@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Analysis==
+[[category:debates/informal]]
-[[category:commentary]][[category:!article]]
+==Round 1==
-===Preface===
+===Midian===
-This post is mainly about [[2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican|an article]] written by [[Jonathan Haidt]], but adding two things:
-* Focus on the two paragraphs beginning with "A Durkheimian ethos...", implying that they are of particular interest
-* The parting "You might even conclude, as I suspect Haidt does, that Republican voters tend to be more nuanced and sophisticated than Democratic voters."
-If we're talking about the validity of Barone's post, then, we're mainly talking about the validity of Haidt's article (with emphasis on those two paragraphs) plus Barone's additional parting shot.
-[[2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle|Here is the analysis of the Haidt piece]]; it's a logical and scientific mess.
-Barone's interpretation of it:
-<blockquote>You might even conclude, as I suspect Haidt does, that Republican voters tend to be more nuanced and sophisticated than Democratic voters.</blockquote>
-....yyyyeahhh, right.
-What Haidt has shown is that Republican voters will buy anything if it's packaged right, and that he is willing to sacrifice the integrity of his own research (by front-loading his starting premises) to make his results appealing to them. He argues strenuously for the right of conservatives to choose one's medicine based on what color it is, and that it is the doctor's fault for not making the right medicine the right color because chromatic consistency is necessary for their group identity and all their cute little institutions will fall apart if they start looking inside things to see what they are made of instead of just reading the name on the cereal box. If it's called "Sugar-Coated American Family Jesus Puffs", it can't be bad, right?
-Keeping the kids away from the heavy machinery is still the ticket here, I think.
-=Opinions=
-==Midian==
 As a liberty-minded individual, I vote Republican only because I cannot come around to the Democrat mindset.
 * The premise that an unborn child's life is worth less than a convicted murderer; murder is murder, all life is sacrosanct, I am against capital punishment AND free (gov. funded) abortion, but if I had to choose, as I do in politics, my choice is clear, I side with the innocent.
@@ Line 44: / Line 25: @@
 Yes, the government should fear -- or at least be answerable and accountable to -- the people. We seem to be losing that. (...with help from Republican arguments against "populism", thanks. The Republicans ''are not your friends on this issue''.)
+==Round 2==
 ===Midian responds===
 * You have the chance to save an innocent baby from drowning or a convicted murderer. Who do you dive in and save?
@@ Line 89: / Line 70: @@
 ** I had never heard of that organization, but Wikipedia says they are now called the [[wikipedia:Brady Campaign|Brady Campaign]], and I do receive emails from them under that name -- although I have never sent them any money. They probably got my email address when I signed a petition against the [[Florida Stand Your Ground law|"shoot-first" law in Florida]].
 ** I am not a fan of personal weaponry. As our land fills up and fewer people live in rural or wild areas, they become less and less necessary and useful and more likely to be misused... and I do object to some of the more ridiculous positions taken by the NRA (no background checks? concealed weapons in national parks? WTF??).
+*** '''2009-11-19 update''': An email arrived today from The Brady Campaign which included this: "Did you know, in most states, people can walk into gun shows and purchase firearms -- from Glocks to AK-47s -- from unlicensed sellers without a Brady criminal background check? This is legal and a currently glaring loophole within America's background check system." Is this true?
 ** However, I concede: (1) that in some parts of the country they may be necessary; (2) making something illegal does not get rid of it, and sometimes makes it worse (e.g. the [[war on drugs]]); (3) I dislike the principle of banning personal ownership of any class of goods. This is something where it makes much more sense to defer to states' rights, rather than making a one-size-fits-all law for the whole country.
 ** I don't personally know of any liberals who are out to repeal the second amendment. I think this would be a mistake, a movement in the wrong direction (towards less personal freedom) -- or at least a major waste of time and effort.
@@ Line 125: / Line 107: @@
 That's not the America I grew up in, and it's not a direction I want to see us going in. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
+==Round 3==
 ===Midian's Response===
@@ Line 231: / Line 213: @@
 # Provide incentives to save money, as the military does. If an idea works better and saves money, 10% of the savings of the first year goes to the person who provided the idea.
 # Implement what works elsewhere. If NH does better with a 75/25% classroom/administration spending split, implement the same.
-===Woozle Responds - in progress===
+===Woozle Responds===
-'''Left vs. Right''': I think we agree on this overall; see [[political ideological axis]] for an overview, and [[political ideological axes]] for other ways of mapping political ideologies.
+====Left vs. Right====
+I think we agree on this overall; see [[political ideological axis]] for an overview, and [[political ideological axes]] for other ways of mapping political ideologies.
 I would add the caveat that there are a few politicians who are honest and are genuinely working for the public good, and from what I can tell there are substantially more of them on the Dem side than the GOP side. ''Both parties'', however, tend to marginalize such people, yes.
-[M] ''"I don't support either party, but vote with the politician more willing to cut back central control and return control to the states."''
+I would also add that if there is any real [[cultural polarization|culture war]] going on, it's between [[authoritarianism]] and anti-authoritarianism. The red/Republican/conservative/right camp tends to be energized by people wearing or bearing the appropriate symbols of authority, while the blue/Democrat/liberal/left camp is energized in the exact opposite direction by the outrageously stupid and harmful things those same people do and say; thus they keep us at one another's throats.
+: [M] ''"I don't support either party, but vote with the politician more willing to cut back central control and return control to the states."''
 Can you give some examples? Abortion rights are the obvious one where we would disagree, but I assume the principle extends beyond that.
-[M] ''"Typically, it has been the republicans who are more willing to cut taxes and special projects..."''
+: [M] ''"Typically, it has been the republicans who are more willing to cut taxes and special projects..."''
-They like to promote themselves as doing this, but as far as I can tell they are the worst about pork projects and irresponsible spending. They howl about the horrors of pork and special interests, then vote themselves more of it and sponsor legislation written by their biggest donors. Got any counterexamples?
+They like to promote themselves as doing this, but as far as I can tell they are the worst about pork projects and irresponsible spending. They howl about the horrors of pork and special interests, then vote themselves more of it and sponsor legislation written by their biggest donors. Got any counterexamples? (Well, okay, [[Ron Paul]]... who has been hugely marginalized by his own party. I might have voted for him, myself -- maybe even over Obama, depending on what I found when I researched him more thoroughly.)
+====Right-sizing of Government====
-[M] ''"Money is power, and the more tax dollars the government takes, the more power our government has to infringe its will on upon us."''
+: [M] ''"Money is power, and the more tax dollars the government takes, the more power our government has to infringe its will on upon us."''
 So you would rather do away with it? What do you see as the proper role of government? How do you propose to protect average individuals from abuse by the powerful? How do you propose that basic non-profit infrastructure (like roads, and safety rules) should be maintained? How do you propose that basic rights will be protected?
-[M] (referring to the [http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html Tytler quote], "...From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury...") ''"While the attribution of the above quote is under dispute, the contents are not."''
+: [M] (referring to the [http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html Tytler quote], "...From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury...") ''"While the attribution of the above quote is under dispute, the contents are not."''
 Actually, they are -- it is demonstrably untrue. I maintain that, as David Brin puts it,
@@ Line 266: / Line 251: @@
 I also put it to you that it is not "the majority" voting themselves "largesse" (Tytler) or "more money and more power" (as you put it), but that aristocratic elite -- a group which has been singularly well-defended by your favorite party. (True, they have not been without help from the Dems too, but most of the Dems do at least pay lip-service to the idea that money shouldn't be able to buy votes; the GOP, however, seems to think that this is somehow representative of the proper functioning of capitalism, and therefore the American Way.)
-[M] ''"Second, everything the government does that costs anything is being foisted on society because it comes from OUR money."''
+: [M] ''"Second, everything the government does that costs anything is being foisted on society because it comes from OUR money."''
 And you vote for how it is spent, too. Can you say the same for the money you give to, say, insurance companies?
-I think your real beef comes from the fact that the federal government has become corrupted by special interests -- or perhaps the corruption is just more obvious now, given that we have access to much more information than we did a few years ago, and also that it seems to be getting worse -- and thus you aren't seeing the economic benefits of a properly-functioning government.
+I think your real beef comes from the fact that the federal government has become corrupted by special interests that do not represent your wishes -- or perhaps the corruption is just more obvious now, given that we have access to much more information than we did a few years ago, and also that it seems to be getting worse -- and thus you aren't seeing the economic benefits of a properly-functioning government.
