That darn 47%

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:41 pm

The Cid wrote:This is dangerous thinking. Basically, "everybody who does not share my world view is a burden on our society."
Well, to be fair, it wasn't a question of a "world view" as it was saying, using as many of your words as possible, "There is a shockingly large number of people who are a burden to their neighbors and will fight to keep that status." While some people may not like calling attention to it, I doubt even ardent Obama supports would deny that it's the case. They would instead make a case that there are also those who only begrudgingly live off the efforts of their neighbors and will seek to quickly rise above that. At least, that's the argument that's been made in the past to persuade people--often with a head as soft as their heart--that we must act as dutifully selfless lifeguards, accepting those who are content to pull us under as long as our body can be used as a floatation device and allowing them to continue doing so, in order to make sure we don't ignore the flailing of those who just need a lifeline back to the ship they were already in the process of building before being tossed overboard in rough seas. This would be backed up by his concluding that, "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

By the way, it's interesting to me how so far in the discussion everyone seems to have given "the elderly" a pass, taking for granted that if you're 65 you have reached the point where you're now rightfully society's burden, that you're now entitled to live off your neighbors because you don't feel like working anymore and haven't saved to buy you that privilege. In many other cultures, if you've done a bad job at saving or otherwise managing your money, or maybe what you've settled for doing for income isn't enough to let you live how you want and save for the future, then you either continue to work or your family supports you. Then again we've suffocated the idea of a family and exalted the individual to the point where "community" is only a euphemisms for "lobbyist group with positive feel-good press" and "family" only matters when it comes to loyalty in social disagreements.

Arres wrote:Everyone agrees that access to health care services is a good thing.
Everyone agrees that children should be taught things.
Everyone agrees that our country should not be massively in debt.
The problem is that even if everyone did agree on those things, they're so generic they're unhelpful, as there's a massive spectrum of ideas as to what is an entitlement/right, what is a privilege, and who should be responsible for providing those, either way. If you're going to get to common ground, it can't be something like "puppies are cute" but rather "The individual has an inherent responsibility to work within reasonable legal boundaries to provide as best as he can for himself and his family." But agreeing to something so fundamental remains elusive, as people are always thinking a step ahead and don't want to risk agreeing to something that could potentially slow down the gravy train of Other People's Make-believe Money, whether in the form of welfare or bailouts.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:31 pm

Arres wrote:I agree Cid. Even giving them a little leeway for "I'm talking to like-minded people who might give me money", there is a certain level of rhetoric that is at BEST distasteful.
What Romney said wasn't "rhetoric". It was a gaffe. Inadvertent truth came out of his mouth unintentionally.
Everyone agrees that access to health care services is a good thing.
Everyone agrees that children should be taught things.
That isn't the problem. The agreement on the issues there is set. The problem is:
Frederic Bastiat wrote:Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
spikegirl7
Redshirt
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Real Name: Natalie
Gender: Female
Location: SW city, MO

Re: That darn 47%

Post by spikegirl7 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:09 am

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." - Winston Churchill

I believe that 47% of the American public is on some form of government assistance (I don't think that ALL of these will always vote democrat though, so part one of Romney's statement sorta falls apart there). To add to that, I believe that most of those people are content with those benefits they receive and see no problem, or perhaps see it as their due, with receiving them. I'm going to try not to sound too bitter, but I'm going to fail at that. I don't see any way to stop these programs, or to truly reform them while working in a democratic system. There are too many people who would put up too much of a fight. I am reminded of a ship sinking and everyone is grabbing their neighbor and pulling him down, determined that if they are going to drown then they won't die alone.

There are almost no people in this country who are planning for the day after tomorrow. It's all just "solve this right now don't worry about tomorrow until we deal with today." I am stunned when the questions about how actions today will add to the debt or what effects these things will have ten years down the road are just shrugged off with the attitude of "we'll deal with that when we come to it." Well, it used to anyway.

I was at work the other day and a man comes up to me and asks what I thought of the upcoming election. I told him the truth: to me it's a contest between shooting myself in the foot and slamming my hand in a door. He said (this IS a quote), "No, it's going to be a battle of good versus evil." This country is so massively polarized it just sickens me. This goes right along with the lines of "everyone who doesn't agree with me is in-American" which sentiments are being deliberately stirred up by both parties.

*sigh*

And that is how I became a misanthrope.
'What is morality?'
'Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.'

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:36 am

spikegirl7 wrote: And that is how I became a misanthrope.
And here I thought my becoming a cynical propertarian anarchist was a strong reaction. :?

Also, Churchill wasn't even right. For various reasons, monarchy is superior to democracy, and a natural order of anarchy would be significantly superior to both. (PDF of a book)
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:29 pm

Student, in your last post you came across one of the things that, in my mind, might help matters a bit.

You're honest about your label. Rather than compromise your views to fit into a party line, you embrace the extreme by using the word anarchy, regardless of how people feel about it. I think everybody needs to do that, politely, so that we can finally start to have a discussion of our politics rather than a shouting match about who hates who more.

