Please Comment: Principles of Reflective Centrism

[hangover]

It is funny, the far left thinks they are centrists.

While the extremists should have a voice they shouldn't be the one and only voice.

You bring up a curious point. Some groups have a large segment which self-identifies as "extremist" in terms of ideas (while often pointedly eschewing violent means). I find this in libertarian circles (remember Goldwater's famous remark!) and some on the Left. I place myself in this category, I am extremist in some of my core beliefs in the sense that I recognize that 90%+ of the population is not going to agree.

What I share with "radical" libertarians and other extremists is a conviction that just because a policy is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good policy. Consensus merely means that a large number of people join in a bad decision, it does not make the decision a good decision. This is the basic objection to "centrism", the idea that the "center" somehow must be the best course. If you believe that, please explain lemmings.

Often "extremists" are called "anti-democratic" and sometimes "anti-intellectual", both of which I think are bad raps. Democracy is a process, and someone can be dedicated to democratic process and have faith that eventually the best reasoning will win out, while holding seriously minority views. Nothing says the majority must be right. I just hope they can be persuaded.

So I like a good presentation of a position whether I agree with it or not. If someone can argue well, they likely can be persuaded as well. I shudder at the people who cannot be persuaded because they know the "right answer" even if I agree with them.

I have avoided examples because often as soon as one is given, a process "fire, ready, aim" often sets in where people give a knee-jerk reaction based on their world view (often without reading the entire post), assigning the author to one of the pre-determined pigeonholes, and blasing away with the birdshot. Not only is this not conducive to developing a good discussion, I find it incredibly boring. If I want to see that kind of behavior I can always watch six year olds at the park.

So extremists of the world, fire away! Just try to aim first.

I was just thinking a similar thing about the OP before I read this post. Specifically where the OP said that all voices are needed to describe reality (ironic since the Jim seems to be rather quick with the ignore list.)

My thought went something like this:

Say there is this thing called "reality"

Humans have ideas about what this "reality" is.

Their ideas may be accurate in describing reality or they may be inaccurate. (Really it is probably more like degrees of accuracy but let's keep it simple for now. )

If you have 99 people who's view of reality is inaccurate and only 1 whose view is accurate, you probably aren't going to make choices as a group that are in line with reality.

In that situation, the only real hope is that the person who does have an accurate view is a damned eloquent person. The majority or consensus view is NOT going to work out well.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

There it is. Those ideas of what reality is, are only "perceptions". All these herds, like science, Christianity, Islam, the GOP, and the DNC, have their "perceptions" of reality. But no one has a monopoly on reality. Until all these herds are willing to recognize that, and are willing to give up their "beliefs", in favor of the "truth" of reality, the evolution of humanity will remain stuck in it's stupidity. Some groups(herds), like science do re-evaluate their "perceptions" when they are found to be erroneous. Other herds, like religions and political parties are determined to wallow in their stupidity. i.e. The Catholics burning people at the stake for heresy, because they knew the world revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. And then a thousand years later, said..."Oh, uh sorry."
The only way to see reality(the truth), is to be willing to give up your "perceptions". And that, to most, is just to uncomfortable.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Specifically where the OP said that all voices are needed to describe reality (ironic since the Jim seems to be rather quick with the ignore list.)

My thought went something like this:

Say there is this thing called "reality"

Humans have ideas about what this "reality" is.

Their ideas may be accurate in describing reality or they may be inaccurate. (Really it is probably more like degrees of accuracy but let's keep it simple for now. )

If you have 99 people who's view of reality is inaccurate and only 1 whose view is accurate, you probably aren't going to make choices as a group that are in line with reality.

In that situation, the only real hope is that the person who does have an accurate view is a damned eloquent person. The majority or consensus view is NOT going to work out well.

Mathbud, I don't think it works that way. No one is entirely correct about everything, and no one is entirely right about everything.

People who specialize in a subject, say plumbing, tend to know their subject better than those who do not. But not even every plumber is right about everything they say in regard to plumbing. Some are out of date, some are ill inclined to short cuts, and yet others are simply dishonest. If you have a plumber that is trying to con you, any personal knowledge related to the topic can help but said dilettante, not as knowledgeable as the expert, can deduce enough to steer clear of a bad buy. But not all plumbers are right about everything to state about plumbing for whatever reason.

So for the broad public's thought on policies in general, some are experts on various subjects, but that does not mean that they are infallible or completely honest.

Do you know anyone who is right about everything they believe to be true?

That is what I meant about degrees of accuracy.

You have the same problem in a specific area that you do in a general one though.

If you have 99 plumbers who only think they know what they are taking about and only 1 who actually knows, the consensus of the 100 is not going to be right.

The point is that consensus is not necessarily any better an actual view of reality than any one person's view, and may actually be considerably worse.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Agreed, but what is the best process for getting to that Truth? I don't think it is to let one become dictator, for example, because the odds of you getting the one that is right are 1 out of 100.

But a reasonable dialogue where all engage in discussion where reason is used buttressed with fact I think gives the best shot at finding that best and most correct approach, whatever the subject.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There it is. Those ideas of what reality is, are only "perceptions". All these herds, like science, Christianity, Islam, the GOP, and the DNC, have their "perceptions" of reality. But no one has a monopoly on reality. Until all these herds are willing to recognize that, and are willing to give up their "beliefs", in favor of the "truth" of reality, the evolution of humanity will remain stuck in it's stupidity. Some groups(herds), like science do re-evaluate their "perceptions" when they are found to be erroneous.

I don't think it is necessary or fair to expect people to 'give up' their beliefs about reality, since they do think them legit. If we can all just engage with each other in discussion we can grow and learn from each other, and find our way without anyone being compelled to convert from one faith to another or none at all.

Other herds, like religions and political parties are determined to wallow in their stupidity. i.e. The Catholics burning people at the stake for heresy, because they knew the world revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. And then a thousand years later, said..."Oh, uh sorry."

For example, this thing about the Catholic Church burning people at the stake for believing the Earth orbits the sun is a modern Protestant myth.

 

[Foxfyre]

A good starting point to to lose the "good guy"--"bad guy" attitude, acknowledge your biases, and let issues and values frame the debate instead of ideology.

In my experience (35 years in Mississippi) 95% of white conservatives are overt racists whose daddys were in the Klan. It's a rather harsh judgement, but it also appears to be true. Similarly most white liberals in Mississippi are either rebelling against their daddy and older brother in the Klan, or are northerners bent on "saving" the benighted southerners. Again, a bit harsh but true.

I love your generalizations. You cut off any prospect of real discussion by the way you pigeonhole everyone into your ideological classifications.

So pick a topic and state a position. Don't whine about what other people in your segmented universe do. State your values and propose a plan of action. Defend it on the basis of logic, facts, and how the world actually works.

So, if "The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks", what do you propose to do about it? Or since you stated "The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure." do we live in the best of possible worlds where the disadvantaged should just stop whining and accept their proper place, because you think no plan will improve their lot?

Do you seriously believe that 95% of white conservatives are racist because you spent some time in Mississippi? And then you complain about Foxfyre's generalizations?

OK, I admit to using a rhetorical device called hyperbole; but it only works when there is a large element of truth in it. I spent 40 years in Mississippi and was careful to comment only on those I had met in Mississippi. Yes, I believe a large majority of white conservatives in Mississippi are one step removed from the Klan. My comments about white liberals in Mississippi, which you seem very comfortable with ("all them carpetbaggers") should have been equally objectionable. So if I bash white Southern liberals and impugn their motives, I must be right, but if I simultaneously bash white Southern conservatives I must be wrong?

I pride myself on careful writing. I did complain about Foxfyre's generalizations, and I made what I thought many would regard as equally objectionable generalizations. That is called satire. I'm sorry you failed to be able to identify it.

So let make my secondary rant more explicit. I would hope readers would be able to discern and appreciate rhetorical devices such as satire and hyperbole which often reinforce each other. Reply to what I write, not your edited version of what you think I wrote.

So we should respect your rhetorical devices while mine are unacceptable? Your post criticizing me personally was satire but my post trying to clarify a concept in the OP you classify as intentionally incendiary? You don't see the irony in that?

And this is where I think we should have started JB--you asked how I would have worded it differently? I think the way you worded it was provocative and interesting and it is encouraging some of us to question it, comment on it, and consider its implications. And because you are not requiring us to agree with it in order to discuss it, you are demonstrating a great deal of objectivity and tolerance.

But oldfart's reaction to it was immediately combative and critical of another member. No effort to rebut what the person said--let's go immediately for the throat and attack the person we disagree with.