 I ''don't'' see that making government "smaller" will solve the problem; that just gives the special interests more power to either corrupt the system further and control you directly (if the government's power to intervene is reduced).
@@ Line 286: / Line 271: @@
 I'll agree that there might be better ways -- more competition-driven ways, even -- to handle some of these things, but the point is that you need to propose and implement a new solution before you do away with the old one. As flawed as it may be, having nothing at all would be disastrous.
+:
-Again: we're not a frontier anymore, where a man can protect his family with a shotgun and a gritty look in his eye; how do you propose protecting the lay citizenry against the powerful? Against disasters?
+Again: we're not a frontier anymore, where a man can protect his family with a shotgun and a gritty look in his eye; how do you propose protecting the lay citizenry against the powerful? Or, for that matter, against disasters (personal or large-scale)?
-I put it to you that we are a sufficiently wealthy society that even the poorest and least capable of us should be able to have a comfortable and safe place to sleep, enough to eat, and basic medical care. I'm tired of seeing homeless people begging on the corner -- and I don't care how useless they may be as people; they should be taken care of. '''How do you propose ensuring that this happens?'''
+I put it to you that we are a sufficiently wealthy society that even the poorest and least capable of us should be able to have a comfortable and safe place to sleep, enough to eat, and basic medical care. I'm tired of seeing homeless people begging on the corner -- and I don't care if it turns out they are absolutely useless as people; they should be taken care of. We have the resources, even now. '''How do you propose ensuring that this happens?'''
 Over the past 15 years or so, more than half of the growth in our economy has gone [[2009-08-05 The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States|to the wealthiest 1% of our population]]. Shouldn't you be agitating that those folks should be paying more, to contribute their fair share back to the society that has done so well by them, rather than arguing that we all need to tighten our belts a bit?
 I put it to you that your opinions are being manipulated by that [http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-31.htm extraordinarily well-off 1%] -- playing on your sense of virtue -- so that ''they'' can "vote themselves largesse" in the form of undeserved tax cuts, making it necessary ''for you and me to pay more to get the same services we all need''.
+====Gay Marriage====
-[M] ''"Should a state decide gay marriage should be allowed, it should be able to do that."''
+: [M] ''"Should a state decide gay marriage should be allowed, it should be able to do that."''
 When a state outlaws a basic human activity for certain people, isn't that government interference?
@@ Line 304: / Line 289: @@
 Furthermore, the forces of anti-gay seem to have no qualms about interfering across state lines on this issue (e.g. the huge support from various outside interests to deny gay marriage in California and Maine) -- which ''makes this a matter of interstate commerce'', which means that the federal government has the power to regulate it.
-[M] ''"The only things the federal government should be doing is providing for the common defense (the military), insure domestic tranquility (interstate commerce, FBI), and promote the general welfare (serious gray area here, covered later)."''
+: [M] ''"The only things the federal government should be doing is providing for the common defense (the military), insure domestic tranquility (interstate commerce, FBI), and promote the general welfare (serious gray area here, covered later)."''
 As I said, ensuring human rights is also something pretty clearly under the federal government's jurisdiction; if you think it shouldn't be, then you should be calling for a repeal of the Bill of Rights.
+====Abortion====
+: [M] ''"At what point is a human being a human being? From an evolutionary and scientific standpoint, as soon as the fertilized egg cell starts dividing, it is a unique life."''
+So is a sperm, or an egg. This is essentially an arbitrary dividing point. Some other dividing points one might use:
+* At what point is it capable of surviving without support from the mother?
+* At what point does its heart begin to beat?
+* At what point can it feel pain?
+* At what point does it have the capability for thought?
+* At what point do the newer brain structures (those unique to ''homo sapiens'') begin to develop? At what point are they functional?
+* At what point does it become sufficiently unique that it could actually be distinguished from other embryos/infants at the same stage of development?
+It's not clear to me that any of these questions are directly relevant in deciding whether or not it would be better to abort or not, though they could certainly figure prominently in the decision.
+: [M] ''"Parasitic to a point, reliant on its host for nourishment, however, still a separate and unique life nonetheless. As a unique life, does it not also deserve "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"?"
+Again, the same argument could be made of criminals. (I'll assume there's an implicit "human" qualifier in there, otherwise the argument also applies to mosquitoes and bacteria.)
+But sure, I'll bite: yes, every human fetus deserves life. We all deserve a lot of things, and sometimes we don't get them because of circumstances. Life sucks that way. Giving birth, I would argue, implies an obligation; if you know in advance you can't meet that obligation, it's better to break the contract sooner rather than later.
+If you mean is a fetus ''entitled'' to live, then I would have to ask: why?
+* This is a common assumption, but I don't think it is correct -- at least, not in this context. Also, it's not as if the women gain anything from the deal. I think your assumption may only apply when taking the subsidized action provides a clear benefit to the individual (e.g. tax incentives). Do you have any data on abortion rates vs. presence or absence of government funding?
+* Even if it turns out to be true, it is probably better than the alternative (i.e. poor women not being able to get abortions when they need them).
+...which of course I maintain it does.
+You assume once again that abortion is always due to negligence on the part of the mother. What about coercion, changing circumstances (prospective parents decide they want children -- then someone loses their job, and they can't afford to), bad luck (pregnancy in spite of proper contraception usage)?
+And why do you want the government to be the one who decides what's best for the parents and the child?
+: [M] ''"If I go base jumping, have an accident, and am a vegetable for the rest of my life, should the government (i.e. taxpayers of America) have to foot the bill for my medical treatment?"''
+If you don't have insurance or a family who can afford to foot the bill, isn't this what currently happens?
+: [M] ''"Agreed, an unwanted child is a bad thing. Yet, that child has the potential to be the next Mahatma Ghandi, Albert Einstein, Mozart, etc. Killing that potential is the worst option."''
+* S/he also has the potential to be the next Hitler, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Tim McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, or Dick Cheney.
+What do you think the odds are? For every shining example of humanity, how many horrible killers are there?
+* By this argument, every woman should have as many babies as she possibly can, from menarche to menopause... which often seems to be the pro-life point of view; no egg or ejaculation must be wasted, no copulation must be prevented from allowing "God's will" to manifest as a pregnancy. Is this what you are arguing?
+* I'll give up Einstein if the alternative is slavery, and that's what you're arguing for. The fetus is part of the woman's body until it is born, and you are arguing that the government or society owns it.
+I agree with your solutions overall, though I don't see why you would remove the right of gay/mixed-race/etc. couples to adopt regardless of state. What happens if such a couple adopts in one state and then moves (for reasons of employment, say) to a state where their adoption isn't recognized. Will they be treated fairly in that state? I doubt it.
+====Gun Ownership====
+''related: [[wikipedia:Gun politics in the United States]]''
+: [M] ''"When the police are not obligated to protect anyone ([[wikipedia:Castle Rock v. Gonzales|Castle Rock v. Gonzales]])..."''
+If this is the case, then what is the point of having police?
+That decision was evil, reinforcing my opinion of [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] as a religious hypocrite:
+* If the police cannot enforce a restraining order, then legislators need to provide some protection which ''can'' be enforced -- not just say "oh well, you're on your own, sorry about your murdered kids".
+* Why are you not more upset about this decision than about aborted fetuses? Those kids actually ''were'' murdered, and a (conservative) Federal judge said it was okay. It hardly seems very "pro-life".
+I also have to ask: why ''couldn't'' the police enforce a restraining order? If it was lack of funds, then the police need to be better funded. If it was that enforcement puts officers in too much danger, then perhaps the abuser should be restrained some other way. It is supposed to be their job to protect the innocent from the violent.
+If a court takes away their obligation to do this and then the gun lobby argues that we all need more guns as a consequence, this is morally equivalent to saying that a city doesn't need to maintain its roads, and we should all just buy tanks to get around in.
+This is not a direction I want to see America go in; it is a movement ''away'' from civil society and towards lawlessness.
+* I have never owned one, and never felt the need to own one. I do not know anyone who owns one (that I know of). My closest experience with firearms growing up was an air-powered pellet gun my father used to scare away stray dogs.
+* Note that I did not say it was ''always'' unnecessary, just ''largely'' unnecessary -- as in "most people will never need or want one". I did, if you will recall, concede "that in some parts of the country they may be necessary", and also "I dislike the principle of banning personal ownership of any class of goods", so I do favor retaining the basic right to own them.
+I just (a) think the NRA goes overboard when it demands the right to own things like assault weapons,  tries to reduce or eliminate waiting periods and background checks, and other measures which seem more aimed at demonstrating their political power than at helping people to legitimately protect themselves, and (b) see other protections as being far more vital, and (c) the same people who are pro-gun seem to be among those who ignore (at best) or actively stomp on those other protections.
+To answer the specific cases in which you deem firearm ownership necessary:
+: [M] ''"1. Self defense: If someone breaks into your home with a firearm, how can you defend yourself without a firearm?"''
+:* Thinking back on the various break-in incidents I am familiar with personally, in no case was I or anyone else present when the break-in took place; they got in, got what they wanted, and got out again. If I had had a gun, they might have gotten that too.
+:* Statistics (which I'm sure you are aware of) show that a gun kept in the home is much more likely to be misused than to be used to repel an attacker.
+: [M] ''"2. Recreation: Skeet shooting and many other sports are about the skill of using a firearm."''
+:* Any particular form of recreation is by definition not a necessity. (Recreation in general is necessary, but it isn't necessary for any particular person to indulge in the specific recreational activity of hunting.) I'm not ''against'' recreational hunting, just pointing out that it's not something which should enjoy specific protections any more than owning a boat or a pair of skis should be. Car drivers have to have licenses, and cars are arguably much more of a necessity in many parts of the country than are guns. Guns are ''intended'' to wound or kill a living creature (not necessarily human) -- that is, they wound or kill ''when used properly'', whereas cars are only dangerous as a side-effect of their proper usage; used properly, and in the absence of bad luck, a car does not hurt anyone. The case for gun licensing seems pretty damn clear-cut to me -- but you also said you agree that background checks are "worth it if it prevents one criminal from obtaining a firearm"... so are there any points of disagreement in what I just said?
+:* Did I ever say this? Does any liberal organization argue that guns should be prohibited for hunting purposes? See my concessions, above.
+: [M] ''"While the population is growing, and the number of firearm owners, the number of accidental shootings is staying the same."''
+This is good news, if true. Do you have any sources I can put on the reference page I will eventually create for this issue?
+From what I hear, though, right-wing violence is up sharply, so I'd like to have more data on this.
+You're shooting yourself in the foot, here. I think keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals -- ''if it were possible'' -- would be a tremendous boon to society. Sure, they would use knives and garrotes and all kinds of ugly weapons I probably don't know about -- but there's still nothing quite as intimidating and dangerous as a gun.
+However, we both agree that banning guns is not going to prevent criminals from getting them, and might even make the problem worse. We have to look at all the different ideas which have been tried, and see which ones work best. From what I understand, waiting periods help reduce impulse crimes, and background checks make it harder for criminals to get guns in the first place and easier for police to take them away from criminals. These rules are an inconvenience for legitimate, law-abiding gun owners, but I don't see how they are an infringement of the right to own.
+Gun owners who are truly concerned for the public welfare would embrace these laws, knowing that the results will be fewer guns involved or implicated in crimes and deaths. (Again, are we disagreeing on this point? It doesn't look like it, but I don't want to assume too much from what you said briefly about background checks.)
+That's an interesting example. I propose that part of why it works well in Switzerland is that every male gun owner is required to go through extensive training on the proper use of such weaponry, as such training is surely part of the mandatory military service. I would be in favor of such a requirement for gun-owners in the US. I think it would be highly appropriate if all the money the NRA currently spends on lobbying and advertising were used to defray the personal cost of such training.
+It also should be noted that although Switzerland does seem to support your case, it is just one data point. I would like to see a graph of gun ownership versus violent crime rate across at least a dozen or so developed countries, to see if the trend holds true or if there are perhaps other factors involved. Drawing a firm conclusion from one example is a bad idea, especially when the conclusion has to do with cause-and-effect.
+: [M] ''"Repeated studies of inmates have shown the top two deterrents to home invasion are armed home owners and dogs."''
+...which does not change the fact that a gun kept in the home is more likely to be the cause of an accidental shooting than it is to be used in repelling a criminal.
+: [M] ''"Dianne Feinstein is one example off the top of my head that is insistent on the repeal of the second amendment."''
+[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTL As far as I can tell], she was talking about assault weapons. If the 2nd amendment stands in the way of banning assault weapons for personal use (which I don't think it does), then I do have a problem with it. If she really wants to take away ''all'' handguns... that would worry me.
+Either way, I'm already no fan of Feinstein's; she was on the side of the media giants in the battle over [[intellectual property]] rights, and that is something that actually matters to me. She may call herself liberal, but I am skeptical... and apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way: {{Wikipedia|Dianne Feinstein}} says "In 2007, activists from within the California Democratic Party made a push to censure Feinstein. The resolution, which cited Feinstein for "ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials" ultimately failed."
+: [M] ''"How effective is gun ownership on the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?"''
+Some points of clarification, just so you don't mistake what I am saying:
+* In order for this to apply, we would have to be talking about an invasion of the US by some outside force. (The US invasion of other countries involves armed soldiers, and nobody is proposing that they shouldn't have weapons.)
+* Although I do think such an invasion is extremely unlikely given the US's place in world politics and the ever-deadlier level of weaponry which could be brought to bear by any serious invader, I would never use that as a reason to justify universal disarmament -- because you should always be prepared for the unexpected.
+That said... if we were hoping that an armed US citizenry could be of any ''real'' use against invaders, I think we would need a great deal more weaponry -- and I don't think handguns would be much use. We would need the sorts of weapons commonly associated with terrorism, because that is the kind of warfare you have when an armed civilian population attempts to repel military invaders.
+Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but that sort of equipment and supplies -- including many with legitimate peacetime uses, such as [[htyp:Red Devil lye|lye]] -- has increasingly been [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry_pr.html banned or restricted] by the federal government due only to their association with terrorism and drug manufacture.
+If you're going to make noise about the government taking away your weapons, I'd start with those -- and [[Citizen disempowerment|I'll join you]].
+But hanguns? Feh. If that were all we had to face in Iraq, we would have had peace years ago.
+Actually, I'm not sure that weaponry should be the focus, if we want to be serious about US citizens helping to repel invasion. Weapons would be nearly useless. We would need a citizen-controlled, non-central defense infrastructure. If you want to argue for that, I'll support that as well.
+A well-armed and empowered citizenry, though, is exactly what the powers-that-be don't want -- which is why they keep us arguing about useless things like handguns, drawing attention away from the real destruction of citizen rights posed by legislation such as the [[Patriot Act]] and the [[2006 US Military Commissions Act|Military Commissions Act]].
+: [M] ''"And if the pilots of any of the flights involved in 9/11 were armed with firearms, the box cutter armed terrorists would have been cut off right quick, saving the lives of thousands."''
+I absolutely support the right of commercial pilots to carry firearms (we are already trusting them with a far more deadly weapon, and with all the lives on board). I find it damned peculiar that the rule allowing this was [http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/disarm.html rescinded just 2 months before 9/11]. If anyone is arguing against this, I would like to have a few words with them.
+That's a reasonable argument. (A question, though: aren't cities and counties allowed to ban private firearms? Is it against the Constitution to ban private firearms on public property?)
+The actual text is "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." What I get from this is that the citizenry must be allowed to keep and bear whatever sort of arms would be necessary in order to participate in a well-regulated militia -- without actually requiring membership in such militia in order to own arms.
+Unfortunately, there's so much vagueness there that it seems to me we need to stop treating the Constitution as scripture and figure out what we think is best.
+I'd say people should have the right to own guns in general. The less dense the area you live in, the fewer restrictions should be imposed on what kind of weapons you can have, and no class of goods should be completely prohibited. The only constraints on ''what'' should be based on ''where'' and ''how soon''.
+I think most of our disagreement may come from the fact that I have no emotional attachment to firearms, while you do seem to have some. I'm not sure that we actually disagree about what laws are appropriate and inappropriate.
+So... what types of weapons do you think private citizens should be allowed to own? Should we have citizen militia groups which are allowed to own more powerful weaponry? If so, should those groups be governmentally regulated (to ensure quality of teaching about firearm safety etc.)?
+====Common Welfare====
+How do you know? Explain, then, the popularity of political donations, charity donations, volunteerism? (And religious tithing, if you see religion as a good thing.) What kind of "majority" are we talking about, here -- 51%, 75%, 99.9%?
+I haven't even got to whatever point you're using this claim as an argument for, but I couldn't let it stand unchallenged because I do not think it is true in principle. Civilization only emerged because of, and depends upon, people cooperating and working for the common good.
+: [M] ''"The problem with all the above, and many other government programs, is whenever money is being handed out from anywhere but your own pocket, people are less likely to be accountable."''