We shouldn't settle for two options, or three options, or even if every fringe party were relevant, however many options that would be. There should be hundreds of different opinions, different angles, and different viewpoints to consider. I want to hear those. I want people to bring their views to the table, not some watered-down version to fit in with some party.

"Everyone you'll ever meet knows something you don't." -Bill Nye.

We just need to start being honest. Come to the table with what we really think, not what people have told us to think through years of party labels. Open our mind to other viewpoints. Speak about things we actually know something about. Stop trying to pretend to be an expert in things we know little to nothing about. We don't know. How the fuck would we? This is a country of hundreds of millions of people, it's entirely likely that one political ideal is not going to work for every single issue we have.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:58 pm

The Cid wrote:"Everyone you'll ever meet knows something you don't." -Bill Nye
That is awesome.

As to the rest of your post, there are really good reasons for boiling things down to parties in general. It's basically impossible for average Americans to keep up with hundreds of different opinions and angles and so forth. Boiling it down to 3 to 6 factions would allow them to figure out which clique they feel the most comfortable being a part of and go form there. The problem of course is that our greatest chance for a 3rd party success came and went with Ross Perot, who taught the voting public that if you vote for the guy you like best you're opening the door for the guy you like least. It's like the political version of a Mexican stand-off or a hostage exchange or whatever else along those lines. Nobody wants to make a move unless everyone makes the move at the same time.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:02 pm

The people who run these parties are unelected officials who get to impose their will over both the politicians they command and their voting base. If that's not "telling a large percentage of Americans what to think," I don't know what is.
Deacon wrote:The problem of course is that our greatest chance for a 3rd party success came and went with Ross Perot, who taught the voting public that if you vote for the guy you like best you're opening the door for the guy you like least.
There is no way--none, none whatsoever--that this mentality will ever get us anywhere but destroyed.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Arres » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:06 pm

I've come to the decision that while I am not aligned politically with President Obama on MANY MANY things, he's not "that bad". No worse than George W. Bush was. I'll put up with him for another 4 years in order to make a stand against Mitt Romney and the modern Republican party.
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:38 pm

If you must.

That just sounds like something I would say about sports. "I'm rooting for the Orioles to perform well this week because it would screw the Yankees." The difference being that the outcome of a sporting event doesn't really matter. It's just sad, to me, that we treat the presidency no different than I treat a baseball rivalry.

Maybe we should all get into sports, so we can get that "us versus them" shit out of the way in a healthy manner, rather than screwing over an entire nation because we refuse to break from camps.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:59 pm

The Cid wrote:This is a country of hundreds of millions of people, it's entirely likely that one political ideal is not going to work for every single issue we have.
I'm just going to point out that anarchy means that people could voluntarily try out whatever political ideas they want - and if they don't work, switch to a different one.

Also, this incivility is a fundamental problem with politics in general. It stems from the fact that only one view - only one person's ideas - can win, and are imposed by force on everyone who disagrees. So people group up to try to avoid the outcomes they view as the worst, and rather than let people determine the best solutions to their problems through voluntary organization, they turn to both defensive and aggressive use of the force of the state. They vote against the "other", rather than for something - and they absolutely, positively, completely cannot allow people to decide for themselves!
Jeffrey Tucker wrote:You know what's evil about politics? It turns people into enemies when they should and would naturally be friends in a normal society. in the marketplace you are happy to cooperate with anyone to mutual betterment. But in politics, it's all about hating your neighbor. A person who believes all of civilization rests on a Romney win would naturally and rightly regard all Obama voters as mortals threats, wreckers of the good life itself. And the demographics of voting are rather predictable. You can often tell quickly how a person will or will not vote, by appearance alone. That creates prejudice, bias, and hate. So politics creates these stupid battles between people -- for absolutely no reason -- and wars against the brotherhood of man. It creates the divisions it pretends to heal.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
spikegirl7
Redshirt
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Real Name: Natalie
Gender: Female
Location: SW city, MO

Re: That darn 47%

Post by spikegirl7 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:15 am

Ideally, yes, we could be an anarchist state. But it doesn't work. You and I could probably live in an anarchist state without too much trouble, but society in large couldn't do it. Why? Because it relies on us accepting an objective set of justice and morals and agreeing to abide by it. People are mooches and parasites. People lie, cheat, steal, and stab each other in the back if they can get away with it. There have been a few police strikes I can think of where looting and crime became rampant as soon as the police were gone. And it's not hard to imagine this happening again. And I know that you are going to say private security forces could take up that slack, but experience says that wouldn't work either. We need a government that relies on an objective system of justice in order to protect us in our persons and possessions, not a private force that is under the direction of whoever has the most resources so spend on them. In that system, whoever has the most money BECOMES the de facto state.

I'm not sure I want to vote this time around. I don't want to give my consent to a state that is so corrupt and broken.

I'm really torn between the two candidates on who is worse. On the one hand I'm against Obama since he believes his ends of full employment and universal healthcare justifies and is best served by the forced seizure of my capitol and the capitol of my children by pressing more and more debt on this country. On the other hand Romney is deplorable, believing HIS religion gives him the right to tell ME what I can or can't do with MY body, what research can be pursued, etc.
'What is morality?'
'Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.'

