What happened to booboo?

6,172 Views | 97 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by Solo Tetherball Champ
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes. If we can agree that while all men may be equal in a certain sense, the sense of making decisions about both their lives and the lives of others is probably not included in that sense. Some men are stupid, some arrogant, some virtuous, some charitable, some greedy, some evil. If we let everyone vote, we are consciously choosing to let both the good and the bad have their say. It becomes a hope that the good outnumber the bad, or that the good can sway those in the middle to their position. Hope is a poor plan.

By simple inspection, mediocrity is the best you can hope for, because in the best case the good and bad will average out.

It's a bit of a defeatist position, I think, to say "we can't figure this out so the best case is assured mediocrity by letting everyone vote". Even if that is a true fact, from a philosophical perspective it is both boring and pointless to discuss. How do we do it better is much more edifying.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think what we are looking for (if I understand the discussion correctly) is like test for a driver's license.

Can you pass the written? vaguely know how the government operates, know the responsibilities of the positions you are voting for, perhaps some basic historical knowledge, and you know..that sort of thing.
That is easy enough.

What is the driving test though? Some countries would say military service. I'm not so down with that because I don't approve of 90% of our military ventures..so let's say some sort of civil service...a year as a mail driver, dmv clerk etc counts. Or do it like volunteer hours. I could also go for the idea of volunteer service counting towards your "who is a good enough citizen to vote". Nothing crazy, maybe 20 hours a year. Highschool education is an easy standard...I think when you get into college edu then you are limiting based on $$$. Able to hold a job for at least 6 months?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To STC's point, I think you're going to find a high correlation between people who have money and people who meet your requirements, which is why any sort of written test or educational requirement is going to rapidly be met with cries of economic discrimination from Dr Watson and his cohort.

But you've outlined a few things that make up a person who may be better-than-average at participating in governance.

1. Basic understanding of government that they are participating in.
2. Willingness to serve others.
3. Basic demonstrated level of cognitive ability.

I would say that 2 and 3 are zeroing in. What we're looking for are people who are capable of making good decisions, and who are willing to make decisions that benefit the whole. Either without the other is no good.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought I provided that by limiting it to High school education.

Public education is a thing and every kid takes social science and us government. No kid should be able to graduate high school without passing that test. Hell, make it a requirement for graduation.

I can't imagine making it harder than what immigrants have to study to pass their immigration test, so that shouldn't be a limiting factor either.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Big problem with all of those criteria is that they are subjective. What constitutes willingness to serve, cognitive ability or basic understanding of government? Even if you use standardized tests, someone has to write them in an unbiased way. Then the entire discussion rolls to who writes the tests or who decides that someones has "enough willingness to serve."

I think you have to keep the criteria objective such as: owns land, registers for draft, serves x years in public sector, donates x percentage of income to charity, was born in country, etc. If you can't make it objective, it all just becomes a politically driven farce.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree. But the hard requirements must achieve the desired outcome to be effective.

Money is not an indicator of willingness or capability to make good decisions, for example.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

To STC's point, I think you're going to find a high correlation between people who have money and people who meet your requirements, which is why any sort of written test or educational requirement is going to rapidly be met with cries of economic discrimination from Dr Watson and his cohort.


Why would this not be a legit concern? Human beings have done a very good job at proving that power makes us corrupt and self righteous and self serving. Its not enough to set up an oligarchy with initially good and smart people who are willing to serve others. Corruption and nepotism is inevitable. I just can't buy into a further concentration of power toward politicians. The masses need some way of holding their leaders accountable that doesn't involve revolution.

People often make bad decisions and don't know what is best for themselves or others . . . .but to strip them of all power is to make them serfs to the ruling class.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't say it wasn't a legit concern. It was a preemptive objection.

If the people we put in charge are corrupt they are not the best people. If the system rewards corruption and nepotism it is not the best system. But who could argue that our current system of government does not reward corruption and nepotism? Who would really argue that we don't have an oligarchy right now? What is the ratio of represented to representatives before we start using that term? How much power does an individual need to have before we really believe that they have political agency?

Do you think we have a way to do that now? Really?