+So what? I'd rather have 10 people "mooching" off the system (receiving a minimal living salary -- say $10-15k annually), who could work but would rather not, than see one guy out on the street corner begging for food for his family because he somehow doesn't "qualify" for aid.
+If someone would rather not work, given access to employment opportunities, why would I want to hire them? Why would I want ''anyone'' to hire them? They would probably do a lousy job and cost the business money, if that's their attitude. Let's feed, clothe, house, and educate them, and write off the loss. Maybe through education they will acquire a work ethic, but it's not something you can force.
+: [M] ''"As a welfare worker, what does it hurt me if I allow the man who can work but chooses not to stay on welfare?"''
+And how does it hurt us ''as citizens''?
+Let me put it this way. Do you know of anyone gainfully employed who would quit their job if they could get $10-15k a year for doing basically nothing? And let's say that, instead of stupidly cutting off this assistance abruptly if the person goes out and gets a part-time job at McDonald's, the welfare payments are ramped down gradually, so that earning money outside of welfare is encouraged rather than penalized.
+Would this person still quit working?
+If they ''would'' quit working, even under those extremely favorable circumstances, then is this really someone we should be hiring in the first place?
+We are an extremely wealthy society. We pay people large amounts of money to do things which really do not contribute to the common good in any way. I'd much rather give ''everyone'' a basic living -- whether they "earn" it or not -- than force people to invent useless jobs in the cause of maintaining the purity of our largely capitalistic wealth-redistribution system.
+: [M] ''"As a principal of a school, what do I care if the 50% of the kids who are graduating high school read at a 6th grade level, so long as I make six figures?"''
+This is an argument against concentration of power, not human goodness (or social welfare). 99% of the employees in that hypothetical school are probably not happy with this situation. Why is it allowed to continue? Accountability might be the problem -- but aren't principals supposed to be accountable to the school board? Why is the board letting this continue? Why aren't the parents up in arms to replace the school board for not taking action? Are there any actual cases of principals pulling down 6-figure salaries while still graduating sub-literates in significant quantities?
+In this (hypothetical) case, there is a clear incentive to cheat because the benefit goes to a small number of people and is thereby multiplied (lots of small budget cuts add up to a hefty annual bonus). With social welfare, the situation is reversed -- many people receive a relatively small amount of money, doled out in small amounts; they don't have much incentive to cheat, because the most they can receive in cash is a barely-living wage.
+Also, social welfare ''is'' supposed to be accountable -- ''all'' government is. If it's not, then the problem is the implementation, not the idea.
+: [M] ''"All these government programs have no accountability, and no way to fix them."''
+What do you mean "no way"? The laws were made by people, and they can be changed by people. (Much of the rest of your paragraph presumes this claim, so you need to defend that point.)
+Your points about comparisons with working models in other states are well-taken, however, and further investigation seems like a good idea. I'm not sure where to start. But there certainly is -- or should be -- accountability. "The Government" wasn't handed down to us from the mountain, fully-formed and immutable; it belongs to us, and if we can't change it to be more sensible, then that is a problem we need to look at very closely.
+'''Your solutions''':
+I can '''partly agree with #1''' (congressional salaries should be set by popular vote). I'm not sure making it a part-time job would be a good idea, because then congresscritters would have even ''less'' time to study the complex issues before them, and they are already much too happy to vote on things they don't understand.
+Also, reducing the salary might have some positive effects, but I suspect they would be outweighed by the negative.
+Consider: A working-level wage would mean that nobody would take the job for the money. However, I doubt very much that anyone's main motivation in running for Congress is because of the great salary. People who are motivated that way would still be motivated by the power.
+Further, it would mean that the job would only be appealing to those who already had enough money that they didn't ''need'' a real job. These are not the people we want to be selecting for.
+What might work better is to require lawmakers to put all their assets (other than basic needs -- one house, one car, $2k in cash, etc. -- the kind of assets they allow when you are applying for things like Medicaid) into a blind trust for the duration of office. This would make politics considerably ''less'' attractive to the well-off, and would be no hardship at all for those with few assets to begin with.
+(I would even suggest that they should have to live in public housing, but I'm not sure how this would fit in with the practicalities of attending Congress when it is in session. If you ask me, Congress meeting in person is a huge anachronism; the whole thing could be done much better if conducted via computer. Society has yet to work out reliable and trustworthy methodologies for this, so it's still a bit pie-in-the-sky at the moment, but this is something they could at least be working on intensively -- and as far as I can tell there has been zero interest in it, besides casual adoption of lightweight tools like Twitter and Facebook.)
+On your '''#2 suggestion''': You show me where this is clearly being violated ''now'', and we'll talk. It seems to me that the power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, provides quite a large umbrella for many things conservatives would rather see preserved as "states' rights".
+'''Suggestion #3''': Yes, I have heard that this is a problem in government, especially at the state level. I'd like to know what the arguments were for making the system the way it is now before I support any particular remedy -- what problems was it intended to fix, and how can we avoid causing those problems again by changing it? (Please note that the position I am taking here is technically ''conservative'', not liberal: if something complex is working at all, be cautious about how you propose to "fix" it.)
+'''Suggestion #4''': Again, I think you have to be careful of unintended consequences. You are setting up an incentive for an individual to benefit by doing away with something which may have been cost-effectively benefiting many people. There needs to be some third-party check on each "accomplishment" to make sure it really was in the best interests of those the organization is intended to serve; otherwise you get things like a corporate executive at a straw-manufacturer shaving half an inch off the length of the straws they make, thus saving the company $5,000,000/year in materials expenses -- but producing an inferior product. (And if the organization in question is a government, people can't just take their business elsewhere.)
+'''Suggestion #5''': Yes, though I'd like to hear what the objections are to doing this. (If there are no objections, then why aren't we?)
+==Round 4==
+===Midian===
+Ron Paul is who I voted for due to many of the reasons stated above. I even wrote him in for the general election because I knew he was the only one who would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
+Provide the services that can be provided locally (streets, unemployment, welfare, etc.) by the state, without the federal government taking their cut of the money. For the ones that cannot be done locally (FBI, CIA, military, medicare, social security) provide for that out of the taxes other than income tax. Income tax provides less than 1/3 the federal budget, that much pork can easily be cut by cutting kickbacks, subsidies, etc. and returning local services back to the states.
+The less money wasted on corruption and cronyism, the more we have available to do things like end poverty and hunger, starting at home, and expanding around the world. The longer we allow the pigs in Washington to make our decisions for us, the more they will siphon the money into their own pockets.
+Sperm and eggs are not complete nor unique. Until the sperm fertilizes an egg, they are just individual cells with limited utility, like skin cells. Once the egg is fertilized and starts splitting, the potential human is created. This is the point where a unique life begins. It isn't arbitrary, it is well defined, documented, and proven. As a pharmacist, would I provide the plan B pill, yes. Would I allow abortions? Up until the 2nd trimester, barring health of the mother issues. But I would do everything in my power to try to ensure that choice doesn't need to be made, for the health of the baby and the mother. And I wouldn't fund abortions making them free to allow their use as an irresponsible form of birth control.
+Why a fetus is entitled to live is the same reason any unique life is entitled to live.
+I feel like I am clarifying points more than presenting new ideas or defending them. What are YOUR suggestions?
+===Woozle===
+: [M] ''"Ron Paul is who I voted for due to many of the reasons stated above. I even wrote him in for the general election because I knew he was the only one who would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan."''
+If the GOP had fielded Paul instead of McCain, my choice would have been much tougher; in light of Obama's non-action towards getting out of Afghanistan, stopping torture, etc. -- and also his lack of movement forward on other issues he claimed to support, such as gay rights -- I might well be regretting voting for Obama now, if Paul had been the alternative.
+Given that McCain-Palin was the alternative -- with Palin being an unabridged horror of Biblical proportions, and McCain quickly trashing the significant respect I had for him by reversing his position on torture and repeatedly making it clear that his official views as a candidate were not his own -- this was just another step in the GOP's ongoing quest for complete insanity.
+There are some things I have heard about Paul that worry me a little, but since he was never a serious candidate I have not taken the time to [[Ron Paul|investigate him]] very thoroughly.
+: [M] ''"Why does the federal government need that much money? To pay for special projects and kickbacks to lobbyists."''
+This is a severe misrepresentation.
+The corrosive effects of such kickbacks are undeniable -- and they are undeniably a severe problem, even though in many cases intentions are good (see e.g. [[lessigwiki:Corruption|Lessig]]) -- but I don't think they are more than a fraction of the federal budget. A much larger portion of the budget is misspent through misguided but otherwise legitimate allocations, and that is a problem which also needs tackling.