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

That darn 47%

Post by ampersand » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:34 am

As I have said, we're about 10 years away from a some guy with a bad mustache who failed to get into Juliard from being elected after the Fed Reserve building catches on fire. I just wonder if we're going through a similar series of stupid moves that happened during the 1930's?

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:30 pm

spikegirl7 wrote:Why? Because it relies on us accepting an objective set of justice and morals and agreeing to abide by it. [...] And I know that you are going to say private security forces could take up that slack, but experience says that wouldn't work either.
On that, there is this couple of articles. Or this one. And this one. The first two links are PDFs. Also, private law has been done before. (Wikipedia) Anarchy on the whole worked pretty well for Iceland for a few centuries. The system, on the whole, lasted longer than the US has existed.

Basically, what I am saying is that I did a lot of research. I didn't just wake up and go, yeah, anarchy could be cool.
We need a government that relies on an objective system of justice in order to protect us in our persons and possessions, not a private force that is under the direction of whoever has the most resources so spend on them. In that system, whoever has the most money BECOMES the de facto state
Personally, if the biggest risk is that the state just reappears, then I don't see a downside. Especially since no government ever relies on an objective system of justice. The night watchman state is unstable and deteriorates into tyranny over time.

Additionally, without a legitimized coercive power to tax to obtain revenue, it is impossible for a private force to become a state - only a criminal gang, to be shortly dealt with by other private police forces and individuals defending themselves, if not broken up into small groups of thugs by nature of the system. A position as a state requires not just the ability to use force, but the ability to not need it generally, as people's apathy or submission is obtained - otherwise, force is expensive, and never more so than when you need to use it to pay for it. "War" is expensive, and I highly doubt that anyone would engage in it if they had to fund it out of their own pockets.

Further, the nations all exist in a "state of anarchy" with each other. Organizations with nearly limitless coercive funding potential, run by some of the most evil and corrupt people on the planet, and war is still not ever-present, nor is one state able to "take over" and become the de facto world government.
I just wonder if we're going through a similar series of stupid moves that happened during the 1930's?
Well, the Fed created a bubble with easy credit policies, which also caused the Great Depression. The Fed seems determined to make another bubble - which also happened during the Depression. The administration, and probably its successor, are determined to "fix" things, while only really creating "regime uncertainty". So, I'd say that we are doing pretty much exactly what happened in the 30's.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Arres » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:29 pm

The Cid wrote:If you must../..Maybe we should all get into sports, so we can get that "us versus them" shit out of the way in a healthy manner, rather than screwing over an entire nation because we refuse to break from camps.
Don't you see Cid? Breaking from camp is EXACTLY what I'm doing. I'm a Libertarian leaning registered Republican. I'm sick of the Republican party fielding candidates that don't represent me in order to pander to a vocal part of the base that believes in the restriction of the rights of others so I'm not going to vote for the candidate-bot they have put forward. I would prefer to end up with "the other guy" than support my party in it's current behavior. Cut "the other guy" just isn't that bad. You would be surprised (actually, probably not) at how some of my R friends have taken my decision.
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:18 pm

Arres wrote:I'm a Libertarian leaning registered Republican. I'm sick of the Republican party fielding candidates that don't represent me in order to pander to a vocal part of the base that believes in the restriction of the rights of others so I'm not going to vote for the candidate-bot they have put forward. I would prefer to end up with "the other guy" than support my party in it's current behavior.
Suggestion: Change your party designation. Better yet, don't sign up with a different one either. Just go independent. The Republican Party has demonstrated that they are always going to pander to the moral crusaders and busybodies.

Political parties aren't accountable to anybody for anything. They're run by unelected officials, meaning that it's entirely likely that every Republican you'll ever meet combines to have no say whatsoever in who sets the tone for their chosen political designation. Likewise, the Democrats take marching orders from a man who they rejected soundly when he tried to attain a presidential nomination in Howard Dean. These people have extreme amounts of power and are accountable to nobody.
Arres wrote:You would be surprised (actually, probably not) at how some of my R friends have taken my decision.
Honestly, I didn't mean to come across as attacking your personal position. It's a secret ballot, after all, and therefore none of my business who you vote for, why, or whether you give a shit about the barely-informed opinions of a marketing guy/sportswriter with a teacher's license who lives thousands of miles away from where you live.

For my part, it doesn't matter who I vote for in the presidential election. Unless I vote the same way as the rest of my neighbors, my vote will actually be discarded as meaningless and irrelevant. So really, I don't get a vote in that election. My votes will only "count" in terms of ballot questions, local elections, and a Senate race. Honestly, I'm more invested in those than I am in the presidential race for that reason. Nobody cares who I vote for for president, because I may as well be participating in a mock election at that point.

Oh, and you think your Republican friends dislike your decision? I'm a Libertarian in Massachusetts. So much as telling people that tends to piss them off point blank before I explain a thing about my positions.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests