Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Red state Blue state

Page 3 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Oct 2010, 5:52 am

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
Are you trying to imply that I don't know that said education would be paid for by taxes taken out of my own pocket? Because I do. And I think that most of the people who advocate for social programs also know that.


And what about people who don't care about education, especially education for others? Do we take their money by force anyway?

ruveyn

Yes. If you want to opt out of civilization, there's an entire unpopulated continent at the southern end of the globe.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Oct 2010, 5:56 am

Orwell wrote:
Yes. If you want to opt out of civilization, there's an entire unpopulated continent at the southern end of the globe.


Majority ueber alles? Someday you might be on the short end of the reckoning.

ruveyn



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

22 Oct 2010, 6:02 am

Red State - Blue State

Just the political machine's way to keep people polarized.

Divide and conquer.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Oct 2010, 6:26 am

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Yes. If you want to opt out of civilization, there's an entire unpopulated continent at the southern end of the globe.


Majority ueber alles? Someday you might be on the short end of the reckoning.

ruveyn

We all have to pay taxes, and we all benefit from the existence of the state. So we don't all use every single government program out there; that doesn't mean we should seek to dismantle the state out of spite.

And I'm not terribly interested in "majority über alles." I've said before that I'm not a fan of democracy, and that hasn't changed.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Oct 2010, 7:59 am

Orwell wrote:

And I'm not terribly interested in "majority über alles." I've said before that I'm not a fan of democracy, and that hasn't changed.


But you are willing to pay taxes that the majority has imposed on you. How strange. And what is the majority. Mostly people who don't think very well or very efficiently.

I prefer a la carte government. Pay for what you get. Get for what you pay.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Oct 2010, 7:08 pm

Red versus Blue has some funny episodes, though I don't particularly care for the near constant use of profanity.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 7:23 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Red versus Blue has some funny episodes, though I don't particularly care for the near constant use of profanity.


The use of profanity is a reflection of the online demographic which it - in part - parodies. Regardless of this, I'm still not sure why people take issue with swearing. There is, in my opinion, no such thing as bad language. Poor use of language is another matter.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Oct 2010, 8:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:

And I'm not terribly interested in "majority über alles." I've said before that I'm not a fan of democracy, and that hasn't changed.


But you are willing to pay taxes that the majority has imposed on you. How strange. And what is the majority. Mostly people who don't think very well or very efficiently.

Our tax policy is not determined directly by a popular vote, nor is our system a strict democracy. It is imperfect, I wish it did some things differently than it does, but it is the legitimate government sovereign over the territory in which I live, and as long as I live here and benefit from the existence of that state I will also uphold my end of the bargain. I am not an anarchist.

And of course I am aware that the majority are dullards who should not be permitted even the faintest shadow of political influence. But our system is workable. Not perfect, but not nearly so bad that I am willing to discard it in favor of jungle law.

Quote:
I prefer a la carte government. Pay for what you get. Get for what you pay.

That is hardly a government. Are you going to buy law enforcement? If we revert to mafia rule as you seem to desire you can feel free to pay your collection money to the mob. I think you'll find the state to be a better and more trustworthy protector than mere hired thugs. They're probably cheaper, too.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 8:27 pm

Orwell wrote:
Our tax policy is not determined directly by a popular vote, nor is our system a strict democracy. It is imperfect, I wish it did some things differently than it does, but it is the legitimate government sovereign over the territory in which I live, and as long as I live here and benefit from the existence of that state I will also uphold my end of the bargain. I am not an anarchist.


Of all the inefficient, unbalanced, unfair systems of government available, 'democracy' is the least undesirable.

Quote:
And of course I am aware that the majority are dullards who should not be permitted even the faintest shadow of political influence. But our system is workable. Not perfect, but not nearly so bad that I am willing to discard it in favor of jungle law.


Incidentally, but out of personal interest: Would you prefer the country to be run by a selection of philosophical intellectuals, with strict laws in place to prevent them from benefiting from their position - save a reasonable recompense for their time, or would you prefer democratic consensus on every issue? Which do you think would be fairer?

Quote:
That is hardly a government. Are you going to buy law enforcement? If we revert to mafia rule as you seem to desire you can feel free to pay your collection money to the mob. I think you'll find the state to be a better and more trustworthy protector than mere hired thugs. They're probably cheaper, too.


Isn't mafia rule just a watered down version of the state, only with more direct taxation and voting by bullet rather than ballot?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Oct 2010, 8:48 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Of all the inefficient, unbalanced, unfair systems of government available, 'democracy' is the least undesirable.