+I think this is almost completely backwards.
+To paraphrase the gun lobby: Take away the legitimate power and money, and only the illegitimate will remain enriched and powerful.
+The government is supposed to be the instrument for promoting the common good and making sure everyone else plays fair. Take away the power to enforce this, take away the money for the enforcers (and the studies to determine what will work and what won't), and what do you think will happen?
+It's like arguing that because one team has a habit of bribing referees, we should have fewer referees or pay them less. (The fact that this corrupt team is using their ill-gotten gains to promote the idea of referee-reduction does not add any legitimacy to the idea.)
+: [M] ''"How did the government function until 1913, prior to income tax?"''
+That ''is'' very much a legitimate question. Some possible answers are obvious, but I'm leery of "obvious" answers; I'd like to know what the actual reasoning and facts were that led to this decision.
+Wikipedia [[wikipedia:Income tax in the United States|gives the following history]]:
+* '''1861''': First US personal income tax ever, to help pay for the Civil War -- 3% of all incomes over $800 (~$20k in 2009)
+* '''1862''': The above tax is repealed and replaced by another one.
+* '''1894''': the Wilson-Gorman tariff imposes the first US peacetime income tax -- 2% on income over $4000 (~$101k in 2009), fewer than 10% of households had to pay anything. Purpose was "to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions." (Whose tariffs were being reduced, and why? Suspicious.)
+* '''1895''': Supreme Court [[wikipedia:Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.|rules]] that taxes on property rents are unconstitutional; however, the "Court affirmed that the Constitution did not deny Congress the power to impose a tax on real and personal property."
+* '''1913''': States ratify the [[wikipedia:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|16th Amendment]], allowing "Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results" and overruling Pollock re taxing property rents.
+Some obvious questions:
+* How much did it cost to run the government (annually, in 2009 dollars) prior to 1913?
+* How much does it cost to run the government now?
+* What expenses have we added to make it cost more now?
+* What portion of tax revenue is now income tax? (Historical data going back to 1913 would be useful, too, so we can watch the evolution over time.)
+A tidbit I remember reading somewhere: income tax does ''not'' pay for government operations; it basically pays the ''interest'' on the Federal Debt. (This obviously needs to be verified, but clearly has some implications if true.)
+I think inquiry into income tax -- or more generally, how the government funds itself -- is a completely legitimate thing to be looking into. For one thing, the income tax code is orders of magnitude beyond being too complicated. A family member is a tax accountant by profession, and he says that every year they get this huge, unreadable manual delivered -- and he never bothers to read it until he has a specific question to answer. I suspect very strongly that it is written to favor those who are wealthy enough to afford private accountants who can spend hours and hours looking for and setting up ways of shaving off percentages. How this benefits American society is beyond me.
+Two proposals to throw into the hat:
+* Start taxing at a level of income that is high enough that nobody has any legitimate need for "exemptions", and base the tax rate on a simple mathematical formula. We will need some pretty serious income data to work out how high we can set the "maximum tax-free income level" and still pay for whatever needs to be paid for. We will also need to figure out exactly what income tax is paying for (see note below), and what other revenues are being used to pay for everything else.
+* Abandon income tax altogether, and replace the lost revenue by printing however much money is needed. This inflates the currency to some degree, and the question is how much inflation this would cause. It has been argued that this would essentially be a "flat tax", which is bad for poor people -- but unlike most flat taxes, it really only penalizes people who hold onto their money for any length of time, which poor people generally do not.
+Ok, I think we have a lot of common ground on this issue, but onward...
+That isn't because people actually ''want'' more pork, but because those politicians can (by virtue of having more pork to spread around the their circle of insiders) afford to buy more advertising... and favors.
+The rest of what you said in that paragraph sounds like you may be agreeing with me here... it is that the process is corrupt, not that the voters are greedy or selfish.
+Obviously we vote for the senators and representatives...but I take your point: we are too isolated from the decisions made at that level.
+Your solution is to make the federal government smaller. This might be a reasonable goal, but there's a small problem: if, somehow, Congress gathers the necessary momentum to start making this happen, who do you think will be making the decisions as to which programs to cut and which to keep?
+Yeah. Those same people we don't have enough influence over. And the ones with the most influence -- and the most to lose from a reduced government -- will make damn sure that ''their'' sources of income will continue.
+Note also that the size of government has more often decreased under Democratic presidencies than Republican ones, and I believe this is because Republicans are largely just using "small government" as an excuse to get away with whatever they want -- while Democrats more often genuinely want government to run well and serve the people it is supposed to serve.
+Republicans are not your friends on this issue either, as much as they pretend to be.
+: [M] ''"Provide the services that can be provided locally (streets, unemployment, welfare, etc.) by the state, without the federal government taking their cut of the money."''
+I agree with you in principle; the problem is that many of the individual states have a horrible record on some things (e.g. civil rights -- integration was opposed by many states, just as gay rights are now being opposed by an ever-decreasing number Perhaps if the integration issue had not been enforced at the federal level, they all would have come around on this issue -- but I tend to think it would have been a very, very long time and a great waste of human capital.)
+I need to look into this more, though, to see if my feeling about it is substantiated by facts.
+One question: under your plan, would we ever have a space program? Uniform laws from state to state? The Internet? Which parts of the FedGov would you actually cut?
+: [M] ''"The less money wasted on corruption and cronyism, the more we have available to do things like end poverty and hunger, starting at home, and expanding around the world."''
+This is certainly true... how much of our national resources are being squandered this way? And which groups are doing most of the squandering? (Do we agree that the Iraq War was not only a wasteful activity to begin with, but that it was also conducted in the most amazingly wasteful way?)
+: [M] ''"The longer we allow the pigs in Washington to make our decisions for us, the more they will siphon the money into their own pockets."''
+They're not all pigs, but again I take your point. (My impression is that far more GOP members qualify as "pigs" than Dems; the Dems are better described as "spineless worms"... mainly when they're not standing up to the "pigs", but again I have to wonder how much of this is just political theatre to keep us distracted from who is really pulling the strings.)
+We agree on these. Yay.
+: [M] ''"Sperm and eggs are not complete nor unique."''
+Neither is a fetus, without very specific tailor-made definitions of "complete" and "unique".
+: [M] ''"It isn't arbitrary, it is well defined, documented, and proven."''
+Hmm, I'd like to see that proof...
+: [M] ''"But I would do everything in my power to try to ensure that choice doesn't need to be made, for the health of the baby and the mother."''
+Check. I think we agree on a lot in this area.
+: [M] ''"And I wouldn't fund abortions making them free to allow their use as an irresponsible form of birth control."''
+Well, I've already explained my views and the reasons for them... but I could see a working compromise being reached on this. A big goal of mine at this point would be to get pro-life-leaning people to start working against abortion clinic violence and intimidation; towards that end, I would be willing to advocate a compromise position like this and backing down from supporting third-trimester abortions except under extraordinary circumstances (perhaps there should be some kind of review board, possibly even with a jury composed of 50% pro-lifers and 50% pro-choicers, to decide if a 3rd-tri abortion is reasonable or not).
+: [M] ''"Why a fetus is entitled to live is the same reason any unique life is entitled to live."''
+Nobody is arguing that an aborted fetus was aborted because it didn't ''deserve'' to live. Sometimes the circumstances just aren't right -- and as long as the fetus is part of the mother, in my view the mother has the right to decide what is best for both of them.
+: [M] ''"What are YOUR suggestions?"''
+I've given a few above -- in the areas of income taxation, popular control of the FedGov, and abortion (compromise treaty).
+I'll also add that I'd like to see the [[mainstream media]] completely deconsolidated. Given the abuses that happen when multiple print publications and broadcasters fall into just a few hands, I think we need to go the other way: nobody should be allowed to own more than one newspaper or broadcast station, and they should all be non-profit and community-owned. (I realize this is a bit of an extreme position, but I think it would be a very good experiment to try for about 20 years and then re-evaluate.)
+I also think the FedGov should be documenting itself much better than it currently does; I could go into an extensive lecture on this, but I'll spare you for now.
+What do you see as the biggest, most urgent problems America currently faces?