And THAT is your primary hurdle to get over in looking for what you have coined as 'reflective centrism.' I don't want us to be centrist. I want us to be effective in accomplishing objectives and values that I think worthwhile to accomplish. But how do we ever get there in an environment so toxic we can't even have a conversation?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do you seriously believe that 95% of white conservatives are racist because you spent some time in Mississippi? And then you complain about Foxfyre's generalizations?

OK, I admit to using a rhetorical device called hyperbole; but it only works when there is a large element of truth in it. I spent 40 years in Mississippi and was careful to comment only on those I had met in Mississippi. Yes, I believe a large majority of white conservatives in Mississippi are one step removed from the Klan. My comments about white liberals in Mississippi, which you seem very comfortable with ("all them carpetbaggers") should have been equally objectionable. So if I bash white Southern liberals and impugn their motives, I must be right, but if I simultaneously bash white Southern conservatives I must be wrong?

I pride myself on careful writing. I did complain about Foxfyre's generalizations, and I made what I thought many would regard as equally objectionable generalizations. That is called satire. I'm sorry you failed to be able to identify it.

So let make my secondary rant more explicit. I would hope readers would be able to discern and appreciate rhetorical devices such as satire and hyperbole which often reinforce each other. Reply to what I write, not your edited version of what you think I wrote.

So we should respect your rhetorical devices while mine are unacceptable? Your post criticizing me personally was satire but my post trying to clarify a concept in the OP you classify as intentionally incendiary? You don't see the irony in that?

And this is where I think we should have started JB--you asked how I would have worded it differently? I think the way you worded it was provocative and interesting and it is encouraging some of us to question it, comment on it, and consider its implications. And because you are not requiring us to agree with it in order to discuss it, you are demonstrating a great deal of objectivity and tolerance.

But oldfart's reaction to it was immediately combative and critical of another member. No effort to rebut what the person said--let's go immediately for the throat and attack the person we disagree with.

And THAT is your primary hurdle to get over in looking for what you have coined as 'reflective centrism.'

I think you are right. So I put OF on ignore, like many others. It's not only a better thread read this way, but it kind of demonstrates what I am talking about. Why waste time with 'hallway trash', as we put it in RPG land?

I don't want us to be centrist. I want us to be effective in accomplishing objectives and values that I think worthwhile to accomplish.

I agree that we need to be effective and we can be even if not everyone wants to be a centrist, lol. I just kind of find myself a centrist when I see that I don't completely agree with either the left or right, both sides have their points and that is what got me thinking, 'Why are we becoming so damned partisan and intolerant?'

A good first step has to be among the most basic things like relearning how to respect someone without necessarily agreeing with them and still come to a consensus that allows effective things to be done.

But how do we ever get there in an environment so toxic we can't even have a conversation?

Yep, I totally agree.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not agreeing with either right or left is not necessarily being a centrist, however. I also frequently disagree with those on both right and left who are arguing a point, but I would never describe myself as a centrist.

Because I don't believe A or B but do believe C does not necessarily equate with C = the center.

So coming back to JB's #1 on the list in the OP:

1. No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in.
...a. So ALL voices are needed to help define what that reality is and how to address issues that arise within it as we all work together toward a better future.
...b.We must respect the benevolent rational thoughts of our fellow citizens by extending to them courtesy and ostracizing those who are irrational, seditious and dishonest and to provide our own rational thinking supported by facts as far as we are able​

.

How would I reword it?

The thesis I agree with 100%: "No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in."

But how can we utilize 'all voices' if we ostracize those who are irrational, seditious, and dishonest? Who determines who those people are? Oldfart, for instance, immediately put me in that group. There are at least a couple of dozen other members at USMB who would put me in that group and do so pretty consistently.

So I would have explained the thesis with a concept of soliciting all opinions and looking at the pros and cons of those opinions without prejudice or preconceived notions and examining each on merit with the goal of achieving consensus on which has the most merit. While we can use history and documented track records to inform us, what should not be included--what should not be allowed--in that process is attacking any person, group, or entity, past or present, in that process.

 

[norwegen]

By Reflective Centrism I do not mean mere fence sitting. Those who simply whirl about like a weathervane achieve nothing of long term value, except perhaps to enrich themselves.

I am trying to put together a set of principles to guide the centrist in making decisions that are intended to result in the best outcome for us as a people and as a nation, and not to focus on the needs of a few or the dictates of ideology. In fact this is a kind of un-ideology in that its first principle is the recognition of the limits of all ideology and of the human mind itself to truly grasp the nature of reality around us, both natural and contrived by man.

