Term Limits - Smart Reform? Or Depriving People of Choice?

[rtwngAvngr]

Explain why having the line between the individual and government protects us from tyranny and anarchy.

"Political thought should be divided along the line between the individual and the government if we are to avoid tyranny and anarchy."

Explain the train of thought that leads to such a conclusion.

If this is where the parties divide, this is what will be discussed. I feel this is what SHOULD be discussed. You said you got it before. Did you forget?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Expanding. If both parties believe all solutions are government solutions, tyranny will result. If both parties feel all problems are best solved by individuals, anarchy would result. They balance each other.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

If this is where the parties divide, this is what will be discussed. I feel this is what SHOULD be discussed. You said you got it before. Did you forget?

Yes I get this - You feel they should be discussed to avoid tyranny and anarchy correct?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Expanding. If both parties believe all solutions are government solutions, tyranny will result. If both parties feel all problems are best solved by individuals, anarchy would result. They balance each other.

Thank you...that is all I was asking for. Makes sense to some extent (on edit - might not always be the case). But what about avoiding other things such as corruption, poverty, crime, etc.?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes I get this - You feel they should be discussed to avoid tyranny and anarchy correct?

yep.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thank you...that is all I was asking for. Makes sense. But what about avoiding other things such as corruption, poverty, crime, etc.?

all those solutions come AFTER deciding who's duty it is to solve the problem, The individual or the state.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

all those solutions come AFTER deciding who's duty it is to solve the problem, The individual or the state.

But if we only have two parties that are defined based on the first question then they are not the best equipped to solve the others. I'd say we are reasonably well protected from tyranny and anarchy - can't we now move on and have parties defined by other things?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But if we only have two parties that are defined based on the first question then they are not the best equipped to solve the others.

The first question (who solves it) never goes away. The solutions will vary drastically based on the answer to the first question.

I'd say we are reasonably well protected from tyranny and anarchy -

Anarchy -yes, tyranny- no.

can't we now move on and have parties defined by other things?

That first question never goes away, and it impacts the nature of the entire rest of the solution.

What and just assume the government is to handle all problems? No thank you.

this logical cleavage has occurred naturally, because it's logical and natural.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

The first question (who solves it) never goes away. The solutions will vary drastically based on the answer to the first question.

Anarchy -yes, tyranny- no.


That first question never goes away, and it impacts the nature of the entire rest of the solution.

What and just assume the government is to handle all problems? No thank you.

this logical cleavage has occurred naturally, because it's logical and natural.

I didn't say the first question ever goes away...but it doesn't have to remain the defining characteristic of the parties. Let it be number 3 or 4 on the list of most parties these days - and if things seem to be getting out of control then bump it back up to number one. There is a difference between being vigilant and being paranoid. And no I don't want to assume government is to handle all the problems. Where did I say that?

Also, you have reached a conclusion that the cleavage is natural and logical...please expand that argument.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I didn't say the first question ever goes away...but it doesn't have to remain the defining characteristic of the parties. Let it be number 3 or 4 on the list of most parties these days - and if things seem to be getting out of control then bump it back up to number one. There is a difference between being vigilant and being paranoid. And no I don't want to assume government is to handle all the problems. Where did I say that?

Also, you have reached a conclusion that the cleavage is natural and logical...please expand that argument.

It can't be 3 or 4. it has to be 1. IT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE REST OF THE SOLUTION. Don't make me type this again.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

It can't be 3 or 4. it has to be 1. IT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE REST OF THE SOLUTION. Don't make me type this again.

I disagree that all of our political parties must be defined by that. In my opinion, it is narrow and simplistic and borders on paranoia. There are other problems that need to be solved and we can't obsess over one when that much attention is not needed.

I don't think we are at a great risk of tyranny or anarchy. Our form of government is designed so we don't have to obsess too much over that question.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I disagree that all of our political parties must be defined by that. In my opinion, it is narrow and simplistic and borders on paranoia. There are other problems that need to be solved and we can't obsess over one when that much attention is not needed.

I don't think we are at a great risk of tyranny or anarchy. Our form of government is designed so we don't have to obsess too much over that question.