+==Round 4==
+===Midian: Tabula Rasa===
+A new beginning. Here's where I would start:
+====Return to the Constitution====
+The founding fathers were far more intelligent, prescient, and concerned with our nation as a whole than any of our politicians today. I disagree entirely with your protestations that the left is any less worse than the right in any manner whatsoever. [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout] [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574541841256040358.html]
+====Taxes====
+===Woozle: Tabula Response===
+====The Constitution====
+* [M] ''"The founding fathers were far more intelligent, prescient, and concerned with our nation as a whole than any of our politicians today."''
+I don't know that this is universally true, but one would have to do a lot of research to figure out which of today's politicians come anywhere near to the standard set by the founding fathers -- and the FFs weren't deeply entangled in a centuries-old political establishment, either, so they were much more free to act on their consciences.
+So, yeah, I'll agree with your basic assertion here: the Constitution is an honest document, and the vast majority of recent legislation far less so.
+* [M] ''"I disagree entirely with your protestations that the left is any less worse than the right in any manner whatsoever."''
+On what grounds? Obama's big betrayal is his failure to reverse many of Bush's worst policies and actions. To my knowledge, he has not ''initiated'' anything evil on his own, and he has done considerable reversal of some of Bush's lesser crimes.
+Yes, Obama has a lot to answer for -- but how can you possibly say that his spinelessness in declining to reverse every bit the neocon agenda is even ''comparable'' to the evil and malice of those who conceived and initiated that agenda in the first place?
+You speak of "tabula rasa" -- but let's not forget who got us into this mess, if you're going to blame Obama for not getting us out of it fast enough.
+"We" didn't do that; a few (relatively speaking) power-mongers did. My observation is that people only act foolishly en masse when persuaded by others -- as many are now being persuaded to act foolishly by the [[mainstream media|corporate-owned media]]. Otherwise how could we possibly have gotten as far as we did? It's not as if the Founding Fathers came down from on high and ''imposed'' freedom on the masses; people ''wanted'' freedom, and were rationally persuaded as to the best means of accomplishing that when presented with one.
+But sure, let's go back to the founding document and see what we should have.
+* [M] ''"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion."''
+[[Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion|It means]] the freedom to be personally free of religion if one chooses -- the right not to have a religion, the right to not take anything seriously if it cannot be defended on [[rational]] grounds. "Freedom" as in "not enslaved or owned by another".
+You are correct that it doesn't imply a freedom from ''exposure'' to religion. I don't think anyone is making that claim.
+* [M] ''"kids want to pray in school, they should be allowed the free exercise thereof."''
+Nobody is stopping them. I believe the ACLU (often accused of being a bastion of liberal anti-religious oppressiveness) has defended the right of ''individual'' students to pray in school on at least one or two occasions. [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/5/15/10043/6018] What is ''not'' okay is for the school -- or officials acting on behalf of the school -- to endorse religious activities; the reasons why religious people should see this as a ''good'' thing were explained by Thomas Jefferson.
+This includes things like courtroom displays of the [[Ten Commandments]], which really have absolutely nothing to do with our legal system other than a chance overlap on a few obvious items (like not murdering or stealing). Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
+* [M] ''"If you feel your view is not included, make your own display."''
+Then why is it that someone always seems to get upset if a Muslim wants to put up a display celebrating one of their holidays -- or an atheist wants to put up a non-religious seasonal display?
+* [M] ''"You cannot have the right to not be offended without removing the right of free speech."''
+I ''think'' we're agreeing here -- there is no right to [[freedom from being offended]].
+'''2nd amendment''': the problem is that the horrendous array of portable personal weapons currently available is nothing the founding fathers could reasonably have foreseen, and clearly they did not anticipate the social problems caused by such weaponry. We can't depend on the original language here; we ''have to decide how to handle this ourselves'' -- gleaning what wisdom we can from anything else the Founding Fathers may have had to say on the subject, but focusing more heavily on what effects have been accomplished by various levels of gun control in other countries.
+If you ''just'' want to look at the Constitution, it seems to me that the federal law can only be kept out of gun control if it can be shown that guns are not having a substantial effect on interstate trade. Once something becomes significant in that field, then the Constitution specifically grants the power to regulate it.
+'''4th amendment''': I think we're in agreement here.
+'''5th amendment''' and eminent domain: I think we're in agreement here too. I've never been a fan of eminent domain.
+'''6th amendment''' ''"Judges allowing the suppression of evidence does not allow the jury to be impartial."'' Again, we agree -- and I am heartened to see you taking anti-Bush-doctrine positions here and on the 4th amendment.
+I'm willing to concede that criminals are, in many cases, being treated too luxuriously -- though I have to wonder how many of the oft-quoted examples are real. Do you have any sources?
+The prison system is a huge mess, and needs reform. For-profit prison management companies have far too much power to set the agenda -- I believe they are at least partially responsible for the unprecedented percentage of our population which is in prison ''as well as'' many of the excesses in both good or bad treatment. This field needs to be much more accountable than it is -- and I doubt very much that private enterprise is a good way to handle it.
+: '''Addendum''': I see no need for prisons to be primarily an instrument of ''punishment'', unless there is data to show that this is an effective method of reducing crime. Prisons should serve one purpose: minimizing the amount of crime committed. This can be done by both (1) physically restraining convicted criminals from committing more crimes, and (2) finding ways to engage convicted criminals in something more productive so that when/if they return to society they will not also return to crime.
+'''10th amendment''': We would probably agree about a lot of specifics and disagree about a lot of others. We agree about the war on drugs, at least. I ''think'' we're agreeing that what one state legalizes for itself should not be binding on any other.
+'''14th amendment''': Here's what I have to say about [[User:Woozle/positions/hate crimes|hate crimes]].
+====Taxes====
+I think we agree that the income tax system needs to be overhauled and possibly eliminated; see the questions I asked in round 4. I do ''not'' think it can be replaced ''without'' first understanding what benefits it is considered essential in providing, however (and why). I suspect that, at the very least, we could do much better taxing ''only'' the rich, and using a very simple formula with no loopholes.
+On the subject of deficit spending, you might want to read [http://acandidworld.com/2009/11/19/if-not-the-deficit-then-what/ this].
+==Round 5==
+===Midian responds===
+[W] "but let's not forget who got us into this mess, if you're going to blame Obama for not getting us out of it fast enough."
+You mean Clinton? [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml] [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html] [http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/did-clinton-cause-the-banking-crisis.aspx]
+[W] "the problem is that the horrendous array of portable personal weapons currently available is nothing the founding fathers could reasonably have foreseen, and clearly they did not anticipate the social problems caused by such weaponry."
+I disagree. They knew the history of the advent of firearms, and the drastic changes from arrows to flintlocks. I believe they did foresee a future where technological advances would create even more advanced weaponry, and felt the best protection from usurpation would be total freedom for personal defense.
+[W] "The prison system is a huge mess, and needs reform."
+First, reform the laws. No victim-less crime should be punishable. Prostitution, drug possession, etc.
+Second, reform the courts. Any lawyer or judge who attempts to suppress evidence, either for or against a defendant should be disbarred on the spot. The law should rule, not whoever has the most money.
+[W] "I see no need for prisons to be primarily an instrument of punishment"
+What do you consider punishment? To reduce crime we need to reduce recidivism. If over 60% of criminals come back to jail after already spending time there, the current system is not a big enough deterrent.
+====Taxes====
+Constitutional amendment: Income tax imposed on no one with income less than the national average income.
+From that point up, a progressive tax starting at the 0% from the national average. No exemptions, no breaks, no loopholes. If the rich want to cut their taxes, they can get into politics and start by cutting the out-of-control spending in the government.
+====Deficit====
+====Implementation====
+As to all the things we agree on, how do we get them implemented? :)
+===Woozle responds===
+====The Financial Mess====
+: [W] "but let's not forget who got us into this mess, if you're going to blame Obama for not getting us out of it fast enough."
+: [M] "You mean Clinton?"
+No, I [[Bill Clinton helped cause the 2008 financial meltdown|don't mean Clinton]]. Clinton left office with record surpluses, which Bush pissed away in tax breaks for the rich and two endless wars against countries which did not attack us -- leading to record deficits which would have caused serious problems in the economy without any help at all, sooner or later.
+Even if you can argue successfully that deregulation under Clinton was a contributor to the crisis -- which certainly could be true -- there is a world of difference between (a) making a bad decision after listening to all the available advice, and (b) doing something really obviously stupid (or, to put it more diplomatically: carefully limiting the advice you allow yourself to hear so you can feel justified in doing what you had already decided on beforehand)... and then doing more of it. And more after that.
+But thanks for the [[2008-10-26 The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street|CBS]] and [[2009-06-26 Did Clinton cause the banking crisis|MSN]] links (already had the [[1999-09-30 Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending|NYT]]); I've filed them.