I disagree, but in any case, the modern liberal democracy as it exists in the US, Canada, and Western Europe is a tolerable system. A pure direct democracy would be a logistical nightmare.

Quote:
Incidentally, but out of personal interest: Would you prefer the country to be run by a selection of philosophical intellectuals, with strict laws in place to prevent them from benefiting from their position - save a reasonable recompense for their time, or would you prefer democratic consensus on every issue? Which do you think would be fairer?

Something like that, perhaps. Fairness is a very fuzzy term.

Quote:
Isn't mafia rule just a watered down version of the state, only with more direct taxation and voting by bullet rather than ballot?

A state has established laws. Who is and is not a citizen, and what a person's rights and responsibilities are, are clearly defined.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 9:09 pm

Orwell wrote:
I disagree, but in any case, the modern liberal democracy as it exists in the US, Canada, and Western Europe is a tolerable system. A pure direct democracy would be a logistical nightmare.


Let's spin that and say it would 'provide jobs'.

Quote:
Something like that, perhaps. Fairness is a very fuzzy term.


Well, I was really interested in your personal definition of 'fair'. Obviously we're all going to view fairness differently, even if just by a few degrees.

Quote:
A state has established laws. Who is and is not a citizen, and what a person's rights and responsibilities are, are clearly defined.


Which we learn from experience. Were the world run by mobsters, we'd all know the rules.

But I digress. It was a flippant point to make, and I don't mean to defend the position.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Oct 2010, 9:19 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Well, I was really interested in your personal definition of 'fair'. Obviously we're all going to view fairness differently, even if just by a few degrees.

Well, in what context do you mean "fair?"

Quote:
Which we learn from experience. Were the world run by mobsters, we'd all know the rules.

The distinction is that a state upholds rule of law, and the law (at least in theory) applies equally to all people. This provides for a more orderly system and more consistent (perhaps even more "fair"?) application of the rules.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 9:40 pm

Orwell wrote:
Well, in what context do you mean "fair?"


I think if I establish a definition of the context it would sway your answer, so I'm reluctant to give it context. If that makes sense? My intent was to discover what you view as an alternative to democracy - which I also find to be tolerable but inadequate.

Fairness is, after all, subjective.

Quote:
The distinction is that a state upholds rule of law, and the law (at least in theory) applies equally to all people. This provides for a more orderly system and more consistent (perhaps even more "fair"?) application of the rules.


Okay. Guess we're going to do this after all.

All government is subject to corruption, especially by those in positions of power or authority. By placing one man above another we will never have 'fairness', but we can hope to achieve a reasonable social model that functions sufficiently for everyone to feel satisfied with their lot.

There's inequality in, for instance, immigration law which is enough for me to state that the law does not apply equally to all people. Sometimes those inequalities make sense, sometimes not. But democratic bureaucracy is probably preferable to most over a benign dictatorship.

I should perhaps point out that I'm not in favour of mafia rule. I merely suggest that it's no more or less viable than any other means of government in terms of their being a hierarchy that functions.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Oct 2010, 2:39 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
...what is the majority. Mostly people who don't think very well or very efficiently.

I prefer a la carte government. Pay for what you get. Get for what you pay.

ruveyn


They don't think well or efficiently b/c the education budget has been slashed by people like you.
Like you said, you get what you pay for - and w/o paying for education, the whole society becomes less civilized, poorer read, and poorer thinkers.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

23 Oct 2010, 2:47 pm

LKL wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
...what is the majority. Mostly people who don't think very well or very efficiently.

I prefer a la carte government. Pay for what you get. Get for what you pay.

ruveyn


They don't think well or efficiently b/c the education budget has been slashed by people like you.
Like you said, you get what you pay for - and w/o paying for education, the whole society becomes less civilized, poorer read, and poorer thinkers.


The education of the individual is not entirely the responsibility of the state. In addition, money churned into schools does not necessarily improve the quality of the education available.

Blaming compound issues on a simplistic, single factor is a poor way to construct an argument or opinion.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Oct 2010, 3:30 pm

LKL wrote:

They don't think well or efficiently b/c the education budget has been slashed by people like you.
Like you said, you get what you pay for - and w/o paying for education, the whole society becomes less civilized, poorer read, and poorer thinkers.


Tax funded schooling at the elementary level (in the U.S.) has not produced good thinkers or civilized folk. It is tax funded baby sitting and custodial care for the sweat-hogs. Visit an inner city school and find me some civilized folk or good thinkers among the student body.

ruveyn