So, here they are, and please comment constructively. I am interested in any facet of this perspective I may have missed. Not really looking for editing services from anyone, lol.

Centrism would be Constitutionalism. Licentiousness is to the right. Liberalism is to the left.

So, a few points:

1. No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in.
...a. So ALL voices are needed to help define what that reality is and how to address issues that arise within it as we all work together toward a better future.
...b.We must respect the benevolent rational thoughts of our fellow citizens by extending to them courtesy and ostracizing those who are irrational, seditious and dishonest and to provide our own rational thinking supported by facts as far as we are able.

If we are to ostracize the irrational, seditious, and dishonest, then not all voices are needed.

2. All things must change as needed, must evolve with the surrounding environment or they die.
...a. However, it is wise to respect the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors, and change the things that require change through the framework of social and political institutions we have inherited by modifying/evolving what already functions rather than sweeping aside all that exists to build things from nothing but abstract models that are bereft of practical experience and wisdom.
...b. That being said, we have a duty to improve the reality we live in as much as possible and leave a better world for each new generation.

We are naturally inclined to improve our lots. We need not be duty-bound to it.

3. Human life is of eternal and infinite moral value.
...a. Human life cannot be sacrificed without due moral consideration and a clear and reviewable legal process that produces justice and not merely an undirected process.
...b. The innocent life of the unborn, children, and elderly must be protected for all our sakes as they are the seed and guides for our future.
...c. We are defined by how we think, act, and live our lives, and not by race, gender or sect and so the government should be blind to those elements not directly related to the specific individuals involved in whatever process is ongoing within the government if that government is to be fair, just and win the love of its people.

What about the others, say from adolescence through middle age? Are they not innocent as well? If not, they should not be protected? And if they're not innocent, what makes the elderly innocent?

4. All human beings have the right to pursue Truth as they best understand it, and to freely conduct themselves in a manner that is consistent within their own moral values system.
...a. In connection to this we all also have the right to pursue happiness, to own property and to defend ourselves from threat as individuals.
...b. We all have the right to think and speak freely and to live a life of liberty so long as we are incompliance with just laws derived from the common will of our people and cause no direct harm to our fellow man.
...c. We have innate human rights not though the permission of the government but through the very nature of who we are as human beings utilizing the gifts given to us by our Creator in what way we think best serves our values, interests and goals.
...d. Government censorship or economic extortion should never be used to silence those minority groups who engage in benevolent, rational discourse.

Some people see truth in barbaric places. Murder, rape, abortion.

5. The role of government is to protect the people from threat, internal and external, and to provide the necessary measures so that as many as possible may be as happy as possible.
...a. In our quickly changing and complex modern world, the government must provide a social safety net that can fill in for antiquated institutions that once provided for social stability and confidence in the security of each of us in our infirmity.
...b. The principle of subsidiarity should be a guide for government policy making as often expressed in the phrase, 'the government that governs best governs LEAST'. Let the lowest levels of government address problems first, then escalate up the chain as necessary till the problem is addressed.
...c. When government solves problems, it isn't because of how much money is thrown at the problem. Solutions require PEOPLE to use their best talents, what funding is necessary and creative/innovative thought. The government should lead and guide, not dictate, suppress and restrict needlessly as the private secotr addresses theneeds of the people.

When government provides "the necessary measures so that as many as possible may be as happy as possible," does it exclude some? Why can't we all be as happy as possible? Our happiness cannot depend on government.

And if government should lead and guide, how shall it govern least? Government is a creation of the people. It may regulate society (make it regular), but if it leads society, then society becomes a creation of the government.

6. Government should be certain, careful and slow to act in peace time, and determined, focused and relentless in emergency periods.
...a. While martial law is sometimes needed in war or emergency, in peace time the security of individual liberty outweighs the needs of efficiency on our government. A balanced division of powers within the government is preferable to a unicameral government that has no checks to its power because it moves more carefully and with greater caution to protect and respect the rights of its citizens.
...b. Oppressive large governments have proven to be more destructive than the worst brigandry and natural disasters combined. To remain truly free, a citizenry must remain vigilant and protect their rights and interests internally as much as externally.
...c. The private sector provides more motivation, creativity, ingenuity and resourcefulness than the government. Where governments find shortages they ration; where businesses find shortages they expand to fill that market. The role of government is to harness that power through over-sight and regulation that does not strangle that creativity and productivity.
...d. Government social programs can encourage dependency on itself, and so those who can work should work so that those who cannot or can no longer work are provided for.