+From what I can tell, they are. To the extent that they are not, it looks like this is largely because of Republican obstructionism. The Republicans have said, time and time again, that they don't care if what Obama does is any good -- they just want him to fail so they don't look bad. They have openly put their own party's fortunes ahead of the good of America.
+When Democrats go wrong, it's in giving in to Republican demands. Here's what happens:
+* Democrats offer legislation. Republicans don't like it; they suggest an amendment, threatening a filibuster if the amendment isn't inserted. Democrats, wanting to be fair and represent everyone, compromise and allow the amendment. (This kind of implies a "gentleman's agreement" to vote for the amended legislation, or at least not to filibuster it, wouldn't you think?)
+* Republicans then filibuster the resulting legislation, and demand more amendments (repeating earlier claims that the Dems are trying to steamroller over the will of the people, etc.)
+* Dems then make further concessions; Reps ask for more. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually enough Republican "defectors" (who are then accused of being "traitors to America", in outraged tones) switch their votes so we can make some progress.
+* In the event that the bastardized legislation is then passed, Democrats are then accused of being responsible for the horrid monstrosity it has become. Republicans go back to their home districts and hold up the legislation like it was a soiled diaper (not too far from the truth) and beg for money to go defeat what those horrible Democrats over there in Washington DC are doing to our country.
+The repeal of Glass-Steagall -- and your subsequent use of this as a club to bash Clinton -- is a prime example. Republicans are ''against'' regulation, they have ''always'' been against regulation, and repealing GS was (as I understand it) a longtime Republican agenda item. (Is this untrue? I can look for sources if you think this is incorrect.)
+On top of that, I'd be surprised to hear that there were many GOP voices pushing to do what Clinton is supposedly so horrible for having failed to do in 1999 (i.e. regulate the new derivatives market).
+So no, don't give me that "Clinton did it" BS. Bush II destroyed our prosperity. Before him, Bush I and Reagan started taking it apart.
+'''Addendum''': more on this theme from [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14krugman.html Paul Krugman].
+====Guns====
+: [W] "the problem is that the horrendous array of portable personal weapons currently available is nothing the founding fathers could reasonably have foreseen, and clearly they did not anticipate the social problems caused by such weaponry."
+: [M] "I disagree. They knew the history of the advent of firearms, and the drastic changes from arrows to flintlocks. I believe they did foresee a future where technological advances would create even more advanced weaponry, and felt the best protection from usurpation would be total freedom for personal defense."
+While I'm willing to believe that they might have been ''capable'' of such foresight, I've not seen any evidence that they actually did (the fact that the Constitution touches so lightly on this issue, which is now a huge problem, seems to me pretty conclusive). Do you have such evidence? Does the Constitution offer any clues as to how we were expected to deal with these advances?
+====Prisons====
+: [W] "The prison system is a huge mess, and needs reform."
+: [M] "First, reform the laws. No victim-less crime should be punishable. Prostitution, drug possession, etc."
+Agreed, strongly.
+: [M] "Second, reform the courts. Any lawyer or judge who attempts to suppress evidence, either for or against a defendant should be disbarred on the spot. The law should rule, not whoever has the most money."
+Agreed, strongly.
+I would also add that we need to abolish the horrid "State Secrets Privilege" often used to prevent suspects from presenting evidence in their defense. (If it's any consolation, Obama seems to be in favor of keeping it -- one of our big disappointments in him.)
+: [W] "I see no need for prisons to be primarily an instrument of punishment"
+: [M] "What do you consider punishment? To reduce crime we need to reduce recidivism. If over 60% of criminals come back to jail after already spending time there, the current system is not a big enough deterrent."
+As I said, it needs to be shown that "stronger punishment" actually ''acts as a deterrent''. If over 60% of criminals return to jail, does this mean we didn't beat them hard enough? -- or does it mean that, after being treated like property for several years, treating other people like objects is all they know how to do? I'm not suggesting that they need more hugs or something stupid like that, but I think we need to look at ''what works'' for reducing recidivism.
+I don't know what that is, but if over 60% are repeat offenders, then I don't think we're doing it. (How does this compare with recidivism worldwide? What countries have the lowest recidivism rates, and how do they treat their inmates?)
+Who is making this claim? I would say it depends on the conditions. Workers on chain gangs should be adequately fed and (especially) watered, and have access to proper medical care. Beyond that -- make them do whatever work they're capable of that nobody else wants to do. (Tentatively, I'd say that hard, purposeful work can be very redeeming, both from the prisoner's point of view and from society's... but it does need to be purposeful.)
+Agreed; this is what I meant by "preventing them from being able to commit more crimes, at least for awhile."
+: [M] "And every time someone tries to reform the system, the ACLU, ADL, etc. come in and sues them."
+Examples?
+: [M] "Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County has been sued by liberal groups worried about criminal rights over and over again."
+Joe Arpaio is <s>an asshole</s> person of questionable integrity who should be <s>strung up</s> firmly removed from office and never allowed to have power over another individual ever again: [http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/arizona-sheriff-turns-county-meeting] [http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/doj-coming-down-check-out-sheriff-jo] [http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ice-strips-sheriff-joe-arpaio-immigra] ...shall I [http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/pure_intimidation_arpaio_deputies_question_judges.php go on]?
+But feel free to present his side of the story, if you feel he is worthy of defense.
+====Taxes====
+: [M] "Constitutional amendment: Income tax imposed on no one with income less than the national average income."
+Hey, I think I like that! It's easy to understand, and it favors those with lower incomes without decimating the income received by the government. (For reference: in 2007, median [[wikipedia:Household income in the United States|US household income]] was just over $50k. I'd prefer to use the mean, though, because the median doesn't care if your top earners make 10 times as much as everyone else or 10,000 times -- and I think that should make a difference.)
+: [M] "From that point up, a progressive tax starting at the 0% from the national average. No exemptions, no breaks, no loopholes. If the rich want to cut their taxes, they can get into politics and start by cutting the out-of-control spending in the government."
+Seconded...
+====Deficit====
+====Implementation====
+: [M] "As to all the things we agree on, how do we get them implemented? :)"
+An excellent question. I think the internet holds the key; it's a new tool, offering us the opportunity to change the game in ways that the old players haven't (yet) anticipated.
+Discussion over at Boiling Frogs (see above link) has been focusing on the idea of fielding a candidate who is neither Republican nor Democrat. That is certainly one angle of attack, but I don't know enough about the election biz to say whether it has any chance of succeeding -- even if (as I suggest) we all agree to support whatever candidate is chosen by an internal "election" we hold amongst ourselves.
+I have some other specific ideas which are just starting to come together; I will try to post them later as an addendum (right now I have to go pick up kids...) In the meantime, you can read about [[InstaGov|this]], which is my idea for web-based software to make it easier for large groups of people (as in thousands or millions) to reach sensible decisions.
+==Round 6==
+===Midian: Back on Topic===
+We've digressed to many specific issues, some of which we've even come to agreements on, but back to the original topic: Why do people persist in voting Republican?
+After this semesters Gen Bio II, I had the beginnings of an idea. It isn't fully fleshed out, my knowledge on the subject is not as full as I'd like, but what I have learned appears to apply and seems to fit the question.
+Altruism: the unselfish concern for the welfare of others. The idea that given the opportunity, a person will be selfless instead of selfish.
+Not biologically selectable for, because it has no direct benefit (other than kin selection, which is highly debatable still), highly likely selectable against due to the detriment to the original life form. Yet it still persists in a small percentage of the population.
+Liberals don't believe in the idea of altruism, except maybe in themselves. They believe that the average person, given the chance to be selfless (with money, power, food, whatever) will choose to be selfish unless forced otherwise by the government. They push laws forcing us to do things they think we would not do on our own. They are "realists" who believe if left to their own devices, most people will do the wrong thing with their money, firearms, etc. Most Democrats I speak to truly believe that everything would be fine if the government forced everyone to do what they wanted them to do.
+Libertarians believe in the possibility of altruism, and feel everyone should be unshackled by all laws and given the chance to do the "right thing", whether the end results are beneficial to everyone or not. Many espouse anarchy because they don't care how society as a whole does, as long as they are left to their own devices.
+Conservatives believe in altrusim and believe if left alone, most people will do the right thing most of the time, and government interference prevents them from the full possibility of that by its misguidance and corruption. They are idealists who want the freedom to do the right thing.
