CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[JoeB131]

Well, that recalls the events that led to our current state, and explains WHY they did it, but I’m talking about the actual legitimacy of creating governmental authority. When you vote, you believe you are delegating rights to that individual to make laws which my children must obey or be punished by violence. But you do not claim such rights yourself, so how can you rightfully delegate them to another? How are they acting as your representative, when you can’t do such things as tax me and tell me what substances I can use, etc.? That’s like me delegating the right to paint your house to my cousin — I don’t have that right myself, so how can I delegate it to him?

Because most of us think those laws are perfectly fine, and we should all obey them.

You see, here's the thing.

There are laws that we all think are good ideas, and the reason why they are enforceable is because we don't let people get away with them. Most murderers are caught because the rest of us rat them out.

And there are laws that are a little silly, the government doesn't bother to enforce and most of us don't care about, either.

To use your painting example... most towns have blight laws, so if my house is an eyesore, the neighborhood will say something about it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Well, that recalls the events that led to our current state, and explains WHY they did it, but I’m talking about the actual legitimacy of creating governmental authority. When you vote, you believe you are delegating rights to that individual to make laws which my children must obey or be punished by violence. But you do not claim such rights yourself, so how can you rightfully delegate them to another? How are they acting as your representative, when you can’t do such things as tax me and tell me what substances I can use, etc.? That’s like me delegating the right to paint your house to my cousin — I don’t have that right myself, so how can I delegate it to him?

Because most of us think those laws are perfectly fine, and we should all obey them.

You see, here's the thing.

There are laws that we all think are good ideas, and the reason why they are enforceable is because we don't let people get away with them. Most murderers are caught because the rest of us rat them out.

And there are laws that are a little silly, the government doesn't bother to enforce and most of us don't care about, either.

To use your painting example... most towns have blight laws, so if my house is an eyesore, the neighborhood will say something about it.

This still doesn't address the point of how government has the right to do things we can't do. Are they not human beings? How do they have different rights than the rest of us? The right to tax and make laws, which none of us claim. I have no problem with people organizing, or making rules for their community, as long as those rules represent rights they actually have. What I have a problem with is the double standard; with some people claiming rights that others don't have.

You're taking things at face value without really checking to see if it's right, or if it makes sense. You just accept it because that's how it's been your whole life. But everyone agreeing on something doesn't make it right - most of the world thought the Earth was flat for thousands of years. People thinking laws are perfectly fine means nothing. That doesn't mean they actually are, and it doesn't mean they have a right to impose them on others.

You've yet to explain how you can delegate a right you do not have yourself. Why is it OK for you to delegate to a politician to make laws I must obey when you do not have that right, but it's not OK for me to delegate the right to paint your house to my cousin when I don't have that right. What's the difference?

 

[JoeB131]

You're taking things at face value without really checking to see if it's right, or if it makes sense. You just accept it because that's how it's been your whole life. But everyone agreeing on something doesn't make it right - most of the world thought the Earth was flat for thousands of years. People thinking laws are perfectly fine means nothing. That doesn't mean they actually are, and it doesn't mean they have a right to impose them on others.

Okay, guy, I probably can't give this silliness the attention it deserves without breaking a bunch of CDZ rules, but here goes.

It's right because that's the way things get done. No, we don't let individuals get revenge for killing people, but as a society, we do punish people as a collective. We don't let the bridge company go house to house to take money, but we do let our elected representatives tax people to build that bridge, once we all agreed we needed it.

Again, it's called "Civilization". I like living in a civilized society. So do Libertarians, who wouldn't want to live in the kind of anarchy they propose.

The most Ironic thing. The goal of Gary Johnson in this last election was to hit 5% of the vote so he could collect some of that sweet, sweet matching fund cash, that the main parties rejected a long time ago becuase it limits their ability to run effective campaigns.

You've yet to explain how you can delegate a right you do not have yourself. Why is it OK for you to delegate to a politician to make laws I must obey when you do not have that right, but it's not OK for me to delegate the right to paint your house to my cousin when I don't have that right. What's the difference?

It's called "Democracy". Look it up some time.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Okay, guy, I probably can't give this silliness the attention it deserves without breaking a bunch of CDZ rules, but here goes.

It's right because that's the way things get done. No, we don't let individuals get revenge for killing people, but as a society, we do punish people as a collective. We don't let the bridge company go house to house to take money, but we do let our elected representatives tax people to build that bridge, once we all agreed we needed it.

Again, it's called "Civilization". I like living in a civilized society. So do Libertarians, who wouldn't want to live in the kind of anarchy they propose.