As for your last sentence, I don't agree. Apple makes a phone you probably want whether or not you own their stock. Why? Because the shareholders of Apple demand that the board of directors manage the company to make money. And if they don't, the company will change or go away. The most insidious type of control is hidden. We have less power than the serfs did. At least the serfs rebelled from time to time - we think we have agency. Kings used to get overthrown. Now they just get rich and retire to lobbying and making speeches.

Apple's incentives are clear. So are ExxonMobil's. What is the incentive of the USG? Or the government of the State of Texas?
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Quote:

To STC's point, I think you're going to find a high correlation between people who have money and people who meet your requirements, which is why any sort of written test or educational requirement is going to rapidly be met with cries of economic discrimination from Dr Watson and his cohort.


Why would this not be a legit concern? Human beings have done a very good job at proving that power makes us corrupt and self righteous and self serving. Its not enough to set up an oligarchy with initially good and smart people who are willing to serve others. Corruption and nepotism is inevitable. I just can't buy into a further concentration of power toward politicians. The masses need some way of holding their leaders accountable that doesn't involve revolution.

People often make bad decisions and don't know what is best for themselves or others . . . .but to strip them of all power is to make them serfs to the ruling class.
The masses have had that power... and we keep electing the same people.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Natch. Leaders don't have any power in our system. Voting them out does nothing.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

I didn't say it wasn't a legit concern. It was a preemptive objection.

If the people we put in charge are corrupt they are not the best people. If the system rewards corruption and nepotism it is not the best system. But who could argue that our current system of government does not reward corruption and nepotism? Who would really argue that we don't have an oligarchy right now? What is the ratio of represented to representatives before we start using that term? How much power does an individual need to have before we really believe that they have political agency?


So your solution is to make the oligarchy official and to stop pretending like we don't have a system that rewards corruption and nepotism? I don't see how we lessen corruption by concentrating power even further.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think if you make it clear and transparent what the objectives of the government are (hint: it's not the best interest of its citizens right now) and who has the power, controlling it becomes a lot more feasible.

But again, the structure of the government is irrelevant if the purpose is achieved: to have the best people in charge.

Hypothetically, if there was one really great, fantastic, smart, capable, honest guy - why wouldn't you want him to be in charge? Let's say he's the best American who ever has been, wise, just. In this hypothetical he will be the best leader the world has ever seen and will usher in a new golden age through benevolent and effective rule. Like the Steve Jobs to our Apple. The upside of this arrangement is immediately obvious.

It's the downside that we're afraid of. It's not him we worry about, it's his stupid petulant mouth-breathing son who might inherit by hereditary rule...or his evil adviser who may seize power when he dies, right? But the question then is exactly the same. If good people are in charge, it's good. If bad people are in charge, it's bad. If everyone is in charge, it's a guaranteed middlin' at best, with a strong likelihood of insidious hidden consolidation.

Unless you ascribe to the opinion that government is an inherent evil and therefore any and all limitation is ideal. But I don't think that's true, any more than I would be willing to say that effective corporate governance is a myth. The problem is implementing and sustaining it.

The objective is clear: put the best people in charge. If they become people who are no longer the best, remove them. It's the how that's tricky... but you can't get on to the how until you've identified who you want to promote.

Lenin said it best: Who? Whom? Someone will rule and someone will be ruled. History has no other lesson.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Hypothetically, if there was one really great, fantastic, smart, capable, honest guy - why wouldn't you want him to be in charge? Let's say he's the best American who ever has been, wise, just. In this hypothetical he will be the best leader the world has ever seen and will usher in a new golden age through benevolent and effective rule. Like the Steve Jobs to our Apple. The upside of this arrangement is immediately obvious.

.... I'm right here guys.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The objective is clear: put the best people in charge. If they become people who are no longer the best, remove them. It's the how that's tricky... but you can't get on to the how until you've identified who you want to promote.
The problem is that the people in charge have the power. That's the whole point. Getting rid of people misusing power without violence has been the single greatest achievement in the history of governance, and America has a great tradition of that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Obviously I do not agree with you. The tricky part is where we disagree.

I agree the people in charge have the power. I think we'll identify those in power as different people. And I think the turnover of power in this country has basically been approaching zero for some time.