+Now that isn't to say that the current Republican party is like this at all. In fact I believe of our current federally elected officials, only a few are (Ron Paul being an example). But being the idealists most conservatives are, we continue to vote for our party in the hopes they will return to where they should be, and the only other party is the antithesis of that ideal. Misguided? Probably, because if politicians are anything, they are corrupt by their power, on both sides. The Athenian idea of drawing lots to prevent oligarchy was something I believe our founding fathers either missed, or were too idealistic about.
+I believe Robert Heinlen had a good idea, as expressed in Starship Troopers, only those who have willing signed up for military service were allowed to run for public office and vote. They demonstrated altruism by putting the needs of the many over the needs of individual, willing sacrificing much, up to and including their life, for the freedoms of the society as a whole. Now that level of devotion isn't necessary to demonstrate the altruism necessary to be a public official, and that doesn't prevent corruption once given the power of office, but at least it is a start in the right direction, and something that could be greatly expanded on.
+Anyway, like I said, it was just the beginnings of an idea.
+===Woozle: Topical Response===
+: [M] "Not biologically selectable for, because it has no direct benefit (other than kin selection, which is highly debatable still), highly likely selectable against due to the detriment to the original life form. Yet it still persists in a small percentage of the population."
+Actually, from what I understand, (relatively) recent advances in areas like gaming theory have shown that altruism ''can'' be adaptive, depending on the circumstances. It certainly isn't a huge mystery that it exists; the trick is figuring out the exact mechanisms which lead to it.
+: [M] "Liberals don't believe in the idea of altruism, except maybe in themselves. They believe that the average person, given the chance to be selfless (with money, power, food, whatever) will choose to be selfish unless forced otherwise by the government. They push laws forcing us to do things they think we would not do on our own. They are "realists" who believe if left to their own devices, most people will do the wrong thing with their money, firearms, etc. Most Democrats I speak to truly believe that everything would be fine if the government forced everyone to do what they wanted them to do."
+Wow, you must have a completely different strain of liberal/Democrat over there. What you're describing sounds to me more like a "libertarian", with a bit of an elitist streak...
+Among the people I know, most of whom consider themselves "liberals" to the best of my knowledge, seem to agree with me on the following points:
+* some people are selfish, but most are at least neutral or sometimes altruistic
+* people act for the common good out of a sense of empathy -- not wanting to see other people suffer, and also liking to see other people happy; seeing other people happy (or unhappy) induces a sense of happiness (or unhappiness) in one's self, so it's debatable whether this is true "altruism" or not, but it has that effect: if a friend wins the lottery, we are happy for them whether or not we ever receive any largess as a result, and we will work towards someone else's happiness if it seems feasible in terms of our own resources (time, energy)
+Also, I saw somewhere that Democratic leaders who leave office tend to go into work that is arguably for the common good, while Republicans are much more likely to join a corporation's board of directors or go into lobbying or some other field with clear personal benefits and not-so-clear benefits to humanity. (There are exceptions on both sides, of course.) I suppose they could be doing this out of a sense that "If *I* don't work to save the world, nobody else will because they're all selfish idiots" -- but that's not the sense I get from it, generally speaking. (People who believe that sort of thing tend to believe that the world isn't worth saving anyway, don't they?)
+I don't want the government to force anyone to do anything, but I recognize that a small percentage of the population are [[psychopathic]] and that these people cannot be trusted to act honestly. This is why we need police, government regulation of industry, and the separation of powers: to limit the damage such people can do, regardless of where they may turn up.
+For what it's worth, I tend to think that our personal taxation system could be far ''less'' coercive and still work.
+Modern conservatism comes across, to me, as far more interested in controlling people than does modern liberalism -- far more based on suspicion and mistrust
+: [M] "Conservatives believe in altruism and believe if left alone, most people will do the right thing most of the time, and government interference prevents them from the full possibility of that by its misguidance and corruption."
+Then why are conservatives so heavily into legislating morality? -- what consenting adults should be allowed to do with each other, the "war on drugs", pornography, gambling? Why do they feel that gay marriage is a threat to civilization, if the overwhelming majority of people support it?
+Why do they support torture? Why do they support war? Why are they against fair trials for people illegally detained by the government (which they now claim to fear)?
+Why are conservatives seemingly obsessed with [http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/14/christmas-song-parody-immigration/ demonizing Hispanics] and [http://crooksandliars.com/josh-glasstetter/obama-death-threats-available-var shooting president Obama]?
+I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can start with a belief that "most people will do the right thing most of the time" and end up supporting the things that conservatives support.
+: [M] "But being the idealists most conservatives are, we continue to vote for our party in the hopes they will return to where they should be, and the only other party is the antithesis of that ideal."
+If you can show me how the ideals you have given here are better supported by Republicans than Democrats, then I won't have to say that this is totally nuts.
+And I'm all in favor of idealism.
+: [M] "...if politicians are anything, they are corrupt by their power, on both sides."
+But ''not equally''. The GOP is ''far'' more corrupt, far more inclined to brazenly lie about the facts, even when repeatedly confronted with proof that they are wrong. They don't care about the truth, they just care about convincing people to follow their pre-set agenda -- which is not in the best interests of either you or me.
+: [M] "I believe Robert Heinlein had a good idea, as expressed in Starship Troopers, only those who have willing signed up for military service were allowed to run for public office and vote."
+I'm a Heinlein fan, actually; I agree with a lot of what he had to say. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is one of my favorite books. I've seen him described as a "crypto-fascist", and I strongly disagree.
+I'm not ''sure'' I agree with his idea about military service as a requirement for office. I understand the thinking, and it seems like a sincere attempt to solve a problem: there should be some personal cost to achieving office, to help screen out power-mongers. People who enter military service generally don't do it for selfish reasons, and have to pass what amounts to a rigorous test of competency, so if we only allowed those people to enter office, we'd have a lot fewer selfish people in office and a lot more competence.
+There are problems with this idea, however.
+First, once you set up military service as a requirement for something desirable, you've set up a selfish motive for entering it. (I'm not sure the military would appreciate all the privileged brats who would suddenly be desperate to serve their country... and the long phone-calls from Powerful People demanding their heads on a platter if they didn't make this or that exception for certain individuals.)
+Second, not everyone who would make a good (non-corrupt ''and'' competent) politician would make a good soldier... just as not every good soldier would make a good politician.
+Third -- more to do with principle than pragmatism -- in order for democracy to work, it must be representative. If you allow only certain people into office, then some will not be properly represented: those who are not suited for military service, for example... and how do we know that political pressure will not be brought to bear on the military to dishonorably discharge anyone deemed politically "unsuitable", thus barring them from politics forever?
+I'm not automatically against the idea of requiring service (or ''some'' kind of test/trial) for public office, and I'm not against the military -- but I suspect that the costs would be greater than the benefits. If nothing else, this could easily destroy the integrity of the military (which is already under [[US military readiness|enough]] [[Religious control of the US military|stress]] these days).
+But yes, as you say, it's a good starting idea.
+I'd like to see some kind of penalties when a politician is caught lying. I propose that lying while in office should be considered a crime, and handled similarly (jury trial). Perhaps a warning on first offense for any given issue -- people do make mistakes -- but repeating a particular piece of incorrect information after having been corrected should carry a penalty. Second offense should be more severe; perhaps suspension of duties for 30 days -- and offer the election runner-up the opportunity to take the offending politician's place during that time. Third offense -- impeachment or recall.
+There are problems with this idea too... but I can imagine ways around them.
+==Round 7==
+===Midian Clarifying again===
+One can always pick and choose specific issues to debate about, and as I said, the current GOP is about as far from Conservatism as the Democrat party is. My ideal of Conservatism runs more along the lines of Berry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan (before he was corrupted by the necessities of Congress). Primarily states rights over strong central government.
+I had written out 2 pages of issues where Democrats and/or Republicans are doing things to the detriment of our freedoms, demonstrating their elitist views, but that's half the problem. The focus shouldn't be about who is doing what wrong, it should be about what is "right" and how to get there.
-''Out of time for now; will respond to other sections later. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)''
+It appears to me the current goal of both parties is to fear-monger: get people to focus purely on what the other side is doing wrong instead of focusing on what they will do right. Much of the electorate has become apathetic; they think their vote doesn't matter, they hate the negative campaigning, they're sick of the he said/she said, etc., and it takes someone like Ron Paul, saying what he will do to help instead of what his opponent is doing to hurt, to get them interested in politics again.

Difference between revisions of "2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican/woozle/2009"

Latest revision as of 15:28, 7 December 2011

Navigation menu

Search