I don't understand section d. Who should provide for people who can't work? The government or the private sector? In either case, you are suggesting coercion.

7. The use of compromise is a beneficial device that enables government to function more smoothly and utilizes the knowledge, experience and concerns of the vast majority of our fellow citizens to secure our future, more ably govern and provide justice, opportunity and stability for each of us.
...a. No ideology is so certain that all the concerns and objections of that ideologies opponents may be dismissed without consideration and being voiced as policies are developed.

Compromise is just an admission of uncertainty. Government should lead and guide, remember?

Compromise, i.e., weakness, is how this republic devolved into a democracy.

8. In order to best serve the will and expression of the people, the freedom to form various assemblies to address the interests of each person needs to remain unfettered and given full access to the democratic processes of our Republic.

300 million interests?

9. Nations are the expression of the existence of a people. Defined by their culture and language, each people has the right to defend their culture, their economic interests and their ability to pursue their own idea of happiness together.
...a. The United States is unique among nations to define itself not by a single culture so much as by a coalition of energetic people of good will who's primary purpose is to live alongside each other in freedom.
...b. This great experiment must not fail, for it is an example to all mankind of the value of peaceful cooperation and peaceful coexistence under a common government defined by a written foundational Constitution.

The American culture should be a single culture. Naturalization is intended to assimilate people, not simply to plant them next to each other.

10. Peace is best served by building bridges of economic cooperation, exchange of ideas, and the fraternal networking of all people of good will in every nation. Though national interests are of great importance, we all need to respect the common bonds that bind all people of good will together and allow us to work for peace and a better future for all mankind.

We already respect common bonds (why would we disrespect something we're agreeable to?).

National interests and world peace seem contradictory.

 

[Foxfyre]

National interests and world peace seem contradictory? Could you explain Norwegen?

 

[norwegen]

National interests and world peace seem contradictory? Could you explain Norwegen?

Interests held to be independent of or distinct from those of other nations are not bonds in common with them. The OP suggested that common bonds foster peace.

Whereas hostile interests among individuals may foster freedom of association, competition, prosperity, etc., among nations, hostile interests lead to war.

 

[Foxfyre]

National interests and world peace seem contradictory? Could you explain Norwegen?

Interests held to be independent of or distinct from those of other nations are not bonds in common with them. The OP suggested that common bonds foster peace.

Whereas hostile interests among individuals may foster freedom of association, competition, prosperity, etc., among nations, hostile interests lead to war.

I'm not sure I see where you're going with that, and maybe you'll clarify further? I see the USA as doing a lot of business with a lot of countries that don't share our language, our predominant religions, our core values, or our political system. I'm not sure such differences in themselves are conducive to hostilities.

What HAS produced hostilities among nations is one presuming to achieve dominance and control over another and/or interfering with critical interests of one or more countries. For instance, when Saddam Hussein overran Kuwait with its significant oil fields and was obviously ready to then invade Saudi Arabia, then President G.H.W. Bush called up 50 of his best friends who just happened to run countries and quickly put together a coalition to stop Hussein. Not for Kuwait or Saudi Arabia's benefit, but to defend the free world from having a tyrant tie up a huge percentage of the world's oil supply. Desert Storm, however, never would have happened if Hussein had not demonsrated such aggression and aggressive intent.

It is the same here in the USA. We Americans generally get along quite well with people of opposing political parties, beliefs, convictions, religions, etc. UNTIL somebody tries to demand that the rest of us adopt, respect, or give special advantage to this group or that group. And then things become hostile pretty quickly.

What I mean to say here is that I do not think it is our differences that create the problems, but rather it is the determination of some to force others to accept something that they don't believe in or agree with.

 

[norwegen]

National interests and world peace seem contradictory? Could you explain Norwegen?

Interests held to be independent of or distinct from those of other nations are not bonds in common with them. The OP suggested that common bonds foster peace.

Whereas hostile interests among individuals may foster freedom of association, competition, prosperity, etc., among nations, hostile interests lead to war.

I'm not sure I see where you're going with that, and maybe you'll clarify further? I see the USA as doing a lot of business with a lot of countries that don't share our language, our predominant religions, our core values, or our political system. I'm not sure such differences in themselves are conducive to hostilities.