I read a very good article once that talked about three societies: types 1, 2 and 3. Types 1 and 3 are opposites in that in a type 1 society there is only one acceptable thought range and it is controlled by the government and/or it's representatives. This can be anything from a fascist state to a theocracy, etc. Everything from North Korea to England under Elizabeth to modern day China falls into this. It is without a doubt the default government position in human history. A type 3 has a true marketplace of ideas where ideas compete and the best rise to the top - an Open Society. A Type 3 will have as many "thought" products as there are buyers. If you want excellent political commentary, you can find it. If you want disgusting racist bigotry, that will be there too. In effect, there is no Overton Window. Good ideas will be accepted on their own merit, and bad ideas will be rejected.

The odd duck is a type 2 society. In a type 2 society there is still an official acceptable thought consensus, but it is no longer controlled by the government. Instead, the official narrative controls the government by controlling popular opinion. In effect, if you control the Overton Window, you control political discourse. And if you control political discourse and the government, you have the power. I think we live in a type 2 society that masquerades as a type 3: The Overton Window is completely controlled in this country by our universities and media. To accept that we are a Type 3 society, an open society, you have to accept that the mainstream media, modern political discourse, and what is more or less taught homogeneously in all major universities and shown as normal on television is a collection of (more or less) political, actual fact... that these are the products of the free marketplace. You'd have to accept that, like the hard sciences, the consensus of the soft sciences is more or less de facto truth. In this regard, it would be as irrational to argue against modern day progressivism as it would be to argue against general relativity. If we live in a type 3 society. Big if.

It's not an insidious conspiracy as much as it is a coalescence of attraction to power. There's only one government in this country, and it will be controlled by someone (as I said, someone will rule and someone will be ruled). A type 2 society is just a coalescence of popular opinion around a narrative, then that narrative turns around and controls popular opinion. Since yesterday was Reformation Sunday, I think it's appropriate to point out that Christianity went from Type 1 (controlled orthodox dogma) to maybe a Type 3 (true freedom of doctrinal expression) which is becoming Type 2 (homogenous nondenom) rather quickly. Why? Because religions either control the beliefs of their adherents or are controlled by them. If you're controlled by them, you become under the sway of popular opinion -- and good luck! You might even say that the basis of today's beliefs in this country - the type 2 general narrative - is actually the end product of the Reformation.

Anyway I distracted myself but the point I'm getting at is that if the government is the puppet of the general narrative, changing the elected representatives of the government does absolutely nothing to affect real change. Which is a simple answer to why republican control of some or all of the federal government over the past few decades more or less changed absolutely nothing in the trajectory of this country.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I get what you're saying, but I think we differ on accident versus design. For instance, you reference news, media, and television as operating in the Overton Window and therefore dictating both culture and policy directly or indirectly. I'm with you on that, but it's hard for me to attribute that to anything but societal whims. It would take an Illuminati level conspiracy or an agent of supernatural manipulative powers (cue Church Lady) to pull off something like that intentionally. I tend to think networks and media are trying to make money, Universities are trying to find and impart knowledge, and everyone follows the twin American values of idealism and greed to some extent.

I think the problem is that we are a multicultural society, and cultures conflict. In history, one culture wins and the other disappears. Now we have the weird meta-culture that thinks all cultures should be preserved and treasured like old buildings, and therefore it can't tolerate any cross-cultural conflict. So you get a sanitization of all cultures into a kid-friendly Disney version of themselves, and any cultural values more intense than that get viciously attacked. This weird meta-culture is the dominant one in American public discourse, but again I don't see any evidence of coordination or conspiracy in that fact.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I specifically said it wasn't intentional. But there are power players and benefactors and gamers of this situation. And most of them aren't elected - even if they are, removing them from office is useless because the hydra just regrows another head. The political process in this country is famously about the peaceful transfer of power. What a joke! We haven't had a transfer of power in decades.