You have a right to you opinion. However, discussing solutions before deciding who's duty is it to solve the problem is getting the cart before the horse. And oddly enough, politicians are ALWAYS SHARPLY DIVIDED ON THAT ISSUE, AS ARE THE CITIZENRY. It's a natural division. I know your leftist tendency is to assume the government should cureall, but as the loyal opposition i will be there to show you how you're wrong.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

You have a right to you opinion. However, discussing solutions before deciding who's duty is it to solve the problem is getting the cart before the horse. And oddly enough, politicians are ALWAYS SHARPLY DIVIDED ON THAT ISSUE, AS ARE THE CITIZENRY. It's a natural division. I know your leftist tendency is to assume the government should cureall, but as the loyal opposition i will be there to show you how you're wrong.

Who said anything about discussing solutions before deciding who's duty it is to solve the problem? We've done that! We, as a society, pretty much know who is going to run certain aspects of our lives (minus hot topics like welfare and SS). But the big ones, like what job a person has and who controls the market have been decided.

I'm saying that this question is reasonably answered...so why continue to define the parties based on it?

And if there's one thing I hate it is generalizations. Don't assume I want the government to cure all - that is just ignorant of you to do.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

You're a moderate republican. Welcome home!

You labeled me this earlier TODAY. General labels fit no one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who said anything about discussing solutions before deciding who's duty it is to solve the problem?

Umm. You did. this was what we were talking about when moving the question from 1 to 3 or 4. If you don't answer this FIRST you can't get to other issues. This is primary.

We've done that! We, as a society, pretty much know who is going to run certain aspects of our lives (minus hot topics like welfare and SS).

Yet libs keep wanting government in our lives more and more (i.e. THEY WANT GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM). They keep on pushing and pushing. We push back.

But the big ones, like what job a person has and who controls the market have been decided.

Oh really? People don't change jobs and market shares never shift? It's all "decided"? Bullcrap.

I'm saying that this question is reasonably answered...so why continue to define the parties based on it?

It was reasonably answered in the constitution, yet libs keep wanting to take more responsibility from people and putting it in government, so we're all responsibility vacuums, sucking government into our lives. Thanks for the opening to rant.

And if there's one thing I hate it is generalizations. Don't assume I want the government to cure all - that is just ignorant of you to do.

Somehow I feel it's accurate.

You're starting to say a lot of crazy things. That's a sign you're losing the debate. Did you know that?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Umm. You did. this was what we were talking about when moving the question from 1 to 3 or 4. If you don't answer this FIRST you can't get to other issues. This is primary.

Not true. You said:

"[D]iscussing solutions before deciding who's duty is it to solve the problem is getting the cart before the horse."

I said:

"t doesn't have to remain the defining characteristic of the parties. Let it be number 3 or 4 on the list of most parties these days - and if things seem to be getting out of control then bump it back up to number one."

It is not reasonable to discuss solutions before we know who is going to do the solving. But we have done that with most things. Why must it continue to be number one if it has largely been settled? That is like hiring a construction crew to build a house and then when the house is built and you want to decorate using the construction crew as candidates for interior decorator. The house is built, now lets consider discussing other things.

Oh really? People don't change jobs and market shares never shift? It's all "decided"? Bullcrap.

You obviously have not seen the ball since kickoff. The discussion is over who is going to control: the individual or the government. Of course people change jobs but it is not the government that decides that. Same with the market (for the most part).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not true. You said:

"[D]iscussing solutions before deciding who's duty is it to solve the problem is getting the cart before the horse."

I said:

"t doesn't have to remain the defining characteristic of the parties. Let it be number 3 or 4 on the list of most parties these days - and if things seem to be getting out of control then bump it back up to number one."

Somehow I knew this is where you were going. The parties are defined by their APPROACH TO problem solving. There are two approaches, letting individuals solve it, (ie. the gov staying out of it), or coming up with a government program. You cannot defer this decision. Depending on which way you go, generally also dictates which parties solution you're going with, DUE TO THEIR DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING.

It is not reasonable to discuss solutions before we know who is going to do the solving. But we have done that with most things. Why must it continue to be number one if it has largely been settled?

Because libs keep "forgetting" and trying to make everything a governement solution.

That is like hiring a construction crew to build a house and then when the house is built and you want to decorate using the construction crew as candidates for interior decorator. The house is built, now lets consider discussing other things.

Libs keep pulling out the nails.

You obviously have not seen the ball since kickoff.

You don't know what game we're playing

The discussion is over who is going to control: the individual or the government.

who controls= who solves the problem. It's the same thing.