The most Ironic thing. The goal of Gary Johnson in this last election was to hit 5% of the vote so he could collect some of that sweet, sweet matching fund cash, that the main parties rejected a long time ago becuase it limits their ability to run effective campaigns.

You've yet to explain how you can delegate a right you do not have yourself. Why is it OK for you to delegate to a politician to make laws I must obey when you do not have that right, but it's not OK for me to delegate the right to paint your house to my cousin when I don't have that right. What's the difference?

It's called "Democracy". Look it up some time.

Don't you see that you're just taking "Democracy" at face value without actually trying to understand how it works and evaluating whether or not its valid. You were born into the world, and you just figure smart guys figured stuff out and they must know best, and everybody seems to agree so anyone who doesn't must be the crazy nut.Well, I'm suggesting to you that the majority are actually the crazy nuts (though it's not their fault, they've been trained this way since birth), and there is historical precedent for that happening, so it IS possible and should not be dismissed out of hand.

We don't live in a democracy, whatever the ostensible mechanisms of our society are. We live in a de facto oligarchy. You vote in primaries and for the Congressman or President, but do you know how candidates arrive at that position in the first place? Do you really think that the most wealthy and powerful people are just going to let things play out naturally and let the people choose their leaders when there is so much at stake for them? When they rely so heavily on favorable legislation? And do you think you're really in control of your own decisions when bombarded by the massive marketing blitz, including the corporately-owned mass media, which puts all the attention on certain candidates and ideologies while wholly ignoring others? The information you use to make your decision is spoon-fed to you.

When a parent says to a stubborn child, "Which vegetable do you want, peas or carrots?", the child feels empowered - they're a big boy now; they get to make their own decision, right? Of course not. They've been railroaded into choosing one of the two, both of which are perfectly agreeable to the parent. So go ahead and choose - Trump or Hillary. Either way, the richest and most powerful people get what they want, because they've put two options before you that will both serve their interests. It's just like Vegas: the house ALWAYS wins. That should be obvious enough.

Democracy, even in its purest form, creates a constant struggle among the populace for control of power. It is the exact opposite of cooperation. It is a mechanism for division, and conquerors wait in the wings to take advantage of that dynamic. On every issue imaginable, the people are made to choose between two opposing sides, while their masters laugh all the way to the bank. And when the majority gets their way, they leverage the violence of the state against their neighbor to enforce their will. They rob him to support programs they deem important. They cage him for making personal choices they don't agree with.

And saying the word "Democracy" does not answer for the fact that you have no right to do the things you are delegating others to do. You have still wholly ignored this objection. The bottom line is that you don't care. You like wielding the governmental sword against your neighbor to make him do what you want him to do. You love being able to do this without having to put your own safety and morality on the line by doing it yourself. That is the ONLY reason anyone supports this system - to commit immoral acts of aggression against their fellow man while feeling perfectly justified by the lie that the rituals of government process make it all OK. And this seems perfectly "civilized" to you? What deplorably low standards we hold for ourselves.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't you see that you're just taking "Democracy" at face value without actually trying to understand how it works and evaluating whether or not its valid. You were born into the world, and you just figure smart guys figured stuff out and they must know best, and everybody seems to agree so anyone who doesn't must be the crazy nut.

Yeah,I think that about covers it.

Here's the thing. Most people don't care enough about government to really think aobut it all that much. USMB members do. But most people only care for about a week before an election and don't think about it much beyond that. If the politicians don't deliver, we vote them out and put new guys in who will deliver. Not a perfect system, but it works.

And saying the word "Democracy" does not answer for the fact that you have no right to do the things you are delegating others to do. You have still wholly ignored this objection. The bottom line is that you don't care. You like wielding the governmental sword against your neighbor to make him do what you want him to do. You love being able to do this without having to put your own safety and morality on the line by doing it yourself.

No, you see, I just don't have time to identify and disarm every nut in the country who has a gun. I have a full time job and a side business. But really, we need to disarm these guys. I'm tired of watching kids being wheeled out of schools in body bags and then finding out the guy who did it was completely nuts and was still able to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Don't you see that you're just taking "Democracy" at face value without actually trying to understand how it works and evaluating whether or not its valid. You were born into the world, and you just figure smart guys figured stuff out and they must know best, and everybody seems to agree so anyone who doesn't must be the crazy nut.

Yeah,I think that about covers it.

Here's the thing. Most people don't care enough about government to really think aobut it all that much. USMB members do. But most people only care for about a week before an election and don't think about it much beyond that. If the politicians don't deliver, we vote them out and put new guys in who will deliver. Not a perfect system, but it works.