I don't think universities are trying to find and impart knowledge any more. Maybe in the hard sciences, but universities are organisms like any other. They're controlled by people who have initiatives. They want to make money and grow and thrive - they want to be high on US News rankings. So you see the great homogenization, because to dissent is to die. Note that this is exactly the same as under an autocratic system, but instead of the government doing it, it's society collectively.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The political process in this country is famously about the peaceful transfer of power. What a joke! We haven't had a transfer of power in decades.
Can't argue with that. The machine keeps on rolling
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Post removed:
by user
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This thread is so interesting to re-read after the election results. Themes from this thread that we need to re-think:

1) The media industry has control of the narrative, which has control of the elections.........until Facebook. What impact did social media have in stirring up the populist uprising.

2) How does the election of Trump upset the oligarch apple cart? Isn't this a mild revolution, where the serfs are telling the ruling class that they will vote for ANYONE who isn't ignoring them and taking advantage of them?

3) When we do have a populist uprising, what is the most likely path forward? How do we drain the swamp? Term limits? Fundraising limitations? Less federal power?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think media controlling the narratives and controlling elections is my theme. My theme is that elections don't matter precisely because they have no power to actually affect change. There is no upset to the oligarch apple cart whatsoever, unless Trump can manage to dismantle the bastions of the left, actively move the overton window.

The center of power is not in the hands of the legislature or the executive it is in the civil service and control of public opinion. Do you think public opinion has significantly shifted to the right? I don't. I don't think this election marks any sort of significant change to the political landscape at all.

There's no populist uprising here. Let's not kid ourselves - Trump won the election via the electoral college. He has no popular mandate, he didn't flip the script. There are no "Trump Democrats". Hell, there are barely any "Trump Republicans". This was much more a repudiation of Hillary Clinton personally and the establishment generally than it was an endorsement of Trump. Even so, a "decent" democrat candidate runs away with this, "angst" and all.

Trump has no mandate or political stick to wield. He can't drain the swamp. That's my opinion anyway.

This actually plays right into the hand of the "inner party" i.e. democrats. They let the outer party win an election, let the populace blow off some steam, feel like the system works, and so on. A harmless four-year slowdown of the inexorable march "onward" is all that's on the table. All they need to do to immediately recover is suggest that Clinton wasn't a "real" Progressive candidate but a corrupt politician who hijacked the purer purposes of the party. You're actually seeing a lot of this already.

Hallmarks that my theory is wrong:
1. Actual change in political discourse in the country. Examples include a rollback of PC culture, a paradigm shift in the way people think about government, etc.
2. Actual lasting change in governance. Reduction in civil service number, scope, funding, etc. A really good bellwether will be what happens with Obamacare.
3. Actual change in pop culture views on government. A balance to "Parks and Rec" would be good, for example (where the quirky color character is a big gov't liberal and the main protagonist is a small-gov't proponent).

Even Reagan's popularity wasn't enough to do anything in the above. At best it paused it, practically it didn't even do that, just slowed the movement down.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

This thread is so interesting to re-read after the election results. Themes from this thread that we need to re-think:

1) The media industry has control of the narrative, which has control of the elections.........until Facebook. What impact did social media have in stirring up the populist uprising.

2) How does the election of Trump upset the oligarch apple cart? Isn't this a mild revolution, where the serfs are telling the ruling class that they will vote for ANYONE who isn't ignoring them and taking advantage of them?

3) When we do have a populist uprising, what is the most likely path forward? How do we drain the swamp? Term limits? Fundraising limitations? Less federal power?


1. The idea that media controls much of anything or ever really has is way overblown. They exist to make a profit. To that end, they report on what people will consume in a manner that people want. Scandal sells. The difference is that the traditional media is still ethically obligated to report these things dispassionately to the extent that they can. Brietbart, etc, is not.

2. It doesn't. It helps the oligarchs. Trump is an oligarch and he's going to look out for his own empire first and foremost. Furthermore, he has literally zero experience in government. None. He wasn't so much as a Seaman in the Coast Guard Reserve. He cannot run a government with no experience in how a government runs. So guess who will be doing the heavy lifting? Who will be writing legislation and drafting regulations? Who will be advising Trump on the best way to do things? Guess what, it will be the establishment. And Trump doesn't know what questions to ask or what to look for. He'll demand x,y,z in a bill, be told it's in there, and then assume he got what he needed.