What HAS produced hostilities among nations is one presuming to achieve dominance and control over another and/or interfering with critical interests of one or more countries. For instance, when Saddam Hussein overran Kuwait with its significant oil fields and was obviously ready to then invade Saudi Arabia, then President G.H.W. Bush called up 50 of his best friends who just happened to run countries and quickly put together a coalition to stop Hussein. Desert Storm, however, never would have happened if Hussein had not demonsrated such aggression and aggressive intent.

It is the same here in the USA. We Americans generally get along quite well with people of opposing political parties, beliefs, convictions, religions, etc. UNTIL somebody tries to demand that the rest of us adopt, respect, or give special advantage to this group or that group. And then things become hostile pretty quickly.

No, not hostilities; hostile interests. Countries engage in commerce because they're not homogeneous clones of each other. They don't all make the same products, for example. That's why marketplaces exist, both among nations and among individuals.

To be sure, national interests are hostile interests, and foster commerce, just as they do with individuals. But the rights of individuals - in America, anyway - are protected. Individuals may seek recourse when they're wronged. When a nation's interests clash with those of another, and hostilities ensue rather than an agreement, then what happens? Who mediates? The UN?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Foxfyre and norwegen hose are some good comments and I swear I will get back to them, but not now. Booked up for most of the rest of the day, I think, but can probably get back to you two tomorrow.

Thanks for the constructive discussion!

 

[zeke]

Not agreeing with either right or left is not necessarily being a centrist, however. I also frequently disagree with those on both right and left who are arguing a point, but I would never describe myself as a centrist.

Because I don't believe A or B but do believe C does not necessarily equate with C = the center.

So coming back to JB's #1 on the list in the OP:

1. No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in.
...a. So ALL voices are needed to help define what that reality is and how to address issues that arise within it as we all work together toward a better future.
...b.We must respect the benevolent rational thoughts of our fellow citizens by extending to them courtesy and ostracizing those who are irrational, seditious and dishonest and to provide our own rational thinking supported by facts as far as we are able​

.

How would I reword it?

The thesis I agree with 100%: "No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in."

But how can we utilize 'all voices' if we ostracize those who are irrational, seditious, and dishonest? Who determines who those people are? Oldfart, for instance, immediately put me in that group. There are at least a couple of dozen other members at USMB who would put me in that group and do so pretty consistently.

So I would have explained the thesis with a concept of soliciting all opinions and looking at the pros and cons of those opinions without prejudice or preconceived notions and examining each on merit with the goal of achieving consensus on which has the most merit. While we can use history and documented track records to inform us, what should not be included--what should not be allowed--in that process is attacking any person, group, or entity, past or present, in that process.

Do you think it difficult to determine who or what is "irrational, seditious or dishonest? How have those character faults become subjective? There are no universal truths? No actions that fall outside of accepted norms?

And if general consensus is that a certain individual acts as described (irrational, seditious or dishonest) why would anyone seek their opinion on anything?

And some views don't have merit worthy of consideration.
But I do agree that showing an element of restraint to a POV is possible. Unless the POV is so egregious that it can't be tolerated.

Then it is game on.

Just curious.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interests held to be independent of or distinct from those of other nations are not bonds in common with them. The OP suggested that common bonds foster peace.

Whereas hostile interests among individuals may foster freedom of association, competition, prosperity, etc., among nations, hostile interests lead to war.

I'm not sure I see where you're going with that, and maybe you'll clarify further? I see the USA as doing a lot of business with a lot of countries that don't share our language, our predominant religions, our core values, or our political system. I'm not sure such differences in themselves are conducive to hostilities.

What HAS produced hostilities among nations is one presuming to achieve dominance and control over another and/or interfering with critical interests of one or more countries. For instance, when Saddam Hussein overran Kuwait with its significant oil fields and was obviously ready to then invade Saudi Arabia, then President G.H.W. Bush called up 50 of his best friends who just happened to run countries and quickly put together a coalition to stop Hussein. Desert Storm, however, never would have happened if Hussein had not demonsrated such aggression and aggressive intent.

It is the same here in the USA. We Americans generally get along quite well with people of opposing political parties, beliefs, convictions, religions, etc. UNTIL somebody tries to demand that the rest of us adopt, respect, or give special advantage to this group or that group. And then things become hostile pretty quickly.

No, not hostilities; hostile interests. Countries engage in commerce because they're not homogeneous clones of each other. They don't all make the same products, for example. That's why marketplaces exist, both among nations and among individuals.

To be sure, national interests are hostile interests, and foster commerce, just as they do with individuals. But the rights of individuals - in America, anyway - are protected. Individuals may seek recourse when they're wronged. When a nation's interests clash with those of another, and hostilities ensue rather than an agreement, then what happens? Who mediates? The UN?

Very few people get up and go to work every day for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They work to serve their own interests first, and if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that can be something nice that makes them feel good.

Very few businesses operate for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They operate to serve the interests of their owners which is to make a profit and, if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that also can contribute to good feelings.

I know of no countries that operate for the primary purpose of serving anything other than its own interests. If others happen to benefit, that can be a good thing too, but no country organizes itself into a country for the purpose of making a better world.

All this is to say that it is each working for his own self interests that makes it work--serves the greater good. We do not have to agree or share values or beliefs or even like each other in order to work together for mutual good. But it does require that we each allow the other to be who and what they are. Once one starts trying to force the other to do anything, it will begin to deteriorate fast.

 

[norwegen]

I'm not sure I see where you're going with that, and maybe you'll clarify further? I see the USA as doing a lot of business with a lot of countries that don't share our language, our predominant religions, our core values, or our political system. I'm not sure such differences in themselves are conducive to hostilities.

What HAS produced hostilities among nations is one presuming to achieve dominance and control over another and/or interfering with critical interests of one or more countries. For instance, when Saddam Hussein overran Kuwait with its significant oil fields and was obviously ready to then invade Saudi Arabia, then President G.H.W. Bush called up 50 of his best friends who just happened to run countries and quickly put together a coalition to stop Hussein. Desert Storm, however, never would have happened if Hussein had not demonsrated such aggression and aggressive intent.

It is the same here in the USA. We Americans generally get along quite well with people of opposing political parties, beliefs, convictions, religions, etc. UNTIL somebody tries to demand that the rest of us adopt, respect, or give special advantage to this group or that group. And then things become hostile pretty quickly.

No, not hostilities; hostile interests. Countries engage in commerce because they're not homogeneous clones of each other. They don't all make the same products, for example. That's why marketplaces exist, both among nations and among individuals.

To be sure, national interests are hostile interests, and foster commerce, just as they do with individuals. But the rights of individuals - in America, anyway - are protected. Individuals may seek recourse when they're wronged. When a nation's interests clash with those of another, and hostilities ensue rather than an agreement, then what happens? Who mediates? The UN?

Very few people get up and go to work every day for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They work to serve their own interests first, and if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that can be something nice that makes them feel good.

Very few businesses operate for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They operate to serve the interests of their owners which is to make a profit and, if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that also can contribute to good feelings.

I know of no countries that operate for the primary purpose of serving anything other than its own interests. If others happen to benefit, that can be a good thing too, but no country organizes itself into a country for the purpose of making a better world.

All this is to say that it is each working for his own self interests that makes it work--serves the greater good. We do not have to agree or share values or beliefs or even like each other in order to work together for mutual good. But it does require that we each allow the other to be who and what they are. Once one starts trying to force the other to do anything, it will begin to deteriorate fast.

Right. Hostile interests.

A less confusing term might have been competing interests.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, not hostilities; hostile interests. Countries engage in commerce because they're not homogeneous clones of each other. They don't all make the same products, for example. That's why marketplaces exist, both among nations and among individuals.

To be sure, national interests are hostile interests, and foster commerce, just as they do with individuals. But the rights of individuals - in America, anyway - are protected. Individuals may seek recourse when they're wronged. When a nation's interests clash with those of another, and hostilities ensue rather than an agreement, then what happens? Who mediates? The UN?

Very few people get up and go to work every day for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They work to serve their own interests first, and if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that can be something nice that makes them feel good.

Very few businesses operate for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They operate to serve the interests of their owners which is to make a profit and, if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that also can contribute to good feelings.

I know of no countries that operate for the primary purpose of serving anything other than its own interests. If others happen to benefit, that can be a good thing too, but no country organizes itself into a country for the purpose of making a better world.

All this is to say that it is each working for his own self interests that makes it work--serves the greater good. We do not have to agree or share values or beliefs or even like each other in order to work together for mutual good. But it does require that we each allow the other to be who and what they are. Once one starts trying to force the other to do anything, it will begin to deteriorate fast.

Right. Hostile interests.

