Difference between revisions of "2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican/woozle/2009"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Midian: Back on Topic: done responding, I think?) |
|||
| Line 904: | Line 904: | ||
Anyway, like I said, it was just the beginnings of an idea. | 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. | ||