@@ 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.
-==Responses==
-===Midian (round 1)===
 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 29: / Line 10: @@
 I have similar issues with the Republicans (legalize marijuana already), however, when weighing one against the other, these are more important to me than those. Without the 2nd amendment, who will stand up for the others? "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
-===Woozle responds (round 1)===
+===Woozle responds===
 * [M] ''"The premise that an unborn child's life is worth less than a convicted murderer..."''
 ** Framing it as a matter of "worth" is oversimplifying the issue. First off, a convicted murderer ''may'' in fact be innocent (and states with a death penalty tend to have a higher error rate, from what I can tell). Second, is it really in a child's best interests to be born to parents who don't want a child, and who may be inadequately prepared to take care of it? More generally, "pro-life" people seem to be under the illusion that it is ''always'' better to be alive than not to be, but this is not always the case, and we can only use our best judgment as to when life is preferable and when it is not.
@@ 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 (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?
 * 1 innocent executed is far too many. This is why I am against capital punishment. Our system is broken. A justice system where liberal judges release violent offenders far too often, where there is only a 1 in 10 chance of a conviction for capital crimes, and where the average time spent for murder 1 is 5 days. Also, corrupt cops, judges, and lawyers all convicting the innocent and releasing the guilty by keeping evidence hidden, fabricating evidence, fabricating and hiding testimony, doing deals, etc. Until the system is fixed, there should not be executions because you can't undo that once someone is found innocent after the fact, which happens far too often.
@@ Line 55: / Line 36: @@
 How I see it is the Republicans and Democrats are different rails of the same track, both heading us in the wrong direction. However, typically (but not always, especially locally) the Republicans allow me more freedom to make my own choices with my money, my health, my defense, my freedoms.
-===Woozle responds at length (round 2)===
+===Woozle responds at length===
 ====preface one====
 I will respond in more detail later (gotta go pick up kids from school in 20 minutes), but I need to make something clear.
@@ Line 126: / 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 (round 3)===
+===Midian's Response===
@@ Line 232: / 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 (round 3)===
+===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.
@@ Line 517: / Line 498: @@
 '''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 (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.
@@ Line 542: / Line 523: @@
 I feel like I am clarifying points more than presenting new ideas or defending them. What are YOUR suggestions?
-===Woozle (round 4)===
+===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."''
@@ Line 661: / Line 642: @@
 What do you see as the biggest, most urgent problems America currently faces?
+==Round 4==
-===Tabula Rasa===
+===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.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.rollingstone.com%252Fpolitics%252Fstory%252F31234647%252Fobamas_big_sellout&h=cde2d9266ca8c141922ac12b8dfadd3b&ref=mf] [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574541841256040358.html]
+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]
@@ Line 690: / Line 671: @@
 ====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.
+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