A less confusing term might have been competing interests.

I'm thinking about that. Interesting twist on the issue. I can see two countries who hold each other in contempt or see each other as inferior or unacceptable in some other way who would still do business because one needed a market for a finished product and the other needed a market for its sugar or coffee or whatever. So even though they don't like each other, they serve each other's interests.

I'm trying to think of what a competing interest might be.

 

[norwegen]

Very few people get up and go to work every day for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They work to serve their own interests first, and if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that can be something nice that makes them feel good.

Very few businesses operate for the primary purpose of serving the common good. They operate to serve the interests of their owners which is to make a profit and, if there is some benefit to others in the process, then that also can contribute to good feelings.

I know of no countries that operate for the primary purpose of serving anything other than its own interests. If others happen to benefit, that can be a good thing too, but no country organizes itself into a country for the purpose of making a better world.

All this is to say that it is each working for his own self interests that makes it work--serves the greater good. We do not have to agree or share values or beliefs or even like each other in order to work together for mutual good. But it does require that we each allow the other to be who and what they are. Once one starts trying to force the other to do anything, it will begin to deteriorate fast.

Right. Hostile interests.

A less confusing term might have been competing interests.

I'm thinking about that. Interesting twist on the issue. I can see two countries who hold each other in contempt or see each other as inferior or unacceptable in some other way who would still do business because one needed a market for a finished product and the other needed a market for its sugar or coffee or whatever. So even though they don't like each other, they serve each other's interests.

I'm trying to think of what a competing interest might be.

A transaction that two parties make would not be the reason they dislike each other. It would be a reason for agreement.

Hostile interests are what create marketplaces. They're the reasons we recognize such rights as freedom of association, freedom of worship, etc.

If we all had similar interests, our society would be homogeneous. It would be a collective of the most liberal sort. Our entire innovative capacity in a generation would amount to the innovative capacity of a single person.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not tracking or following too well on that Norwegan. (Which is most likely my fault ) But I still don't see what you mean by competing interests being the source of hostility. Maybe an example would help?

 

[norwegen]

I'm not tracking or following too well on that Norwegan. (Which is most likely my fault ) But I still don't see what you mean by competing interests being the source of hostility. Maybe an example would help?

They're not the source of hostility, except when mediation fails (agreement, concession, recourse, etc.). When the national interests of two countries clash, and without resolution, which often happens, then kiss world peace good-bye.

This means war!

Maybe I should have said that national interests and world peace are sometimes contradictory, and that among nations, hostile interests sometimes lead to war. But as long as we're sometimes at war, we still would not have achieved world peace.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not agreeing with either right or left is not necessarily being a centrist, however. I also frequently disagree with those on both right and left who are arguing a point, but I would never describe myself as a centrist.

Because I don't believe A or B but do believe C does not necessarily equate with C = the center.

So coming back to JB's #1 on the list in the OP:

1. No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in.
...a. So ALL voices are needed to help define what that reality is and how to address issues that arise within it as we all work together toward a better future.
...b.We must respect the benevolent rational thoughts of our fellow citizens by extending to them courtesy and ostracizing those who are irrational, seditious and dishonest and to provide our own rational thinking supported by facts as far as we are able​

.

How would I reword it?

The thesis I agree with 100%: "No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in."

But how can we utilize 'all voices' if we ostracize those who are irrational, seditious, and dishonest? Who determines who those people are? Oldfart, for instance, immediately put me in that group. There are at least a couple of dozen other members at USMB who would put me in that group and do so pretty consistently.

So I would have explained the thesis with a concept of soliciting all opinions and looking at the pros and cons of those opinions without prejudice or preconceived notions and examining each on merit with the goal of achieving consensus on which has the most merit. While we can use history and documented track records to inform us, what should not be included--what should not be allowed--in that process is attacking any person, group, or entity, past or present, in that process.

Do you think it difficult to determine who or what is "irrational, seditious or dishonest? How have those character faults become subjective? There are no universal truths? No actions that fall outside of accepted norms?

And if general consensus is that a certain individual acts as described (irrational, seditious or dishonest) why would anyone seek their opinion on anything?

And some views don't have merit worthy of consideration.
But I do agree that showing an element of restraint to a POV is possible. Unless the POV is so egregious that it can't be tolerated.

Then it is game on.

Just curious.

You said it better than I did.

Thank you for the help, lol, sometimes I think I have a built-in discommunication gene. lol.