more enterprising unemployed are doing exactly that right now. thats why school enrollment is at an all time high.
I dont agree with you that office jobs are irrelevant. if any one group of the labor force were replaceable, it would be unskilled laborers. thats your stock clerks waiters lawn mechanics etc. any moron could do those jobs. not just any moron can design a working automobile or a solar panel. these things come out of offices and they're not exactly dispensible.
guitardian wrote:
Some people do take advantage of a welfare state. Others take advantage of a privelliged lifestyle. This doesn't make either group very qualified in my opinion. I would like to say that anyone on SSI can't vote too, because, hey, at some point in your life you are too young to be allowed a vote, a job, an ability to speak your mind in a relevant way (Sucks being self aware when you're 8 years old). At another point in life you are too old to think rationally for the greater good and just vote based on your own old biases, set in your ways, and usually only concerned with how much you can get during your retirement.
Retardation being a diagnosed medical condition based on an approximate IQ score is equally unfair. If a 70 is a 'dummy' to someone with the average 100, then what do you think an average 100 is to a 130? who sets the bar on what is considered 'too stupid'... because if it were up to Noam Chomsky or Steven Hawking (just as an example, not a big fan) then I doubt any of us would be alowed to vote.
I think the AMA is the organization that decides what the medical criteria for retardation is. My point is its not based on opinion about whose dumb and whose smart. Its an identifiable medical condition and I think we need to ask ourselves: if someone's too dumb to make a pot of hamburger helper or learn how to tie their shoes, are they, at the same time, smart enough to write the laws that govern the whole community? Its not about intellectual elitism. Its about basic capacity to manage ones own affairs.
guitardian wrote:
Kids are very perceptive, very smart, and untainted by social expectations and ground in ideas that they take for granted. Maybe they should be the only ones allowed to vote. It is their future after all.
oh god whatever. I can just see it now. federal subsidies to ice cream, pizza, and power rangers (or whatever the hell kids are watching these days.) no school. ever. no chores. ever. allowance of a hundred million billion dollars a week to every boy and girl in the united states. except jenny. cause shes fat. Miss Jenkins to be stabbed in the eye balls with razor blades till she dies, cause she gave timmy time out that 1 time and it was totally unfair. every boy gets a play station 3 and all the games (you're taxes will cover that), every girl gets a new hannah montanna t shirt and skirt to wear every day (you're taxes will cover that too).
I mean really. if you cant have a serious conversation just say so.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
which is the scariest thing of all....
That doesn't particularly scare me, honestly. I don't know if its simple jading, or the result of my current place in society, but what our leaders do or do not believe is of little importance to me. The chances of catastrophe are slim, and I'm fully capable of escaping catastrophe in the event that it does occur.
Never thought that a torn ACL would be a good thing.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:you dont have to be rich to go to school. the government will give you some of the money you need, and loan you the rest on pretty generous terms. all you have to do is ask. the system is really pretty liberal. anyone who wants a degree can get one. the more enterprising unemployed are doing exactly that right now. thats why school enrollment is at an all time high.
Those students shouldn't be allowed to vote, IMHO.
I dont agree with you that office jobs are irrelevant. if any one group of the labor force were replaceable, it would be unskilled laborers. thats your stock clerks waiters lawn mechanics etc. any moron could do those jobs. not just any moron can design a working automobile or a solar panel. these things come out of offices and they're not exactly dispensible.
I think it is nonsense to suggest that just because work takes place in an office, the work is irrelevant. We agree there.
What I strongly disagree with is your reference to labor as dispensable. There are an awful lot of people to do many of those jobs, but that does not suggest that anyone can just hop out of a chair and dig ditches 40 hours a week. I have done a LOT of volunteer work and you can spot the office workers from a mile away, not that I hold anything against them for that. On one occasion I was almost hit in the head by a moron swinging a mattock like a madman. I was very close to punching him in the face for it, as my skull being pierced by a mattock would have ended much worse for me, than a simple knuckle sandwich into the guys mouth.
I don't mean to say that everyone that works in an office is inept at using tools, just that I would not hand a keyboard jockey any expensive tools, without first asking for their insurance info. Until a person can show me that they can haul 50 pounds MINIMUM at a time, for up to two hours at a time, I wouldn't want to be working on a crew with them. In many ways the physical aspect to many labor jobs limits who you can hire right of the bat, without the option to attend school to fix that deficit.
Bad knees? Off the crew. Arthritis? Bye. Back problems? Peace out.
There are actually very few unskilled jobs in general. Take a look into nearly any product in your house and consider the menial aspects behind it, you'll often find that there really aren't that many jobs squarely placed in that category. After all, there are only so many ditches that need digging. The guy using that shovel still needs to know what the hell he is doing, or he'll end up with some serious physical problems. Repetitive actions can destroy you. Power tools can paralyze and dismember you; I'm talking something as simple as a jackhammer.
On that note I would love to see someone step out of an office and start working labor. Some may be able to, but the vast majority of those folks are going to be seriously out of shape. Often times, out of shape in ways that they can't even recognize until they try to act like superman.
I think it's worth mentioning that often times blue-collar jobs pay more than white-collar jobs. The guy with the "cushy office job" may well spend all day taking gak from people and then go home to eat Ramen noodles. Only to be interrupted by a call from his boss.
Obviously Office Space wasn't a documentary, but there's some truth behind that sort of satire.
I'm not sure if that is directed at me or AF (I mostly just skim the thread for my quotes and then answer those) but communism doesn't split people into blue collar and white collar just proletariat and bourgeoisie (plus a few others) and both cushy office jobs and factory workers are the former.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I think it's worth mentioning that often times blue-collar jobs pay more than white-collar jobs. The guy with the "cushy office job" may well spend all day taking gak from people and then go home to eat Ramen noodles. Only to be interrupted by a call from his boss.
Obviously Office Space wasn't a documentary, but there's some truth behind that sort of satire.
You can earn more per hour (on average, pro rata) as a bin-man, than as a call-centre worker here in the UK.
Kragura wrote:I'm not sure if that is directed at me or AF (I mostly just skim the thread for my quotes and then answer those) but communism doesn't split people into blue collar and white collar just proletariat and bourgeoisie (plus a few others) and both cushy office jobs and factory workers are the former.
it wasnt directed at you.... it was directed at guitardian.
Direct all you want Abby. The point being, that restricting democratic priveliged to only those who are theoretically privelliged enough to compete in a modern high tech and high salary way of life who don't need anything from others (except their labor I suppose), will just lead to cannibalism. Yeah, white collars are tasty and they'll be the first in the cookpot if there is a societal meltdown. I don't think the Czar's family did anything really wrong to deserve being killed by the proles, only that they represented what others didn't have and resented it.
in this thread.
ing mean it, or dont get married at all and just do what you want, that would be kind of nice....