Of course people change jobs but it is not the government that decides that. Same with the market (for the most part).

ok.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Somehow I knew this is where you were going. The parties are defined by their APPROACH TO problem solving. There are two approaches, letting individuals solve it, (ie. the gov staying out of it), or coming up with a government program. You cannot defer this decision. Depending on which way you go, generally also dictates which parties solution you're going with, DUE TO THEIR DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING.

Well if this is true then why aren't the solutions of each party different in that regard? If this is the essence of each party, then every solution presented should fit that mold - yet take abortion - libs think individuals should decide, conservatives think the government should, and drug use: again libs think individuals should decide. The same goes for decency standards on t.v. Why can't conservative families just turn off the t.v. instead of calling the FCC?

And so let's say that we decide to let the government run welfare by electing democrats. Then why should we let democrats be the one's to design it an structure it? If we let the individual control social security, why MUST we let republicans design that system as well?

Because libs keep "forgetting" and trying to make everything a governement solution.

Just simply not true in my opinion.

Libs keep pulling out the nails.

What does the fact that libs MAY be undermining the structure have to do with picking the decorator?

You don't know what game we're playing

Touche...

who controls= who solves the problem. It's the same thing.

Sure, but so we decide the individual controls and solves the problem...why continue to define our parties based on that after the decision is made?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well if this is true then why aren't the solutions of each party different in that regard? If this is the essence of each party, then every solution presented should fit that mold - yet take abortion - libs think individuals should decide, conservatives think the government should, and drug use: again libs think individuals should decide. The same goes for decency standards on t.v. Why can't conservative families just turn off the t.v. instead of calling the FCC?

You're making my point. The parties split on WHO DECIDES, though sometimes they may seem to take the opposite side. With abortion it depends on if you frame it as a woman's choice issue or as a life and death issue, like murder.

And so let's say that we decide to let the government run welfare by electing democrats. Then why should we let democrats be the one's to design it an structure it?

That's just how politics works. You get elected, you do it your way, maybe with some input from the other camp. I doubt however that the help from the other side is valuable due to their different opinion on the suitability of government involvment at all.

If we let the individual control social security, why MUST we let republicans design that system as well?

Let's not get ridiculous. Both parties have some things they believe should be handled by government and some by the individual. Your pushing things to the absurd. This is a typical logical fallacy used in bad debating.

What does the fact that libs MAY be undermining the structure have to do with picking the decorator?

Your question was, in essence," why do we have to keep dealing with this question?" because libs are pulling the nails out. It's not sturdy. Libs are not happy limiting government to it's constitutionally mandated role.

Sure, but so we decide the individual controls and solves the problem...why continue to define our parties based on that after the decision is made?

Easier said than done, blithe one. This battle is constantly being fought, and I will always fight it.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

You're making my point. The parties split on WHO DECIDES, though sometimes they may seem to take the opposite side. With abortion it depends on if you frame it as a woman's choice issue or as a life and death issue, like murder.

Making your point? Your point is that the defining characteristic of the parties is WHO DECIDES. Therefore, definitionally, a party that is defined by letting the government decide cannot have a particular issue that is decided by the individual. It seems you are proving my point.

That's just how politics works. You get elected, you do it your way, maybe with some input from the other camp. I doubt however that the help from the other side is valuable due to their different opinion on the suitability of government involvment at all.

Not valuable? This is a democracy and one of the reasons that our founders wanted a democracy was because they knew that no single person or group had all the answers - debate is ALWAYS healthy.

Let's not get ridiculous. Both parties have some things they believe should be handled by government and some by the individual. Your pushing things to the absurd. This is a typical logical fallacy used in bad debating.

That's not what I meant at all. I was reinforcing the idea that the same party that creates something (a house) does not by necessity have to be the same party that fills it in (the decorations). I understand what you mean and what I mean but we are talking past each other so I think you should consider reading what I say more carefully.

Your question was, in essence," why do we have to keep dealing with this question?" because libs are pulling the nails out. It's not sturdy. Libs are not happy limiting government to it's constitutionally mandated role.

Nope that is not the essence of my question. My question was: Why must we keep dealing with that question as if it is the only and perpetually the most important one? And notice I make little or no general statements such as "libs are not happy limiting..." That is because generalizations are an easy way to demonize a group. The more you speak using particulars, the more you speak of the real world.

Easier said than done, blithe one. This battle is constantly being fought, and I will always fight it.

Again you are just wiping away the qualifications I use. I am quite concerned with keeping a check on the government but it is not AT ALL TIMES the most important thing on my mind - it is reasonable for men to put it on the back burner for a minute in order to better concentrate on other issues.