And saying the word "Democracy" does not answer for the fact that you have no right to do the things you are delegating others to do. You have still wholly ignored this objection. The bottom line is that you don't care. You like wielding the governmental sword against your neighbor to make him do what you want him to do. You love being able to do this without having to put your own safety and morality on the line by doing it yourself.

No, you see, I just don't have time to identify and disarm every nut in the country who has a gun. I have a full time job and a side business. But really, we need to disarm these guys. I'm tired of watching kids being wheeled out of schools in body bags and then finding out the guy who did it was completely nuts and was still able to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

Are you saying that you would feel perfectly comfortable busting into peoples homes and forcibly taking their guns, and the only reason why you don't is because you don't have the time? So you've delegated this effort to others, but their actions reflect precisely what you would do yourself. Well, what if you DID have the time? How would you go about getting those guns? Would you walk into innocent people's homes and demand that their combat rifle be handed over to you? That would probably not end well, considering they're the one with a combat rifle. Ah, I've got a solution -- how about you bring your own gun to even the score? Oh no, wait... now YOU'RE the one committing gun violence. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ourselves into believing that we can support gun confiscation and still be peaceful people.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you saying that you would feel perfectly comfortable busting into peoples homes and forcibly taking their guns, and the only reason why you don't is because you don't have the time? So you've delegated this effort to others, but their actions reflect precisely what you would do yourself. Well, what if you DID have the time? How would you go about getting those guns? Would you walk into innocent people's homes and demand that their combat rifle be handed over to you? That would probably not end well, considering they're the one with a combat rifle. Ah, I've got a solution -- how about you bring your own gun to even the score? Oh no, wait... now YOU'RE the one committing gun violence. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ourselves into believing that we can support gun confiscation and still be peaceful people.

Buddy, the British and the Australians have already figured this problem out, it's not complicated.

And once we outlaw guns, they won't be "innocent", will they?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Don't you see that you're just taking "Democracy" at face value without actually trying to understand how it works and evaluating whether or not its valid. You were born into the world, and you just figure smart guys figured stuff out and they must know best, and everybody seems to agree so anyone who doesn't must be the crazy nut.

Yeah,I think that about covers it.

Here's the thing. Most people don't care enough about government to really think aobut it all that much. USMB members do. But most people only care for about a week before an election and don't think about it much beyond that. If the politicians don't deliver, we vote them out and put new guys in who will deliver. Not a perfect system, but it works.

And saying the word "Democracy" does not answer for the fact that you have no right to do the things you are delegating others to do. You have still wholly ignored this objection. The bottom line is that you don't care. You like wielding the governmental sword against your neighbor to make him do what you want him to do. You love being able to do this without having to put your own safety and morality on the line by doing it yourself.

No, you see, I just don't have time to identify and disarm every nut in the country who has a gun. I have a full time job and a side business. But really, we need to disarm these guys. I'm tired of watching kids being wheeled out of schools in body bags and then finding out the guy who did it was completely nuts and was still able to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

Most people don't care enough about government to really think aobut it all that much. USMB members do.

I don't wholly agree with either of those statements, but I'm also not saying you're wrong. I simply disagree.

I think:

• I believe most people don't ever care at all about government, but I believe most people care occasionally about who holds the reigns of power in government.
• I believe the same is so for most USMB members; however, I believe USMB members are more eager than most people to talk about who holds the reigns of power in government.

If the politicians don't deliver, we vote them out and put new guys in who will deliver.

I don't at all think that's so.

Views about Congress have declined [between 2006 and 2016] ...Congressional job approval now stands at 12-83 approve-disapprove (compared to 27-66 in 2006). Disapproval of Congress is very high across voters of all partisan affiliations. Consequently, anyone who thinks our elected federal politicians have been over the past 10-20 years largely unproductive, non-delivering, cannot rationally accept that assertion as true because the re-election rate for both U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives has ranged between ~80% and ~98% since 1988.

Quite simply, federal politicians don't deliver and, as a polity, "we don't vote them out." As for why that happens, well here are some references that aim to broadly answer that question.

• Congressional Institute Reform Study
  
• Why Incumbents Keep Getting Reelected | Center on Representative Government
  
• Sitting Members of Congress and Incumbents are Almost Always Reelected
  
• The Rising Incumbent Reelection Rate: Whatís Gerrymandering Got to Do With It?
  
• Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from Close Elections and Term Limits
  
• The Electoral Advantage to Incumbency and Voters' Valuation of Politicians' Experience: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Close Elections

In 2012, Hans Gersbach, writing for VoxEU.org, proposed, as way to hold elected office holders more accountable than they currently are, that incumbents be required to obtain a few points more than 50% in order to win re-election. I don't know how implementable be that idea, but it seems reasonable. If one has already been sent to Washington to serve one's voters, one should have a set of material accomplishments that justify being sent back. On the other had, if one hasn't had the opportunity to prove one's worth, winning by simple majority is reasonable.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Are you saying that you would feel perfectly comfortable busting into peoples homes and forcibly taking their guns, and the only reason why you don't is because you don't have the time? So you've delegated this effort to others, but their actions reflect precisely what you would do yourself. Well, what if you DID have the time? How would you go about getting those guns? Would you walk into innocent people's homes and demand that their combat rifle be handed over to you? That would probably not end well, considering they're the one with a combat rifle. Ah, I've got a solution -- how about you bring your own gun to even the score? Oh no, wait... now YOU'RE the one committing gun violence. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ourselves into believing that we can support gun confiscation and still be peaceful people.

Buddy, the British and the Australians have already figured this problem out, it's not complicated.

And once we outlaw guns, they won't be "innocent", will they?

You are equating innocence with adherence to governmental law. This necessarily implies that you believe the nazis were innocent. I think we are well beyond constructive communication at this point, so we must simply agree to disagree.

 

[JoeB131]

You are equating innocence with adherence to governmental law. This necessarily implies that you believe the nazis were innocent. I think we are well beyond constructive communication at this point, so we must simply agree to disagree.

The Nazis commited crimes against humanity... Sorry, common sense gun laws that "Crazy people shouldn't have automatic weapons" is hardly being a Nazi.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You are equating innocence with adherence to governmental law. This necessarily implies that you believe the nazis were innocent. I think we are well beyond constructive communication at this point, so we must simply agree to disagree.

The Nazis commited crimes against humanity... Sorry, common sense gun laws that "Crazy people shouldn't have automatic weapons" is hardly being a Nazi.

That's not what I said. I said you equated innocence with adherence to governmental law; which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would imply that anything a person does under the cover of "law" would protect their innocence (including Nazi atrocities), and anything they did that was against the law (like the American Revolution) would deprive them of their innocence. Just because you don't like the logic of your own argument doesn't make me wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

That's not what I said. I said you equated innocence with adherence to governmental law; which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would imply that anything a person does under the cover of "law" would protect their innocence (including Nazi atrocities), and anything they did that was against the law (like the American Revolution) would deprive them of their innocence. Just because you don't like the logic of your own argument doesn't make me wrong.

I think that if ou compare laws of a democracy to laws of a dictatorship, that is a little silly.

If a majority of this country decided to outlaw guns, and someone insisted on keeping hisguns, he would not be "innocent". He would be in violation of laws reached through a democratic process.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That's not what I said. I said you equated innocence with adherence to governmental law; which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would imply that anything a person does under the cover of "law" would protect their innocence (including Nazi atrocities), and anything they did that was against the law (like the American Revolution) would deprive them of their innocence. Just because you don't like the logic of your own argument doesn't make me wrong.

I think that if ou compare laws of a democracy to laws of a dictatorship, that is a little silly.

If a majority of this country decided to outlaw guns, and someone insisted on keeping hisguns, he would not be "innocent". He would be in violation of laws reached through a democratic process.

​

If a majority of this country decided to outlaw guns, and someone insisted on keeping his guns, he would not be "innocent". He would be in violation of laws reached through a democratic process.

Well, yes, but you and the other member agree on that point. I don't understand why you mentioned that. It doesn't matter how a law comes into being or under what political system it does so. If one violates a secular law, one is, well, unlawful. Is anyone actually arguing to the contrary?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Mac1958, have you read this: 2 political scientists have found a key reason Republicans and Democrats see politics so differently

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958, have you read this: 2 political scientists have found a key reason Republicans and Democrats see politics so differently

Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Whatever the nature of this affliction is, it's clearly exacerbated by the multiple realities we have created for ourselves.

We can't even bring ourselves to agree on FACTS at this point. That's how distorted this has become. As this continues to get worse, each tribe has somehow in their minds confused collaboration with capitulation. So we only expose ourselves to that which we agree. It's much safer. And both cable TV and the internet serve it up on a silver platter.