3. The "swamp" won't be drained. Term limits for Congress will empower lobbyists. They will be even greater power brokers. Limiting dark money could work to some level, but how do you do that with a conservative Congress and Supreme Court? Conservatives don't like to hear this, but for every federal law that's passed, states pass something like 25 laws of their own. And the greatest abuses of individual rights in US history have typically happened at state and local levels, not so much the federal level.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok, this conversation got wonky really fast. But, I like to hear other people's opinions.

Do you guys not think that the rust belt flipping to Trump had anything at all to do with the working class revolting against the democratic party? The backlash against globalism and PC culture?

Do you guys think that exposure of purported corruption was the primary weapon used to bring Hillary down? If that worked so well in this situation, wouldn't you think that this playbook could be used again, a lot, in the future?

Trump and the Republicans will have to make a push to curb corruption and federal spending if they want any shot at all at the next election. What will the Republicans really try to do? What could they potentially accomplish?
Seriously77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's like sleight of hand. You're watching the hand the guy wants you to while he picks your pocket with the other. Elections don't matter. It's just important that we have them just in case someone figures that out.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Do you guys not think that the rust belt flipping to Trump had anything at all to do with the working class revolting against the democratic party? The backlash against globalism and PC culture?
Yes and no. Very clearly they didn't consider their economic suffering to be even a concern of the democratic party and that they weren't getting attention to the issues they cared most about.

I don't think people care much about globalism. As for PC, I think there was a clear backlash against the identity politics the left has been pushing for some time now that seemed to, in an effort to win browns and blacks, provide a rhetoric that alienated working class whites who are traditional rust belt democrats by treating them as deliberate racists. So not PC per say, but identify politics. Even still, it was an electoral landslide through the rust belt, but we are talking what 150k vote advantage? That's the winner take all system for you, the effect was very real, but not quite as dramatic as the EC would indicate.


Quote:

Do you guys think that exposure of purported corruption was the primary weapon used to bring Hillary down? If that worked so well in this situation, wouldn't you think that this playbook could be used again, a lot, in the future?
It sure didn't hurt and probably swayed a lot of votes, But really, it was icing on a really unlikable cake. I can't emphasize enough how bad a candidate she was from a standpoint of charisma and trustworthiness. Not just in action, but in mannerism and speech. If we go election by election how much more often does the "guy I'd rather have a beer with" win? Obama vs Romney and McCain, yup, GW vs Kerry and gore, yup, bill vs dole and GHW, yup. This trend goes back much further even to Dukakis, carter and Mondale. I think Gary heart would have been president if he didn't get caught banging that girl. Ideology matters surprisingly little to many people. I don't know how many Bernie supporters I saw switch to Gary Johnson. What do they have in common besides not being Hillary Clinton, anti-establishment, ok, what else? Americans love liking their president. We don't get much "he's an a-hole but he's our a-hole" out of presidents.

And trump had very high negatives, but not among his fans. He at least managed excitement for his own voters to some extent. And he had very high negatives generally about trustworthiness, but he managed to be trusted by his supporters. I don't know how many times I saw an interview with rust belt trump supporters saying the words "tells it like it is." Hillary supporters weren't saying that *****


Quote:

Trump and the Republicans will have to make a push to curb corruption and federal spending if they want any shot at all at the next election. What will the Republicans really try to do? What could they potentially accomplish?
Time will tell, but so far it seems trumps advisers/picks are exactly the ones you'd expect his running mate to pick almost without exception. I think due to his total lack of experience, we are gonna get our fair share of pence like actions. I expect an establishment republican presidency with a splash of twitter stupid.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

Hallmarks that my theory is wrong:
1. Actual change in political discourse in the country. Examples include a rollback of PC culture, a paradigm shift in the way people think about government, etc.
2. Actual lasting change in governance. Reduction in civil service number, scope, funding, etc. A really good bellwether will be what happens with Obamacare.
3. Actual change in pop culture views on government. A balance to "Parks and Rec" would be good, for example (where the quirky color character is a big gov't liberal and the main protagonist is a small-gov't proponent).
Bump for one year later, since the board is kinda dead right now.

Thoughts?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

My theme is that elections don't matter precisely because they have no power to actually affect change.
Very true.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:


Quote:

My theme is that elections don't matter precisely because they have no power to actually affect change.
Very true.

Tell that to my insurance premiums.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.