Back to the media thing - I've mentioned in other threads that a republic has to be able to trust its press; once it can't, all bets are off.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, yes, but you and the other member agree on that point. I don't understand why you mentioned that. It doesn't matter how a law comes into being or under what political system it does so. If one violates a secular law, one is, well, unlawful. Is anyone actually arguing to the contrary?

Well, no, there isn't agreement. Listen to the gun nuts on this board. They totally plan to shoot ATF agents if they ever try to enforce new gun laws.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958, have you read this: 2 political scientists have found a key reason Republicans and Democrats see politics so differently

One other thing. Stand back, I'm gonna compare Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan for a minute.

Limbaugh was/is right: The media leans and reports Left. So in that vacuum, what he did by exposing that was a good thing. Or at least accurate. But his followers did exactly what they did with - wait for it - Reagan's "government is the problem" routine back in the 80's, they took it as 100% gospel in every situation. No exceptions, no questioning it. EXTREMELY binary. EXTREMELY ideological.

So, as cable TV and the internet have grown, and as talk radio has pushed that narrative, they've allowed for this binary universe disaster to proliferate. Supply & demand. We're now at a very predictable place: Conservatives expose themselves only to media (and that's now a terribly loose term) that fits their worldview. And that's one of the primary ingredients that create this affliction - isolation of input.

In that respect - in THAT respect - the Left hasn't changed much, since it didn't have to. Its media remains the same, with a few additions online.
.

 

[JoeB131]

So, as cable TV and the internet have grown, and as talk radio has pushed that narrative, they've allowed for this binary universe disaster to proliferate. Supply & demand. We're now at a very predictable place: Conservatives expose themselves only to media (and that's now a terribly loose term) that fits their worldview. And that's one of the primary ingredients that create this affliction - isolation of input.

In that respect - in THAT respect - the Left hasn't changed much, since it didn't have to. It's media remains the same, with a few additions online.

Oh, this old tired-ass Pompous Mac argument.

Hey, guy, 90% of the news content on CNN and FOX is identical. If you watch both, you'll see the same interviews, get the same news stories, and have the same information.

That FOX translates the information into "Inbred Redneck" is no different than Univision translating it into Spanish.

The thing is, if FOX started trying to be "Fair and Balanced", they'd lose their audience. If they tried to be like one of the sensible conservative sites that realize what a true disaster Trump is, and said so, they'd lose their audience.

Of course, WHEN (not if) the economy tanks and the inbred rednecks turn on Trump, Fox will turn on him too.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, yes, but you and the other member agree on that point. I don't understand why you mentioned that. It doesn't matter how a law comes into being or under what political system it does so. If one violates a secular law, one is, well, unlawful. Is anyone actually arguing to the contrary?

Well, no, there isn't agreement. Listen to the gun nuts on this board. They totally plan to shoot ATF agents if they ever try to enforce new gun laws.

Well, no, there isn't agreement.

You are joking, right?

• You truly don't realize the principle you both described is the same principle? You're kidding me, right?
  • The nature your statement and that of the other member's express the exact same simple principle -- existential innocence is no more upon one's violating a governmentally promulgated law -- however, he does so using the language of generality (citing two examples in parens) and you do so using a specific example.
    • Brian Blackwell wrote: If you equated innocence with adherence to governmental law, ...anything a person does under the cover of "law" would protect their innocence (including Nazi atrocities), and anything they did that was against the law (like the American Revolution) would deprive them of their innocence.
    • JoeB131 wrote: If a majority of this country decided to outlaw guns, and someone insisted on keeping his guns, he would not be "innocent". He would be in violation of laws reached through a democratic process.
      
      Your statement above is nothing other than an illustration of the theoretical concept Brian described/identified. How can you not be in agreement? Do you disbelieve what you wrote?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Well, yes, but you and the other member agree on that point. I don't understand why you mentioned that. It doesn't matter how a law comes into being or under what political system it does so. If one violates a secular law, one is, well, unlawful. Is anyone actually arguing to the contrary?

Well, no, there isn't agreement. Listen to the gun nuts on this board. They totally plan to shoot ATF agents if they ever try to enforce new gun laws.

What if instead of guns, it was books? Just because you deem one scenario "reasonable", according to your own subjective standard, doesn't change the principle. Government is coming to confiscate private property from innocent, responsible adults (you must admit that at least some of them are). At what point does this become intolerable enough to warrant firing upon a trespasser and aggressor?

What is your line in the sand, personally? At what point would you fire upon a government agent? If they were coming for books, video games, dvd's? If they were coming for people of Asian decent? Is there ANY point that you would deem it reasonable to defend your rights with outright force against government agents?